IICptMillerII

I had some technical difficulties and the forum lost my reply to this, so here it is now:

These vehicle you've listed are not tank destroyers. They are not designed to go toe to toe, that is head to head, against tanks. Sabot/HEAT rounds fly much faster than ATGMs. The purpose of ATGM equipped vehicles is to provide units with a stand off auxiliary support. 
A tank destroyer was designed to be used only against tanks, and in a head to head role. Head to head means trading shots.
An ATGM equipped APC will lose very quickly if it starts trading shots with tanks. 
I know it seems like semantics, but these are actually important distinctions.

This looks fantastic!
Hopefully by the time you have it done the patch for 4.0 will be released and the map can be fully experienced. 

Thanks for the kind words, guys!
Well, since the cat's out of the bag on this project, I'll go ahead and post a few more pics. Again, it's early days and this won't be out until after the next CMRT module is released (KV-1, baby! Plllleeeeeaaase!) I've only added temporary foliage in areas where the door networks are largely done so I can get a little test combat going there. Also, I obviously, haven't finished adding all the buildings, let alone fleshing out the other terrain elements in those areas (or most of the areas with buildings). Since I'm going to have to slice up the map, I'll be adding some tall buildings back in later that are currently cut down in size.
Here is an overhead. I just grabbed the Google Map screen on the right, so this is not my working overlay. Currently, my plan is to have the Soviet attacker start in the SE corner. I'd like to thank the people of Kharkov for providing a ready-made setup zone in the form of a large park and cushion of buildings!

 
Here's the elevation overlay I did (which is, of course, matched to my working overlay). I will be doing some polishing work later, once everything else is in. Sorry for any seizures or flashbacks!

 
It's not Stalingrad, but in winter, this area might serve for a little "Fallen Fighters" combat.

 
Another angle on same area:

 
And lastly, a bird's eye of one of the little neighborhood areas. I'll call this shot "Mean Streets."

 
That's it for now. It may be awhile before I have additional pic-worthy content. I'll post it as I have it, along with any interesting combat test results (suicidal rout, path bugs, arty effects, etc.).

And then you'll be complaining that CM3 doesn't have all the units/nationalities/features/etc. as CM2 (as I will).
As much as I like the idea of CM3 (and the cool stuff I imagine it could have), I do not want to see it any time soon, unless what we have now can be brought along somehow. I do not want to go through all the waiting for theaters/time periods/vehicles/formations/nationalities/features again. It's been a really long road just to get here. I sure as h*** don't want to go back to square one. I'd rather see them push CM2 as far as they can. Stuff like new animations and the like could help freshen it up.
 
Mord.

Not sure wading into this is the best idea, but what the hell.
I very much disagree. At all levels of warfare, firearms handling and safety, and common sense, the basic rule of "only point/fire at a target you are sure of" permeates all. You are NEVER supposed to dump wanton fire into unsure targets. At the very least, its a waste of ammo, and more than that it poses a severe security and safety risk, regardless of whether you are a rifleman being overrun by [insert horde stereotype here] or a civilian hunter off in the woods somewhere. ("Duck Cheney!")
Yes, there are plenty of different types of targets that are viable even if you cannot see a specific person in a firefight, for example an occupied house/hedgerow/trenchline/etc. Herein lies the nuance of the issue. Some people think that an enemy smoke screen with the clear intent of concealing enemy forces that are maneuvering in the open constitutes a valid target to fire at/through. I would argue against this personally for various reasons, some of which I've already mentioned, and others. But at the most basic, I would rather be shooting at something I can see, than firing at something I only think might be there, at the very least risking an empty weapon when the enemy does emerge. A bolt action rifle with a bayonet beats a machine gun if the machine gun is out of ammo/reloading because it was dumping fire at targets it couldn't see. 
Further, it has been proven through history time and again that simply putting fire down is not enough. The fire must be effective, whether thats direct or in direct fire. 
Again, there is much more that can be said/argued about this. My main point is that in the real world, shooting randomly at unobserved targets is always a big no no (enough to be disciplined for a negligent discharge, even in a firefight) and that the ability to shoot or not shoot into/through smoke in CM makes very little difference on the overall outcome of the tactical situation. Besides, if you're going to dump fires into smoke to hinder enemy maneuver, you're better off calling on the red legs anyways.
P.S: This all wasn't aimed at you MOS, just my general response to the topic. 

