TheForwardObserver

But since you've included me, maybe re-consider your own reading of the second story there ace, just to round out your perspective on the issue, before we continue and maybe consider providing whatever counter-point or rebuttal to the original findings that Sill's chosen to publish since then in your response. If you can find one, I mean I assume there's one there right? http://sill-www.army.mil/firesbulletin/archives/2002/NOV_DEC_2002/NOV_DEC_2002_FULL_EDITION.pdf Now your argument, as compelling as it was, was actually no more than you stating that the opposite is true because you say so. You sound like you have solid military experience, but really I don't care, because you don't sound like a FISTER, which would mean you're out of your lane, and which makes it exponentially more bizarre that you're so confident in your analysis and not actively including any caveats in your stated evaluation of the potential for effects-- because not too many folks besides FISTERs are dealing with the answers to these sorts of issues throughout their entire careers, not even Artillery Officers, isn't that funny, they have to go back to the battery, we don't, we're stuck watching the doom end forever! And you know part of speaking truth to power is not making $h!t up. But none of that is relevant, what it relevant is that the Army accepts and standardizes your targeting philosophy ASAP, I've seen a lot of variability of SOPs from Battalion to Battalion in my day, and if we just do it your way that'll stop today. Now I've always tended to look at at the fight multi-laterally, meaning I like to leverage the effects of a variety of platforms with redundant and overlapping capabilities, in order to empower, not restrict the commander--- but your way is good too man!! As an aside-- remarkably insightful explanation about what tanks and armored vehicles are specifically designed for, you're clearly very bright. "Relative immunity to non-direct hits from HE," sounds very scientific! I've never much understood myself what we put the armor there for. I thought maybe it was for camouflage but woah really heavy camouflage man!

Interesting that you've been able to ascertain my reading of the article as I've not actually given any of my thoughts on the article.

@IICptMillerII Can you provide at least one real experience you've had with field artillery or tanks or explosions for that matter which informs your opinions on what is and isn't realistic when it comes to artillery, tanks, and explosions? If you're in a position where you're free to confidently discount findings that were at minimum considered relevant in 2002 and published in the USAFTC professional journal for Redlegs I would love to hear about the road you took to get there.

SOLVED using @sbobovyc's tools. Modded Brit Para FOO: Vanilla Brit FOO:

T-72B3s in 2017 on the border with Ukraine sporting modernized armor packages that differ from what we have in-game seems relevant to this discussion.

@ArtkinI know what they are mate thanks. Nothing about these tanks stands out to anyone?

Yes, but the tanks, look at the tanks.

What do we think about these interesting little guys? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8-inDOfxpc

@IMHO Brochacho I'm not about to write you a book about either, but if I'm sending an emergency CAS request during a TIC, it doesn't matter which type of aircraft I'm working with, I'm notifying the pilot or the liaison of the enemy conditions on the ground, and that includes enemy AA/SAM presence and ingress/egress coordination. That information helps inform those involved how best to attack. An F-35 being stealth could attack my targets with an appropriate level of standoff to avoid your SHORAD while operating at altitudes that would expose a non-stealthy aircraft to a greater variety of air defenses. We clear or do I need to grab my finger paintings?

I like new content and options. If some of that new content happens to give the players that like to play as Russia or Ukraine for that matter a better warm and fuzzy going toe to toe against my US forces than that doesn't bother me. If some of that new content happens to be F-35s that can't get shot down by Tunguskas, even better.

I can get behind a nerfed Abrams option and improved equipment options for the Russians.

I don't have CMSF but just want to say I really dig that Ramadi map. I spent most of 2006 and 2007 stomping around in Anbar based out of Camp Fallujah then Camp Taqqadum after the surge, but never made it to Ramadi proper (west limit was Habbaniyah, north was Tharthar and east was Zaidon). So I imagine it's quite like a less damaged Fallujah with fewer minarets, in which case, spot on. I look at that map and can practically smell the pungent aroma of Anbar from Minnesota.

The pic of the forward US airbase is from July of last year and its improperly marked one of the pasted in Blackhawks as an Apache.

POG (P-OH-G as opposed to P-AW-G) is the go-to term but REMF is more subtle.

Those are Ranger Regiment Strykers @Sgt.Squarehead, they are not governed by the laws of men, and can only be undone by being cast back into the swamp from whence they were forged.

