absolutmauser

To the third point, that's definitely something that's been asserted many times and it's always seemed a bit off to me. It may well be that Bren was better for suppressing a specific point target or for actually hitting a specific man-sized target at range, but it's hard to argue with the area suppressing effect of the MG34 and MG42 given their intimidating ROF and belt-fed ammo capacity. There is a reason why practically everyone on earth adopted the GPMG after WW2 after all... Certainly the MG34 and 42 weren't perfect; their ridiculous ROF (necessitated by the requirement that they be truly general purpose and usable in the AA role in addition to light and heavy MG roles) made them ammo-hungry and harder to deliver accurate point fires in the light role.

Same here for SL and ASL. I haven't put the platoon-level games on the board much since the squad-level ones took over.

That was a lot of people's first wargame! Even a young whipper-snapper like me who didn't get it until 1990 or so.

On the Warrior's armament, the predecessor FV430 series did have an ATGM variant, but that system (the Swingfire) was phased out. Right now the British Army basically only fields the Javelin as its ATGM, if I am not mistaken (except for the Hellfires on AAC Apaches). There are proposed FV510 variants with a turret that will launch Javelins, but I don't believe any have been produced. I would guess the main reason for the lack of an ATGM version is a combination of the lack of a suitable ATGM option at the time of adoption (suitable for cost and policy reasons I mean) and now the lack of budget to adopt the Javelin-based variant, based on what was said above!

Maybe there's a difference in crew quality or the particular model of T-72 between the scenarios? EDIT: Or maybe the environmental situation/visibility?

*snicker snicker snicker*

The release of CMSF2 has allowed me to shift from complaining about the wait for CMSF2 to playing CMSF2 while complaining about the wait for the v4 patches!

Oh wow that went pretty quick. The installation... HAS BEGUN!

The download... HAS BEGUN!

I presume they're hoping for Combat Mission: Ice Station Zebra.

I occasionally show up to the forums to suggest Combat Mission: Pacific, but if memory serves, the folks at Battlefront are not interested in the pacific campaigns. *sigh* It doesn't stop me from hoping! It could start with Guadalcanal and USMC, and later modules add US Army, then Commonwealth, and then China. Right, back to my waiting chair and refreshing the home page.

This might be a dumb question, but IRL how do Bradleys and the dismounts coordinate this? Obviously the 25mm with HE and API has a certain AOE greater than 7.62mm coax, but I'm not sure I'd want the Bradley blasting away with the coax if I was dismounted in proximity to the target area either! I'm sure there must be doctrine on this, I just don't know what it is!

This might be a dumb question, but IRL how do Bradleys and the dismounts coordinate this? Obviously the 25mm with HE and API has a certain AOE greater than 7.62mm coax, but I'm not sure I'd want the Bradley blasting away with the coax if I was dismounted in proximity to the target area either! I'm sure there must be doctrine on this, I just don't know what it is!

Hehe. Because they want to spend the holiday with their friends and family eating pie and watching football instead of 1) crunching to final release code and 2) handling all the support requests that accompany a release! =D

It takes a while to high five everyone after you destroy the first tank, so maybe they were still working through their touchdown celebration dance routines when the second one showed up?

Maybe I'm mis-remembering from Black Sea, but doesn't Target Light on IFVs just stop them firing their missiles rather than forcing them to use only their coax machine gun?

It's got 8GB.

Running well on OSX. As mentioned above, make sure you drag the extracted application into the Applications folder if it doesn't unpack there automatically! Otherwise you get a black screen! I'm on a mid 2013 MacBookPro 15" with integrated graphics and it's running well on Balanced, similar to performance of other Engine 4 games (I've got all of them except Gustav Line, which I will get!) Looking forward to the full release! On a sad note, Strykers are still made out of spit and tissue paper, just like IRL. @Pete Wenman We can be more than one thing! We can be happy about the demo and simultaneously grouse about any number of other things! We're amazingly capable in this area! =D

Well played. Just in time to ruin my afternoon productivity! =)

I think you originally replied to add "nuance" to sburke's "simple and practical" answer. I just wanted to add that COIN is not a new term, nor is counterinsurgency theory a "post 9/11" theory. FM3-24, which is the Army's documentation and statement of this post-9/11 COIN doctrine, is a revival of the doctrines developed in the 1950s and 1960s with updates to adapt to new technology and the differences between the current Jihadist insurgencies compared with Communist and other prior insurgencies. Gen. Patreaus and Gen. Mattis, the listed authors of FM3-24, specifically discuss how they are applying these earlier doctrines that have been neglected for 20 years, and placing them in the context of the current insurgencies. I see your point, though: Soldiers fighting in counterinsurgencies prior to the modern world of post 9/11 had to deal with such primitive situations as: ---Being assaulted by AK47 and RPG-equipped guerillas who blend in with the civilian population ---Dealing with restrictive ROE that prevent the use of firepower in various situations ---Being transported in helicopters on air assault missions and relying on helicopters for casualty evacuation ---Being blown up by improvised explosive devices and other booby traps (maybe there will be an initialism for this sort of thing in the modern era!) ---Setting up combat outposts and firebases and conducting ambush patrols outside of observation posts and outposts to detect and disrupt guerilla attacks on those outposts ---Relying on fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft to deliver close air support including dedicated COIN aircraft like the AC130 gunship ---Being armed only with a mix of assault rifles, precision rifles, automatic rifles, grenade launchers, hand grenades, rocket launchers, light wheeled vehicles, light armored vehicles, APCs, tanks, artillery, mortars, and radio communications ---Using elite special forces to conduct raiding, interdiction, intelligence gathering, and training indigenous personnel My god, it was practically the bronze age. I'm surprised they didn't pay the troops with salt.

COIN as a term for counter-insurgency has been around far longer than the US doctrines developed after the invasion of Iraq. I don't believe Galula or Trinquier use the term in their seminal works from 1964 and 1961, respectively, but the USAF was discussing dedicated COIN aircraft at least as early as 1963.

CM: Pacific! Right, I'll get my coat...

The Kangaroo still worked for me, but I've been putting the "crew" in it as opposed to the random individual drivers. There's one 2-man crew. Maybe it is specifically the Kangaroo crew and only they can get in the actual driver and bow gunner seats, like a tank? At any rate, I generally agree that BP1 is a little bit messy.

It looks like the platoon leader's track has been left out of the scenario as shipped. I edited the scenario, revived "1 Halftrack" and it appears in a suitable spot near the Platoon HQ with the PIAT in it. =)

I pulled it up in the scenario editor and the platoon HQ's track has been removed from the mission. If you "revive" it, it will be sitting outside of the building the platoon leader is in and the PIAT is in there. =)