Not sure wading into this is the best idea, but what the hell.
I very much disagree. At all levels of warfare, firearms handling and safety, and common sense, the basic rule of "only point/fire at a target you are sure of" permeates all. You are NEVER supposed to dump wanton fire into unsure targets. At the very least, its a waste of ammo, and more than that it poses a severe security and safety risk, regardless of whether you are a rifleman being overrun by [insert horde stereotype here] or a civilian hunter off in the woods somewhere. ("Duck Cheney!")
Yes, there are plenty of different types of targets that are viable even if you cannot see a specific person in a firefight, for example an occupied house/hedgerow/trenchline/etc. Herein lies the nuance of the issue. Some people think that an enemy smoke screen with the clear intent of concealing enemy forces that are maneuvering in the open constitutes a valid target to fire at/through. I would argue against this personally for various reasons, some of which I've already mentioned, and others. But at the most basic, I would rather be shooting at something I can see, than firing at something I only think might be there, at the very least risking an empty weapon when the enemy does emerge. A bolt action rifle with a bayonet beats a machine gun if the machine gun is out of ammo/reloading because it was dumping fire at targets it couldn't see. 
Further, it has been proven through history time and again that simply putting fire down is not enough. The fire must be effective, whether thats direct or in direct fire. 
Again, there is much more that can be said/argued about this. My main point is that in the real world, shooting randomly at unobserved targets is always a big no no (enough to be disciplined for a negligent discharge, even in a firefight) and that the ability to shoot or not shoot into/through smoke in CM makes very little difference on the overall outcome of the tactical situation. Besides, if you're going to dump fires into smoke to hinder enemy maneuver, you're better off calling on the red legs anyways.
P.S: This all wasn't aimed at you MOS, just my general response to the topic. 

I'm a big fan of historically accurate scenarios. Similar to what Bulletpoint said, I don't like it when maps are designed to be gamey, in that they are trying to force some type of gameplay.
For an example of the type of scenario I like, I'll refer to Ithikial's amazing scenario "Three Patrol Action." Forum Link: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/111469-new-scenario-release-three-patrol-action/
For those that haven't checked it out, I highly recommend it. The map alone is superbly done, and is accurately reproduced to be exactly like it was historically. As an added bonus the mission is a recreation of a mission in the game Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood. For those that don't know, the Brothers in Arms games pride themselves on realistically recreating maps to be just like they were during 1944. Its awesome to first play the level in BiA and then to switch over and play it out in Combat Mission. Thanks for the awesome mission @Ithikial_AU!
To summarize, I like realistic and historic scenarios that have at the least a realistically recreated map. If it at least has a decent map, then the user can take that map and create whatever scenario he likes with it in the scenario editor. There are many out there who do not have the resources and/or know how to create highly realistic and detailed historical maps, and these scenarios tend to close the gap.
Anyways, just my two cents. I know its time consuming making these types of scenarios, but if you're seeking to be a crowd pleaser, then its a possible route to go that'll get you positive results! If its good enough maybe BFC will include it in an upcoming battlepack.

Thought I'd dip my toe in here with an after action video. Its a medium sized, quick battle meeting engagement, I'm playing as the Germans and my opponent is playing as the American army. This is just the intro and the first few turns, more to follow as soon as I get time to edit it all together...
(I'm liking the shiny new forum- embedding youtube is much easier)

This is from ChrisND's stream that aired today, enjoy guys, and thanks Chris!
 
