Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by cbennett88

  1. Did anyone else notice that the soldiers in the 1st video(of the 2 just above) all had "but-pads"? 😀 Never seen that before...
  2. @Jobu88 I thought it was hilarious when you asked "if the flash was caused by me using tactical nukes?!?" 🤣 👏👏
  3. Totally agree! But...that isn't the situation described in the article. There, the tactic/technique was to be used in tank vs tank warfare(against western tanks). It's not like I don't see that tanks can be used in a variety of roles other than strictly tank vs tank fighting. And...yes...if they have nothing else they can be used for, then by all means, re-purpose them as "artillery", etc. But...(from my reading of the article) the "new tactic" seemed to be about tank vs tank warfare. I still hold that, while the technique of "area fire" to expose hidden enemy tanks/positions is vali
  4. If you plan for failure...😉 Because...those rounds are going to come in handy when you are fighting infantry in an urban environment.
  5. I have no knowledge of if/how the game setting of EW affects the radar on the Tunguska, but...even if it does, I'm not sure the trade-off in degraded UAV comms and artillery times would be worth it? You are better off "rolling the dice" and hoping to spot it first with your UAVs and using artillery on it. Last time I played a (US)battle with EW at the highest setting, I came to realize that it was almost pointless to even have artillery(beyond 1st turn and maybe TRPs). It reminded me of training in the US Army(infantry) with full MOPP suits on! 😫
  6. Unless I missed something in reading it...it sounds like the "new" Russian tactic is...area fire of suspected enemy positions. Nothing revolutionary there. And extremely wasteful of precious tank ammo. If anything...it seems to confirm that they know that their sighting systems are lacking(vs Western systems) since it is implied that they don't expect to spot western tanks first. They are HOPING that the western tanks will "reveal themselves by firing". Thereby allowing their "sniper tanks with special crews" to target them. Then there is stuff about fighting from trenches and behin
  7. @Hardradi No worries. I appreciate that you took the time to respond.
  8. I set it up the same way I had with the previous monitor... by editing the game data file. It's okay. The graphics for the battlefield(trees, vehicles, etc) is what I expected. The ability to see the whole battlefield without scrolling is the biggest plus. I just wish the UI wasn't so "muddled". It's certainly readable, but not enjoyable to look at. I realize the game isn't designed to scale to this resolution. It just seemed that from his screenshots, the UI looked better than what I am seeing on my setup. Figured by asking, he might reveal his setup just in case there is a setting I mig
  9. @Hardradi I finally got my new computer & monitor. How did you setup the game resolution? Did you leave the display setting at "desktop"...or go into the game data and manually write in "3440 X 1440"??
  10. @Hardradi Lol...that is the same one I am looking at getting! Well...it looks great from these pics...but...what's your impression? Any problems? Does it get worse when you zoom in...or stay crisp looking? What about screen lag as it re-draws trees in the distance while zooming around?
  11. @Muzzleflash1990 @Erwin @RepsolCBR Really appreciate all of you for responding! I'm going to read up online about running 2 monitors at different resolutions off of 1 video card. Otherwise... I will have to "pass" on getting the wide-screen, ultra resolution, monitor this cycle. 😢 I'm not willing to give up Combat Mission...
  12. It's about that time to upgrade my computer setup(over 6 years old). I'm considering moving up from my 24" monitor to one of the 34" widescreen ones. It isn't a 4K one...but it offers 3440 X 1440 resolution. Of course, I will get a graphics card that can support it(probably Nividia GTX1080). My question is...what is the max resolution anyone has gotten with CM: Black Sea? It's the only game I even play these days. All the flashy new FPS games that are perfect for those ultra high resolution displays are of no interest to me. Right now I am using a 1920 X 1200 display and the ga
  13. No offense but this is "old news". They made this announcement months ago. What is frustrating isn't your post...it's that their "urgent upgrade" isn't going to get deployed till 2020! So much wasted time already on this. For the cost of 1 or 2 F-35's we could have paid the Israelis to "rush" installation on 1 or 2 actual units and had them in service NOW! Just venting...
  14. It's a PBEM game. The problem is...I would have to also send you my password for you to open it.
  15. @Sgt.Squarehead@c3k @John Kettler @MikeyD It finally happened a 2nd time...and this time I remembered to take a screenshot! This is a radio operator from a 3 man FO team who performed "medic" and recovered the Laser Designator(even though he still cannot call in fire!). Any clue as to why the game program does this, even though he is not permitted to use that equipment??
  16. Thanks John That would be my expectation too. I understand that the TO& E of the Stryker scout teams doesn't give them Javelins so I "stole them" from the other vehicles. It was just weird to me that, in addition to being unable to get the scouts to actually USE them, visually examining the soldiers up close, didn't even show them being carried! But any carried AT-4s showed up on their backs just fine. I am of the opinion that it was a random glitch. Maybe some byte of data just got "misplaced" during the loading of the game.
  17. Now it was used in combat too? What combat was it deployed in?? You chose the word "combat"...and since it was only used by the Soviet Naval Infantry...what conflict were they involved in?? The picture you provided only showed 1 vehicle...in a "clean" motor pool configuration...with no indication that it was "in theater" or any signs of "combat". No gear hanging off it. Not even a single crew member standing nearby! You ARE correct that it was "operational". You have yet to show that it was "deployed in combat". Words...they "cut" both ways. I know what you meant...just as you knew
  18. Yes...I only have CM:BS. Had to google CM:A. I stand corrected that there IS a version of the game where that equipment was definitely plausible. And "technically" you are correct that an APS system was operational...for a very short time. My statement was too far reaching. I should have said..."Show me another army that CURRENTLY has deployed APS..." I concede the point to you even if you knew what I was trying to get across.
  19. Yup! I hope you understood that I am in no way faulting you guys in my statement above. I am agreeing 100%.
  20. Bahahaha!! You did read the whole article didn't you?? Look... "The project was abandoned by the Army, but completed by the Soviet Naval Infantry to increase protection for about 250 older T-55 tanks in 1981–82 " Last time I checked...there are NETHER T-55s or Russian Naval Infantry in this game...not to mention that the game isn't called "Height of the Cold War: Soviets vs NATO 1980's"! Lol "Drozd APS was later replaced by the simpler non-APS Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour."..."AND... It was subsequently discontinued." Thanks for doing the research to support my
  21. Ahhhh...you going to have to show me some proof for that. I have been "arguing" on here for awhile that until CM:BS adds a module that brings the Israelis into the mix, all arguments about APS being realistically deployed by the vehicles in the game are worthless. Show me ANY other military that has operationally DEPLOYED APS on their combat vehicles? NOT "in testing" or "soon to be added". The US Army has been "promising" to buy a system for years...and yet we still aren't any closer than "in testing"! Here is my proof..."The service made a decision to buy Trophy for Abrams on Sept. 29,
  22. Discussing ONLY the BMPT.... Totally agree with you on all those points. Is it just me or does it seem like someone is trying too hard to cram every single weapon they can think of on here? Is this the "age of the Mechwarrior"?? How often are you going to have a target that cannot be dealt with by the twin 30's (which I like) or a single co-ax 7.62 MG? Why 2 co-ax MG's... AND a 30mm AGL? The missiles make perfect sense for dealing with tanks, etc. But there has to be a better way to mount/protect them! They look slapped on as an afterthought. This is NOT a "spacious
  23. I'm not so sure about this. Either I read it somewhere in the manual...or on this forum...but I am thinking that the demo blast also "stuns" the soldiers occupying that floor, and that gives the advantage to the attackers during their assault. IRL at least, that is how it works...
  • Create New...