DerKommissar

Yeah, I felt this with the Semovente 75/18, M8s and SU-76s. You can't really use them indirect, as they were designed to be used. They're still kick-ass in direct fire, though.

Hope we won't be quoting Woods of Ypres. The End of August has passed...

I'd like different vehicles to have different steering systems. I do like the reinforcements idea. You can schedule troops to arrive at controlled entrances, and then have to guard those from capture.

I'm waiting for the upgrade, I already played the demo to CMSF 2 (CMSF 1). Gotta make my CMSF upgraded to 4.0, so I get colourfull tracers and proper quick battles. I hear the AI plans for the campaigns have been updated. Gives me a reason to re-do campaigns. Would that I could preorder the upgrade...

Yeah, and it's not only exclusive to language, either. Every time a French francophone (xD) visits Quebec and complains about the dialect of the Quebecois. They complain that the Quebecois's use of both, outdated phrases along with Canadian English slang, is disorienting. It's crazy how languages and dialects effect/reflect the people that use them. I think we all make it infinitely worse by using as many initialisms, contractions and acronyms as we use. Something like: "Those PPS-43s would be good in MOUT. The SAF UNCONs should get them in CM:SF 2. TL;DR." Even when talking to someone over discord, while playing a game: "I got no LOS on that BMP, but I know OPFOR's on LZ and it's lit AF." Even if you're an English speaker, you sometimes require a datasheet to figure out all these technical terms.

It's also not mutually exclusive to the Goering theory, or the theory that the ground forces needed relief. Most likely it's all three. Yeah, they pushed to get Churchill, who they guessed was Chamberlain 2.0, to take a seat and split up the booty. They just won WW1 in a few months, who'd think Churchill would have a go at it?

I think with CM, it's the other way around. When I first started playing it, I considered it a rather simple tactics game. There's not meta campaign to worry about, the UI is well refined. The AI can accomplish things without serious micromanagement. All you got to do is just get your dudes to shoot the bad dudes and take positions. Then, when I got more into it, I realized all the details. As you play, you learn that the game is infinitely more complex. Every little part matters, and in campaigns, it doesn't only matter if you win -- but how you win. You need to learn how to keep your dudes alive. Need to learn what to expect and how to use each piece correctly. It's not a difficult game. But the more immersed you get in it, the more challenges you have to face. That's the beauty of it, it's like chess.

I noticed that something similar to this happened to me in Black Sea and Shock Force. Guys in the back of Strykers or BTRs would peak out carefully from armoured tops, but could also take pot shots at bad guy dudes.

Oh, yeah. Those improvements don't make economical sense past the 90s, the fate of the T-80 is sealed (T-72s will outlive it). I'd probably do what the Ukranians did with the T-80 Oplot-M -- it certainly wouldn't make sense logistically. It'd be a decent platform though -- what's the point when you are already producing T-90Ms? I think we often forget 1990's Russia. Can you imagine if the USA broke down into independent warring States during the Great Depression? Space Shuttles were being used as salvage. Mil tech factories started manufacturing pots and pans. It was a complete ****show, inflation made the currency absolutely worthless. Military decisions, especially ones in the Caucuses, were very much part of the times. Had that not happened, maybe T-80s would have had the production run that was intended and would outnumber the '72s. I'd say their biggest failing is being in the wrong country, at the wrong time. They even sold a bunch to South Korea. South Koreans generally like it, but they did need to bring them up to date in terms of fire control and optics (something that improved considerably in the dark years of the 90s). I think the organization of the Ru Army needs to be improved. Their communication equipment, supply system and finally actually choose if they want a professional or a conscript army. New toys are nice, and some old toys can be improved -- but there's a very long list of other, more pressing, improvements. With what's happening in Syria, I'd think the VVS and the VMF need some love. Now, if you were an R&D guy and a Stalin-like power ordered you to design new tanks, ifvs, apcs, small arms, what have you -- what would you design? Or what current designs would you recommend for modernization/purchase?