 
 

I'm in favor of adding some kind of hit decals to infantry models. I understand that the topic concerning gore has been debated many times before, with Battlefront firmly telling us that they have no plans or desires to add gore to the game. However this sounds like an easy thing to do for an experienced modder, and I think it would only enhance gameplay. If someone kicks in the door on this, I'm sure others will follow by making their own variations, so that the community will have a choice of "flavors" if you will depicting varying degrees of inflicted damage. For example one pack could depict just a small red hole, while another pack could go all out and have elaborate wounding image decals ripped right out of a medical textbook on how to preform open heart surgery. It will then be up to the player to choose his poison. 
Of course, all of this is assuming that it can in fact be modded in, as I doubt Battlefront would pursue it based on what they have already stated in regards to the topic of blood and gore. I agree with Macisle that more realistic damage depictions of buildings, terrain and vehicles would be nice to have, and probably take priority over doing the same for infantry models. Still, it would be nice to have it all in due time. 

The hardware is a big difference from the capability.  The strong example would be Iraqis with M1 tanks, it was functionally irrelevant what equipment they had, as long as the men manning it were poorly trained, equipped, and somesuch.
 
That said:
 
 If there's superiority in the American military, it is in the three following areas:
 
1. Size matters.  While it's getting a lot smaller, the simple size and funding of the American military means a lot of capabilities that are simply too expensive for most other countries are a matter of course for the US (see the combined air fleet of the USAF, USMC, and USN and then compare it to the various other NATO countries, or things like having several carrier battle groups active at once)
 
2. Logistics/support/expeditionary warfare.  When France went into Mali it was riding in USAF planes, and supported by logistics moved through the US log systems.  Further in the operations over Libya while the "shooting" part of the operation was very well spread across the different NATO members, the AWACS/refueling/other support asset was overwhelmingly yankee imperialist.  
 
While it's easy to funnel a lot of this into "bigger is better" is worth noting this ability to not only deploy, but sustain forces, and equip them with potent enabler elements is something that is well into an art/skill all its own, and is finely honed in the regards that since 1890 or so, Americans have been doing most of their fighting well over the horizon on distant shores.  
 
No other force can do that to the degree the American military can, and again it's a skill and training that is well beyond simply having more planes or money to expend.
 
3. The average training tempo, and realism for the US military is quite a bit more elaborate than many peer countries.  The number of rounds fired, and miles maneuvered by my tank company in a year was roughly equal to how much some battalion sized armor elements in western European military forces do in a similar time scale.  Additionally every "combat" unit (to include National Guard units) goes to NTC on a regular basis to get its face peeled off by the OPFOR in training that is what could best be called "hyper realistic" (in that the enemy is significantly more capable than he should be) situations.  It's hard, tough training, but what separates it from simply tossing troops in Siberia or marching several hundred KM through North Africa, is that the hardness has a focus, and there's a lot of post-action analysis.  It's not just enough to successfully assault the fake town in the desert, but each step will be broken down, and looked at honestly (having sat through some other country's AARs, there's a lot of face-saving and hand waving when things go wrong.  This is really not the case in an American type AAR in which even your random privates can speak up about what they saw/suggestions to do it better).
 
You get a lot of anecdotal stuff, Legionaries roundhouse kicking Taliban, British bayonet charges, 100% objective success rate for Excercise Donbass Freedom or whatever, but there's a wide margin between what the American military is capable of, and what the rest of NATO and most potential threat nations can do*
 
 
*Which is not to say it is unbeatable, but what gets tiring is the "well we have 300 Leo 2s and they're better than Abrams!" or "here's this link discussing how fast the French moved through Mali when it took the US ten years to sort of pacify Iraq!" There's certainly ways to beat the US in conventional warfare even...it's just not really in trying to meet it at a 1:1 ratio in terrain that doesn't highly favor you if you get my drift
 
Of course, as a post script I'm not sure how much longer we'll be able to maintain a lot of those advantages.  One of the great problems with being "the best" is that it engenders a perception that it is simply a state that will be maintained without further investment, when in reality we're seeing the miltiary budget get hacked and slashed to maintain other spending, while at the same time not seriously re-examining if a lot of what we invested in during "good" times is worth keeping (like the always lovely JSF).  

