IICptMillerII

@Kuderian @slysniper
 
If you watch this video and still think there is absolutely no problem, you're either high, delusional, or both. 
The fact is, there IS an issue, and Steve has already acknowledged it and said there will be a patch that addresses it. Again to reiterate what I've already said, I would like it if the patch was out sooner rather than later, but I'm not all butthurt that it hasn't been released yet. 

@Kuderian @slysniper
 
If you watch this video and still think there is absolutely no problem, you're either high, delusional, or both. 
The fact is, there IS an issue, and Steve has already acknowledged it and said there will be a patch that addresses it. Again to reiterate what I've already said, I would like it if the patch was out sooner rather than later, but I'm not all butthurt that it hasn't been released yet. 

@Kuderian @slysniper
 
If you watch this video and still think there is absolutely no problem, you're either high, delusional, or both. 
The fact is, there IS an issue, and Steve has already acknowledged it and said there will be a patch that addresses it. Again to reiterate what I've already said, I would like it if the patch was out sooner rather than later, but I'm not all butthurt that it hasn't been released yet. 

@Kuderian @slysniper
 
If you watch this video and still think there is absolutely no problem, you're either high, delusional, or both. 
The fact is, there IS an issue, and Steve has already acknowledged it and said there will be a patch that addresses it. Again to reiterate what I've already said, I would like it if the patch was out sooner rather than later, but I'm not all butthurt that it hasn't been released yet. 

Sigh.

My contention is this:

We throw a wild party for Battlefront, and all of us are in attendance.  We all get positively rip-roaring drunk, do stupid things.  At the height of the party I'm demonstrating armor maneuver by going full sprint through the office swinging my arm wildly to indicate turret direction while screaming "Death before dismount." I certainly 100% do damage.

However it's hard to separate the next morning what specifically was damaged by my "Thunder Run" vs what other parties did too.  Sure there's my tanker boot treads all over the shattered remains of someone's desk...but I "ran" it over after someone else already kicked it down screaming "THIS IS SPACE LOBSTER COUNTRY!" I contributed my share to the massive pile of bottles yes....but I wasn't even the one who drank the most.

Within the context of both fights, US artillery and aviation certainly did destroy things.  This is a known variable.  However pointing to the rubble of Mosul and chittering how it was all those damned Americans and their bombs, or Raqqah and placing all the blame on 18 heavily abused 155 MM howitzers is a bit disingenuous.  

ISIS vigorously practices scorched earth type tactics.  Our "Friendly" and friendly forces all practice firepower warfare vs manuever (or they're going to shoot the objective with every weapon they have for an hour, THEN move to a closer firing position to repeat the same tactic, and then maybe five hours later, short on ammo move onto the objective).

Both of those cities felt the full weight of a 3rd World conventional military attack, a suicidal bomb happy defender, and then some Western precision fires.  Between those three, those fires certainly did their part in damaging those cities.  But again the contention that basically, without those fires the attacks would have left either of those cities pretty much intact is very much a falsehood.  Aleppo for instance serves as a really good example of what happens without the US precision fires, and with the opposition not being generally ISIS tier individuals.

So.  Again not denying there's collateral damage, but it's just idiotic to lay the preponderance of the damage at the feet of 18 howitzers while ignoring the effects of thousands of ground combatants, tanks, conventional artillery from both parties, IEDs in all guises all duking it out in close quarters.

LMFAO. He says, not realizing the irony of the statement, in which he is literally dictating the financial freedoms of BFC. Frankly, if you're too poor to afford a $60 game, then don't buy it. Get Shock Force, which is $15, or is that too expensive for you too?
No one cares about your whining, and BFC isn't going to change their prices based on your entitled opinion that you deserve the product of their labor at a price you determine.
Someone tag based Steve and burn this thread down. It's only getting worse from here. 
Honestly, the quality of posts here on the forums has taken a serious nose dive. Good grief...