You need to read what I wrote more closely and frankly stop trying to explain field artillery to me. I wrote; "the primary casualty producing weapon of the enemy." That means the enemy's most effective weapon against us, not our most effective weapon against them.

For one I find it absolutely mind blowing that a decade and a half into an era of combat in which the primary casualty producing weapon of the enemy has been placed artillery shells that I even have to engage in a discussion about whether HE is effective against armor. Are you really asking why have tanks if artillery can kill them? How is this even a real question?

That's not true in real life or in the game either. 95 percent of a COLT's job is destroying formations of tanks and armored vehicles-- that's done two ways, air and ground-based fires. The US doesn't use ICM/DPICM artillery shells and hasn't for a decade so HE (guided or unguided) is standard for engaging armor and will remain standard unless the guidance is changed and DPICM stockpiles are replenished.

Awesome work @sbobovyc. With your tools I've finally been able to tweak the soldiers' gear to my liking. Much appreciated.

@NPye Replace the Zwoolcap folder with this one and you should be sorted. https://www.dropbox.com/s/o0o35nt0xk5a2f9/Zberet mk2.zip?dl=0

Rgr that chief. https://www.dropbox.com/s/v8vvz8547t91hsd/Zministry of silly hats.zip?dl=0

@JonS If your concern [your new concern, bearing in mind goal post shifting and straw man creation] is that the flashlights/torches with filters/slits [that you weren't aware of apparently until now], weren't designed with the reason I've stated in mind but rather for the extremely selective conditions which you've specified than that is a matter of you either never being instructed on how or when to use one of these super duper advanced devices, how to manage risk, or you never participating in a night time movement. Apparently it isn't readily obvious to you that if you're dulling or masking light, you're doing so because of the assumption that you need to be able to see but you also don't want the enemy to see you super well mmmk, not because you enjoy different shades of light, or because it's easier to pick up things when you have the green filter on. If your issue is a failure to understand what I'm saying than right on man, sometimes I'm unclear, I can break it down for you barney style; In situations with low light, sometimes its good to have artificial light. Artificial light was invented before WW2. Light can be filtered, dulled, and vectored. This was known in WW2. These techniques can provide varying degrees of protection from observation that full beam white light can't . Soldiers, both mounted and dismounted, even those with no need to read maps, still had the need to see at night and were issued flashlights/torches with filters. There are an endless number of reasons you might want to see in the dark (yep, even if the enemy is around). Likewise, vehicles had this powerful technology , and it was how vehicles did things like driving at night where one might otherwise not be able to see their own hand. There were other reasons too, Identification of groups of soldiers during night time movement (1st platoon runs green filters, 2nd platoon blue, third platoon flat white. You can even create different colors with multiple filters, do you remember your colo(u)r wheel, what does red and blue make? Violet!!!, OK Headquarters, you get violet!!). End of the day there is one common sense rule to when and how light is used; If that light being on is likely to get you or your buddies killed because of one of a million possible ways, it probably won't be on. If it likely won't get you or your buddies killed, than it will be on. Where you've gotten this notion that whether a movement is an assault or something is magically the one factor in determining whether flashlights/headlights filters/slits were used and how is beyond me, but I can understand the need to keep shifting goal posts. You go ahead and be the guy that gets lost on the way to the battle because torches are only for seeing maps and picking things up. Are we done here? Because as much as I'd love to read more snark about the other blanket assumptions you've developed with regards to how light is used in tactical environments from your walking and navigating at night the issue is really an elementary one and it boggles my mind that I've had to say anything at all. I'd really prefer to go back to being mostly polite and letting the non-sense that has nothing to do with fire-support go unchallenged.

What are you on about? You've gone from quoting florence and the machines lyrics like they're scientific facts to denying the existence of slits in shields/filters for lights to drawing a cartoonish image of a battalion bumbling through an attack with no concept of light discipline to insisting that flashlights aren't used to see at night and I don't know what you're trying to get at.

Obviously they would have had rules/SOPs and training to dictate when/how filters/flashlights/headlights were used-- just like armies do now. Common sense about enemy presence and training would have governed how those devices were used. For that matter, nearly every flashlight issued to troops in world war 2 was designed to be clipped onto load bearing gear for the express purpose of illuminating a soldier's path without the soldier having to use his hands.