I'm in favor of adding some kind of hit decals to infantry models. I understand that the topic concerning gore has been debated many times before, with Battlefront firmly telling us that they have no plans or desires to add gore to the game. However this sounds like an easy thing to do for an experienced modder, and I think it would only enhance gameplay. If someone kicks in the door on this, I'm sure others will follow by making their own variations, so that the community will have a choice of "flavors" if you will depicting varying degrees of inflicted damage. For example one pack could depict just a small red hole, while another pack could go all out and have elaborate wounding image decals ripped right out of a medical textbook on how to preform open heart surgery. It will then be up to the player to choose his poison. 
Of course, all of this is assuming that it can in fact be modded in, as I doubt Battlefront would pursue it based on what they have already stated in regards to the topic of blood and gore. I agree with Macisle that more realistic damage depictions of buildings, terrain and vehicles would be nice to have, and probably take priority over doing the same for infantry models. Still, it would be nice to have it all in due time. 

After two years (on and off) and one false start this little project is coming along nicely and has well and truly passed the halfway mark. What was initially going to be one scenario is now a campaign involving two master maps and a long OOB. The maps and OOB are now done and I'm up to mission building and OOB tweaking where needed. Hopefully at the end of this there will be a Canadian based campaign for the community that pushes CMBN, using many of the assets available from this well developed game family. The 3.0 Upgrade and the release of the Vehicle Pack really breathed new life into this project, allowing for a more historical approach.
 
A Brief History Lesson
July 4th - 5th, 1944
Operation Windsor was the first Canadian set piece battle of the north west Europe campaign involving a a reinforced (4 Inf battalions) brigade and an obscene amount of supporting assets. Carpiquet and it's adjacent airfield was viewed by the Germans as a key defensive strong point on the western flank of Caen and a prime tank killing ground due to the open fields and airfield. The relative high ground also gave the Germans a brilliant observation point across the Odon valley and Hill 112 on the other side which was now a key feature following the conclusion of Operation Epsom further to the west. Carpiquet was held by the 12 SS Panzer Division with the strength of one weakened battalion and an array of heavy weapons and armour. The Canadians attacked over a mile of open ground behind a World War 1 style creeping barrage. After numerous delays they managed to take the village to the north of the airfield. Two separate attacks to the south in an attempt to take a series of hangers was beaten back twice with heavy loss in infantry and armour. A second phase of the operation to capture the airfield control buildings to the east was never undertaken following the failure of the southern attack and delays with the northern approach. Despite what was described as an inferno by German survivors the 12 SS held on all day before retreating to the eastern buildings. Three separate counter attacks by the newly arrived 1 SS Panzer Division from the north were beaten back in the middle of the night and into the following morning before the Germans called off trying to retake lost ground. Despite holding most of the objectives, the Operation was still considered a strategic failure and increased the pressure building up on 3 CID's CO General Keller.
 
Historians at the time always viewed Windsor as simply a prelude to the larger Operation Charnwood, however more recently revisionists have explored the theory that the Operation was less about Caen and more about capturing the high ground overlooking Hill 112 for the future Operation Jupiter. Another theory was to take advantage of the confusion across the German lines following the completion of Epsom to take this key piece of terrain that could have been reinforced in strength when the 1 SS Panzer Division arrived in full into the theatre - something 21st Army Group HQ was already aware was about to happen through ULTRA intercepts.
 
Requirements
The campaign will require all modules and upgrades including the Vehicle Pack.
 
Campaign Features
- 6 - 7 battle campaign depending on outcomes. Covers both the Canadian assault on July 4th and the attempts to hold the objectives into July 5th.
- Complete OOB's for both sides with virtually all units on both sides being tracked as 'Core Units'.
- 'Historical' and 'Better Than History' pathways. (So even if you lose a few battles you are still following in history's footsteps )
- A few larger battles (Battalion+) including one 3x hour 'show piece' monster for the northern approach attack. (Hope you like artillery).
- Hobart's Funnies, bunkers, mines, aircraft and naval assets.
- Research bordering on the unhinged... (old history degree from my Uni days came in handy ). To the point where the names of most Company Commanders and higher and the names of the different supporting artillery regiments can be named.
- Master Maps will be included (including varying degrees of destruction) so players can slice and dice for QB's and H2H's.
- Possibly one stand alone scenario for the main northern attack.
- Some mod tags will be used.
 