LMFAO. He says, not realizing the irony of the statement, in which he is literally dictating the financial freedoms of BFC. Frankly, if you're too poor to afford a $60 game, then don't buy it. Get Shock Force, which is $15, or is that too expensive for you too?
No one cares about your whining, and BFC isn't going to change their prices based on your entitled opinion that you deserve the product of their labor at a price you determine.
Someone tag based Steve and burn this thread down. It's only getting worse from here. 
Honestly, the quality of posts here on the forums has taken a serious nose dive. Good grief...

LMFAO. He says, not realizing the irony of the statement, in which he is literally dictating the financial freedoms of BFC. Frankly, if you're too poor to afford a $60 game, then don't buy it. Get Shock Force, which is $15, or is that too expensive for you too?
No one cares about your whining, and BFC isn't going to change their prices based on your entitled opinion that you deserve the product of their labor at a price you determine.
Someone tag based Steve and burn this thread down. It's only getting worse from here. 
Honestly, the quality of posts here on the forums has taken a serious nose dive. Good grief...

Quite literally, yes. Just go ahead and google "ISIS suicide bomb" and it should clarify nicely for you. If it doesn't then nothing else anyone here will say can help you.

LMFAO. He says, not realizing the irony of the statement, in which he is literally dictating the financial freedoms of BFC. Frankly, if you're too poor to afford a $60 game, then don't buy it. Get Shock Force, which is $15, or is that too expensive for you too?
No one cares about your whining, and BFC isn't going to change their prices based on your entitled opinion that you deserve the product of their labor at a price you determine.
Someone tag based Steve and burn this thread down. It's only getting worse from here. 
Honestly, the quality of posts here on the forums has taken a serious nose dive. Good grief...

Quite literally, yes. Just go ahead and google "ISIS suicide bomb" and it should clarify nicely for you. If it doesn't then nothing else anyone here will say can help you.

This is US Army ammo expenditure, not the Marines. Also, it's important to note two things:
1) In every conflict since WWII, the amount of munitions used in short periods and the lethality/accuracy of those munitions have increased. Someone can chime in with the exact specifics, but during the Arc Light B-52 strikes on North Vietnam, such as Operation Rolling Thunder and the like, more bomb tonnage was dropped in those single operations than most of WWII. 
2) OIF was a very quick military operation, something like 3 weeks total, give or take. During that time, it was high tempo operations the entire time, during which any given combat formation was in contact with the enemy. This means that a lot of ammo was used in a short period against new targets. However, with the situation against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, you have a single firebase lobbing shells at roughly the same area, for months at a time. The shell expenditure is going to add up pretty quick. Further, if you figure that the fire missions are called in competently and then factor in US artillery response times (think CMBS, 4-6 minutes for fire for effect), then you can do more fire missions in a given day. And to add, if you are the battery that is always dropping on target fire missions with fast FFE times, everyone is going to want you as their primary fires battery. All of these things add up to more shells fired per day, which helps to explain the headline. 
And because this disclaimer is needed here: no, the US is not wantonly dumping unaimed fires at urban centers just for the hell of it. US artillery is not barrel bombs, in practice or in the theory of warfare in which they are applied. If this is your angle, just do us all a favor and say so, so we can ignore this for the drivel it is.

Quite literally, yes. Just go ahead and google "ISIS suicide bomb" and it should clarify nicely for you. If it doesn't then nothing else anyone here will say can help you.

who you calling old?  Oh wait, yeah never mind.. 
One correction- we aren't racing to Battlefront's defense. They frankly aren't concerned about defending against mis-informed and unrealistic speculation.  We are just trying to keep that mis-information from being the only source of information to new players or infrequent visitors.  We try to be an antidote to fake news posts.  We actually care that players have all the facts to the extent they can actually be discussed.  @IanL for example gave a much more valid timeline than your 14 months would indicate.
they haven't done anything in 14 months! <---- fake news
Real news
See the difference?  Even with my old squinting eyes I can.    <-- my bifocals

Please based Steve, let it end. Burn it down.
I never thought an entire forum could go to actual s*** in a single thread, but this thread has proven me wrong. What a wild ride.