Campaign Structure
Note: apologies for the swearing - The scenario name is a line used by one of the Royal Winnipeg's officers in the first attempt to take a set of hangers. His superiors expected the battalion to cross over an open mile of terrain without direct support. At the end of the grueling approach were two well entrenched German SS Panzer Grenadier companies with artillery on call. Should sum up the feelings the player has attempting this one.

 
Some pics of the map (clean undamaged version - which you generally won't see in game)
 
Pic 1 - Northern Master Map looking south towards Carpiquet. Canadians assault from the right hand side beyond the railway line. Village at the front of the picture of Franqueville which was the furthest extent of the doomed Canadian attack south on June 7th. Also the base of operations for the German counterattacks on July 5th.

 
Pic 2 - Carpiquet from the direction of the Canadian attack. (Distant shots without all the fortifications don't do it justice).

 
Pic 3 - Southern Master Map looking up at the hanger objective. The doomed Royal Winnipeg attack.

 
Pic 4 - Destroyed beauty. Four different mod tags will be used for the rubble tiles.

 
More soon.
More info can be found here though some is now out of date.
http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/threads/operation-windsor-2-0.17914/

Here's a scene I took from a battle between some attacking FJ and defending Canadians in CMFI. I thought it was pretty brutal. To set the stage, the FJ are assaulting from the left of the screen. They are moving through a forested area and coming into the area you see in the video, occupied by the Canadians. 
You may have to watch the video a few times to take it all in, Its rather short and everything happens very quickly. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MKt4ACFrbM
 

I started this project more than a year ago. At the time, I was playing a lot of Shock Force and was thus inspired to put some aftermarket slat armor on. Well, the slat armor didn't work out (anyone who has succeeded with that, good on you). 
 
So, I ditched the slat and just went for the general armor-less build. I thought about putting some ERA blocks on to mimic a "Black Sea" up-armored M1126 styled variant, but couldn't find any decent kits. 
 
After some digging around, I found a unit that appeared to operate slat-cage-less Strykers in Afghanistan at some point in 2009, so that is what this one became a tribute to. 
 
After putting the finishing touches on tonight, I am pretty happy with the outcome. I am definitely still learning a lot with modeling. A few mistakes here and there, a few things I would have done differently. Thankfully all the images of Strykers in Afghanistan show these vehicles just plastered with dust and sand, so heavy weathering was helpful to hide any blemishes. 
 
Anyway, any critique or comments would be welcome!
 

 

 

Firstly, you are an infantryman and thus your opinion is invalid.  
 
Kidding aside however:

 
 
The HEAT fusing has been adjusted to be more sensitive.  It will now go off when striking pretty much anything more solid than loose mud.  Same deal with the MPAT.  The next step is the AMP which will allow you to "dial" a target, with either HEAT-type fusing (for killing PCs), a short of shrapnel approach (replacing cannister), airburst, or anti-building sort of thing (basically PD with a slight delay so it bursts after going through the wall.

As far as Canister, it's actually pretty good against buildings, it'll knock a huge hole in a wall (the pellets are tungsten), cars, most all things you'd find inside a structure etc.  Firing against some dismounts inside a house it'll cheese the target area pretty good.  Against a dedicated bunker it won't do much obviously but that's why the OR round was made and is retained for missions that entail taking the Maginot line 2.0 (which is basically a HEAT round with a penetrator tip and short delay so it goes off inside a target building).    
 
Machine guns on a tank are actually vastly superior to infantry machine guns.  As yeah I want your M240B teams to advance in the face of intense small arms fire for 500 meters with enough ammo to be effective.  The M240 on the coaxial mount has something like 8,000-12,000 rounds "ready" depending on the model plus whatever 7.62 is stashed on the tank.  The newer CROW type system is also very effective considering the other options for bringing a .50 cal to the fight, and the effects of an accurate stabilized M2 (and having it on a platform that'll shrug off all small arms and most AT systems from the front).
 
So in that regards in terms of pulping infantry, tanks are still pretty good!  Also I don't know how your unit worked, but usually we'd have a Company Team concept, so we'd lose four tanks in exchange for an infantry platoon, which gave us the fun stuff a Bradley carried too (sort of the whole point of a company team, Tank heavy teams gain dismounts+some potent anti-infantry weapons, Infantry heavy teams gain a lot more AT capability and a much more resilient fire support system).  
 
 
That was not my experience.  The proliferation of heavy cargo hauling trucks and the need for bridges to often support large amounts of traffic has meant most highway bridges, and nearly any that are paved can support a tank.  We took tanks through Baghdad with no significant mobility hazards and considering the state of those roads, that's an accomplishment.  Further my company in Korea rolled over Korean roads, bridges and all sorts of things and as a rule, anything but the smallest bridges could handle it a tank at a time.

The real comment to take away from this is how reliant the Stryker is on "good" terrain, and how much its mobility is threatened by even modest damage to roads (because if you want to talk about mobility problems, boy howdy let me get started on Strykers).  Further in terms of bridges and recovery assets, the M88A2 has been in service for some years and is capable of towing a broken M88A2 with an M1A2 attached.  Seriously.  Planned that way.  The new AVLB (M104?  Dunno the Wolverine) also is rated to handle M1s.
 
The weight creep has been a simple reality of armor design.  I'm sure Sherman supporter folks lose their collective minds when the first M26 rolled up.  However the payoff in increased armor protection and firepower was worth it.  Same deal with the Abrams, although weight reduction measures are part of the next "block" from my understanding (chiefly reducing the weight of the main gun, and replacing a lot of the wiring with fiber optics and reducing wiring harness redundancy, should save something like 7-10 tons based on whatever estimates you like).  
 
 
It goes more places than the Bradley.  True story.  The tank is heavier but has better power output by a long shot.  Also my limitations on approaches were:

1. Terrain unsuitable to any sort of armored vehicle (swamps)
2. Terrain the Army did not let me use (PROTECT THE WOODPECKER/WHATEVER IS THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ON THIS POST!!!!111oneoneone)
3. Terrain that was inherently a bad idea (wide open, limited hull down positions, had deep gullies that would either force us to expose our flanks, or leave us exposed)
 
I've driven up and down icy roads, across small streams, I've kicked up 30 foot tall rooster tails of mud, crossing terrain that was eating HMMWVs (1025s mind you, not uparmors) like it was the blob.  These mobility issues, I know not of what you speak.
 
 
There's a lot wrong in this statement, so I'll address what's correct:

1. The engine produces a lot of heat.  Much of the problems that result from this (setting the Prairie on fire at Yakima Training Center) can be addressed using the heat shield (which is usually made from scrap-metal with some rebar handles, it's not high tech).  
2. Gas consumption is a problem, however in terms of operational range and refueling requirements, it has similar duration to the Bradley and other Army equipment.  So while it requires more fuel, the resupply frequency is on par with mechanized infantry units.  
 
The only engine fire I saw were a result of an electrical short.  It was extinguished with no great difficulty*.  I have seen tanks operate in the deserts of Eastern WA, NTC, Korea during the "hot as balls I want to die" part of the summer (between monsoons), Kuwait, Iraq and overheating and catching fire was not something I'd heard of. The newer diesel engines still take significantly longer to reach max capacity power output, and involve significantly more moving pieces (our tanks went down much less frequently than the Bradleys and M113s in terms of engine faults).  
 