Please based Steve, let it end. Burn it down.
I never thought an entire forum could go to actual s*** in a single thread, but this thread has proven me wrong. What a wild ride.

Space Lobsters

Personally, I would rather see resourced directed towards CM: Fulda Gap than Black Sea 2. 

Without writing an entire essay on the topic:
Gulf War 1: Most experts (military historians, those in the military, etc) will tell you that one of the biggest advantage the US had over the Iraqi's ended up being the training and competency of individuals. US tank crewmen were much better trained, and had a lot more practical field time in their tanks than their Iraqi counterparts did. Moreover, the Iraqis hoped to win that war through attrition using stand up, Soviet-style doctrine. Also do not forget that military planners in the US were expecting 30k-40k casualties for Operation Desert Storm. Why? Because the Iraqis had a massive military (4th largest in the world at the time) that was fully equipped/styled after the Soviets. US success in the war largely came down to better training and better tactics. The technology helped, but it was not the deciding factor. 
Gulf War 2 (OIF): The initial stage of the war went great. Coalition forces made a historic drive to Baghdad that would have made Patton jealous. This is largely due to the Iraqis not learning any lessons from Gulf War 1, and the US learning many lessons from Gulf War 1. However things changed when resistance in Iraq devolved from conventional to unconventional guerrilla warfare. The famed insurgency everyone is always talking about. Why didn't the Coalitions massive technological advantage end this insurgency in a few months? Many, many reasons, but my main point is that just because you are fighting a farmer with an AK and an RPG, does not mean you automatically win if you 'counter' him with a multi-million dollar tank/apc/plane/whatever. 
Zulu: I must admit that I do not know a ton about this subject, but I do know that the Battle of Rourkes Drift (made famous by the movie "Zulu") was won largely to superior training and tactics by the British (specifically organisation and discipline) despite being outnumbered by a massive margin. Take Custers last stand for example. How did a technologically inferior foe defeat a technologically superior enemy? Because the Sioux made up for their technological discrepancies with better tactics.
This is the quick and dirty summary of these events. There is a ton more detail that could be gone into, and as always it is never just one factor that single handedly decides victory or defeat, but its a good general overview to back up my point. Just because you have better tech does not mean you automatically win, or that you have that much of an advantage over a less well equipped adversary. Its all about how you use said tech.  

Not a myth. 'Flying turrets' doesn't apply to every model of the T-72, but it certainly applies to a few of them. 

Indeed, which is why I would love to try it in CMFG - Combat Mission: Fulda Gap. 

Did you even read what @MikeyD wrote? His whole point was that, even if you assume NATO could be overrun in the first 60 hours of combat due to all of the factors you just listed, there is no strategic point. First off, as I have said before, I very much doubt the Russians could even conduct such a complicated maneuver. Second, and more importantly, is that they simply could not hold all of the ground they would take in such a scenario. 
Yes, it would take a while for the bulk of NATO forces to be brought to bear against them, but this is nothing new. This has been accepted in the US ever since we started fighting wars not on the North American continent. This isn't some glaring, overlooked weakness. It's well known and accounted for. For crying out loud, the US military has an entire Corps, the 18th Airborne Corps, dedicated to this. Their purpose is to be rapidly deployed anywhere in the world within 24-48 hours with enough men and equipment to "hold the line" long enough for the bigger heavier support to arrive. 
Unless infrastructure is physically destroyed, it can still be used. No amount of "hacking" is going to change that, unless of course said "hacking" causes highways to explode and gasoline to no longer be combustible, and food to no longer provide sustenance. 
This isn't true, no matter how much the History/Military/Discovery Channel tells you it is. As I said before, basic land navigation qualification is still done with a map, compass and pace counts. Basic marksmanship still requires a soldier to hit a target with his rifle, unaided by machines. Everyone is still trained to operate in a WWII-like environment, where none of the new shiny toys work. Because guess what? Even under optimal conditions, those shiny toys tend to break. Yes, there is more technology now, that is more capable, thus allowing us to do more things. But no one falls to pieces when the tech stops working. This is pure fantasy. 

I ran a quick test since my curiosity piqued and I'm not doing anything productive with this hangover. 
4 Bradleys; 2 in vehicle fighting positions, 2 in the open. 1 Russian FOO set to "veteran" with a 6 gun battery of 2S1 122mm, also set to veteran. All precision missions were 3 shell protocol. I only ran the test three times.
  

Did you even read what @MikeyD wrote? His whole point was that, even if you assume NATO could be overrun in the first 60 hours of combat due to all of the factors you just listed, there is no strategic point. First off, as I have said before, I very much doubt the Russians could even conduct such a complicated maneuver. Second, and more importantly, is that they simply could not hold all of the ground they would take in such a scenario. 
Yes, it would take a while for the bulk of NATO forces to be brought to bear against them, but this is nothing new. This has been accepted in the US ever since we started fighting wars not on the North American continent. This isn't some glaring, overlooked weakness. It's well known and accounted for. For crying out loud, the US military has an entire Corps, the 18th Airborne Corps, dedicated to this. Their purpose is to be rapidly deployed anywhere in the world within 24-48 hours with enough men and equipment to "hold the line" long enough for the bigger heavier support to arrive. 
Unless infrastructure is physically destroyed, it can still be used. No amount of "hacking" is going to change that, unless of course said "hacking" causes highways to explode and gasoline to no longer be combustible, and food to no longer provide sustenance. 
This isn't true, no matter how much the History/Military/Discovery Channel tells you it is. As I said before, basic land navigation qualification is still done with a map, compass and pace counts. Basic marksmanship still requires a soldier to hit a target with his rifle, unaided by machines. Everyone is still trained to operate in a WWII-like environment, where none of the new shiny toys work. Because guess what? Even under optimal conditions, those shiny toys tend to break. Yes, there is more technology now, that is more capable, thus allowing us to do more things. But no one falls to pieces when the tech stops working. This is pure fantasy. 

Did you even read what @MikeyD wrote? His whole point was that, even if you assume NATO could be overrun in the first 60 hours of combat due to all of the factors you just listed, there is no strategic point. First off, as I have said before, I very much doubt the Russians could even conduct such a complicated maneuver. Second, and more importantly, is that they simply could not hold all of the ground they would take in such a scenario. 
Yes, it would take a while for the bulk of NATO forces to be brought to bear against them, but this is nothing new. This has been accepted in the US ever since we started fighting wars not on the North American continent. This isn't some glaring, overlooked weakness. It's well known and accounted for. For crying out loud, the US military has an entire Corps, the 18th Airborne Corps, dedicated to this. Their purpose is to be rapidly deployed anywhere in the world within 24-48 hours with enough men and equipment to "hold the line" long enough for the bigger heavier support to arrive. 
Unless infrastructure is physically destroyed, it can still be used. No amount of "hacking" is going to change that, unless of course said "hacking" causes highways to explode and gasoline to no longer be combustible, and food to no longer provide sustenance. 
This isn't true, no matter how much the History/Military/Discovery Channel tells you it is. As I said before, basic land navigation qualification is still done with a map, compass and pace counts. Basic marksmanship still requires a soldier to hit a target with his rifle, unaided by machines. Everyone is still trained to operate in a WWII-like environment, where none of the new shiny toys work. Because guess what? Even under optimal conditions, those shiny toys tend to break. Yes, there is more technology now, that is more capable, thus allowing us to do more things. But no one falls to pieces when the tech stops working. This is pure fantasy.