I have no idea what you're talking about with the engine spool up.  I don't have the literal times beside me but the greater delay cold start was waiting for the optics to cool (so the thermal would "see") and the computers to run up.  If you're doing a "powered" start (like you already have turret/hull power on, just the engine is off it's pretty darn fast (I killed my engine and hid my tank while playing as opfor, the delay from "engine off" to "exploding from the treeline like an angry dinosaur** was negligible)
 
 
I think she's doing fine.  The Abram's infantry murdering abilities are still very capable, and there's a lot of piles of rubble in Baghdad that attest to the ability of the main gun to ruin faces.  During the "Thunder Run" and Falluhjah the Abrams functioned very effectively against infantry and building type targets.  I sat on the DMZ in Korea more than reasonably confident that:

A. If I had to shoot people it was going to be dismounts mostly
B. My tanks (and tankers) were more than up to the task.
 
There's this persistent mythology that the optimal tank should be something like the old ARVE, or assault guns.  Something like that wouldn't be half bad as an auxiliary.  But tanks, and their ability to eat enemy armor for breakfast, and then smoke the crunchies all on the fly is an essential piece of combined arms warfare.  Trying to relegate armor to the infantry support role as a primary mission went out of style in the 1940s.  As much as you can bring up the fate of British Cruiser tanks, we can also point to how equally the infantry tanks failed***.  At the end of the day you resulted in the Main Battle Tank which MUST include both missions, and as I have, and will likely continue to illustrate, the Abrams can smoke armor and dismount alike.  
 
*The conversation still went "Sir one of the tanks caught fire" followed by me getting about 50% of the way to losing my mind until it was explained only the  short circuted component suffered any fire damage.
**It was one of the cooler things I've done in a tank, as the thicket just disintegrated around us and we MILEs a few tanks before anyone knew what was happening.  Took a while before we lose all the branches off the deck though. 
***The Churchill only really becoming successful because it eventually was outfitted with the same sort of weapons package other "cruiser" type tanks had at the time.  As much as the various CS model tanks, or things like the M4 105mm were useful, they remained as specialist tools for a reason.

Thank you for your in depth reply panzersaurkrautwerfer!
 
I found it very educational to hear it from the treadheads mouth. I guess that I recall the early M1's and the teething problems it had during my time at Ft Hood. As far as the friend who is a Stryker computer tech, he was a 19D so I will be talking to him about some of the "stories" he has reported. After all 19D's are the redheaded stepchild of the armor and infantry community.
 
And the tanker Master Gunners were never so forth coming with the amount of information on the rounds available to the main gun. Your wealth of information puts everything into a new perspective. We even shared the info about the then experimental sabot round for the Bradley (XM919??) and how in Ballistics Class we theorized and wrote a extra credit thesis on what angle and range that round could penetrate the lower side armor of the T-55 and T-62. The tanker Master Gunners were basically like "105mm, load big shell. Sabot, HEAT. Gun go boom. Load another shell. Machine guns carry lots of bullets. We have laser range finder, you have to guess, ha ha to bad. Turbine engine. Like old Mazda commercial your Bradley goes put-put-put ours goes zoom."  
 
Also I went into combat with the 1st Cav Division in Desert Storm and I should have tempered my tirade with the memories of how well the tanks performed in that arena. Yes we were a Task Force Brigade. 2 Companies of tanks and 2 Companies of Infantry. The scouts were out on the flanks and in line with my platoon which was the lead element for the entire division. We had tank Companies on the right and left of the diamond formation and a infantry Company bringing up the rear.
 
As there was no one else in front of us but the bad guys we called ourselves "The Flaming TRP's". That is because I envisioned the tankers talking on the net after initial contact and saying something to the effect "Ok, see that burning Bradley to the right? Don't go over there that's were the minefield starts. See the two burning Bradley's on the left? Careful, that is were the AT Gun is dug in."
 
Once again thank you for that most insightful and well stated rebuttal. I must go now, somewhere a village still needs a idiot.   

Cap'n, it's in the Normandy v210 Market Garden .brz files (just the one without a letter following it----not the "a" or the "b" ones), in soldier/gear folder.

Perhaps you're not looking in the right folder:
 
In my game, they are here: Normandy v200 > gear

You're funny.  Perhaps you should open a comedy club?  Have you actually seen the sort of crap people pay to see?

There will always be an audience that wants to see crispy critters, or what organs look like falling out of someone.  I see no reason to make it easy to feed the orgrish crowd, nor is it relevant to the debate.  Regardless of pictures of the dead, your original point is just as wrong, there's no similarity between not showing the dead, and denying that they happened.

The notification process, and return of human remains is a super-solemn process, even for MIA partial remains recovered decades later.  Eventually some legislator fought to allow cameras to cover the return of remains from Iraq/Afghanistan....but it was very much restricted to ensure someone wasn't getting super artistic shuts by standing on a coffin or something.  As Los pointed out, the fact said servicemen were dead, and the nature of their dead was never concealed, just the pictures of the actual dead.  
 
So in that regard, the casualties were known, existed, broadcast (once the family had been notified, and as I pointed out, even notified at great cost and expense).
 
 
Yeah but the key part of "plausible" is that it's believable.  You really overestimate how often western SOF does something that "never happened" usually the key is US SOF is "somewhere" in country, but the actual trigger units are usually local forces that have been trained by the US.  Because THIS provides enough plausibility that US forces were never there, it just happened that some not Taliban friendly tribesmen happened to attack a rival tribe the day that a Taliban HVT was visiting said rival tribe, and the fact a US drone strike blotted out the security element five minutes before the raid started all just happened to occur.
 
Russia has mounted a low order invasion of the Ukraine with significant SOF, regular forces, armor, and artillery and SAMs fired from Russian soil.  There's no plausible involved, no deniability, and pretending the various dead Russian servicemen simply keeled over in the mess hall from bad borscht is simply insulting to everyone's intelligence.  The only deniability is Putin using the toddler defense of repeating "Nuh-uh!" at various volumes on a loop when confronted about Russians in the Ukraine.
 
 
Are you worse served on crime reporting by not getting full page glossy photos of the victims?  Does not getting to see the crispy remains of airplane crash victims make you less aware of the plane crash?  It's simple human respect to give dead folks, and their families some privacy.  Soldier's are not some how less human and less deserving of that respect.  The facts of their deaths, and often the details of their deaths are publicly available and always have been.  This is the stuff Putin is withholding and where the issue arises, and is the stuff that's relevant to the discussion on if it's "worth it"

Ahh yes the name...the name recently evolved to just CO, and you are not the only people to comment. I am inclined to stick with CO, BUT how about adding something after. Here are some thoughts... CO World at War (COWW), CO Battle Staff (COBS). I am open to suggestions....
 
Oh, and things look good for a rollout tomorrow of the Kickstarter campaign. September 1 was a convenient date to get things in order and launch...but I also chose it because of what occurred 76 years prior. I will make sure I post here when we go live. Please remember there are lots of ways to support the project other than just money. Please tell the world and help create a "buzz",  because the more enthusiasm the more momentum we build!

I don't think either option you mentioned is possible (unlimited ammo or ammo resupply during a scenario). One alternative / compromise would be to have different batteries come on call as reinforcements at set times, which you could narrate in the briefing and reinforcement message as "ammo resupply at time x" or whatever you wanted. 

It's been explained before, IIRC, that the gameplay convenience of being able to transport whole squads, rather than trying to shoehorn bits of squads into not-quite-big-enough Bradleys (with the command track providing the extra space) was more important than making sure the Brads carried only what they can IRL. The important thing was, as I remember it, that a platoon of infantry had the right number of Bradleys. If the troops had a little extra elbow room, it didn't matter much.

Thanks for the quick update guys. I'll be sure to give the link a check. I'm excited for this project because I think adding some kind of operational level aspect to Combat Mission would do a lot of good for the game. It would add a lot of depth to battles, and would greatly increase replayability. Anyways I hope that things continue, even if its a bit slow Greatly looking forward to the possibilities!