I have heard a lot of theories why. The most convincing was Nazi politics. Goering decided the RAF was a joke and he could just take out any evacuees from the air. At the time of the evacuation, the German breakthrough was succeeding all expectations. Another theory is that they were purposefully let go, in order to act as a bargaining chip. Hoping to encourage a truce after Battle of France. Aye. Almost the entire Empire was lost just prior to Barbarossa. The Battle of Britain was won, yet the Germans were still bombing at night. Victory was the exception, unlike during '44 with Market Garden. I think they kinda lost their nerve with the success of Normandy.

Only serious defeat besides Dieppe, Crete, France, Norway, Battleaxe... Time to start up your Market-Garden campaigns. xD

I've always been curious regarding AT rifles in WW2. How effective or ineffective were they?

Not all Hetzers are made equal.

I agree that was one of the intentions, yet they were still producing significantly more traditional rifles than MP-44s. Majority of troops were still equipped with bolt actions. Simply because they, at some point, believed that the MKb-42 would replace rifles and SMGs didn't make it so. PPS-43 was also issued in large numbers to line infantry, even more so than the MP-44. Does that mean it was a replacement for the Mosin, does that make it a rifle? Indeed. The original concept of the SMG was to increase firepower in CQB. It is no surprise that the MP-44 went into serious production when such fighting became more common. Still, their doctrine relied on having more firepower at long ranges, hence the emphasis on MGs and traditional rifles. I'd think that the MP-44's purpose was to fulfill the duty of the SMG, such as it was in the Red Army, except retain accuracy just outside CQB range. I think they produced a lot of overly audacious designs for someone fighting a poor man's war. They would have benefited from more cost-minded decision making. I agree that the Stg concept was conceived and to a degree tested before '45 -- the assault rifle still took more time to be perfected and catch on as a widely-accepted concept. Most NATO nations left the war with the demand for battle rifles. Our favourite intermediate 5.56 cartridge was only introduced during the 60s. Even then, it had its critics and took a decade to reach widespread service. SMGs were still relevant until then, being perfected and produced by most NATO nations. Why? Because full power cartridge does not work in full auto, something Germans figured out in '41. Even they went with the full-power cartridge for the G3, which has an infamously useless full-auto function. Even post-war, West Germany still didn't adopt the Stg concept and wanted a full-power service rifle. Soviets loved the intermediate cartridge, and adopted it in with their doctrine. Not surprising, considering the Stg was made to counter their doctrine. They adopted the SKS as their service rifle, branding their Stg as an automatic rifle. It actually took a decade to perfect the AK and replace the SKS. Virtually every army uses the Stg concept, today. In fact, we went further and shrunk down the intermediate cartridge further and now the carbines and bullpups see mass adoption. SMGs are gone, battle rifles are gone. In '44 this wasn't the case. Every nation's doctrine accepted SMGs as CQB weapons and full powered rifles as service rifles. History shows that this was the case for Germany, as well -- and the production numbers speak louder than any futuristic ideas that was in the heads of the designers. Does it make sense for a country fighting a poor man's war to abruptly replace all weapons and all ammunition when supply lines were at their longest? Would that be the right choice? We can play the what-if game. Say, what if the MKb-42 was adopted as the service weapon and the Stg as the concept in '42?

Elvis has left the building.

Ah, I see. That's the issue with the government sector, though. It's not exclusively as a US or AF problem. Nepotism is hardly anything new. I guess it's good that people are talking about it.

Pardon my reading skills, but no one is saying that MP-44s were for exclusively for elite units. That's not the discussion. The discussion is how they were produced, how they were used, their origins and their comparisons with other weapons of the time. I think a lot of modern hindsight thinking is used on these designs, and it made more sense as an SMG than a service rifle (one of the original intentions) in the context of WW2 doctrine. This is why it was issued to NCOs and shock troops, like SMGs were in other armies.

b. Different variants have different layouts, but all Bradley's have passenger periscopes -- as do most IFVs. Very critical in situation awareness, especially in the case of ambushes. c. That is weird, indeed. I doubt the passengers' periscopes have a lot of traverse, if any at all. How they would see past the turret is beyond me.

a. Passengers have more eyeballs and less tasks. b. Periscopes have a wide field of view, as opposed to optics. c. Periscopes face the sides and backwards, looking where the crew can't/won't look.

Maybe they could peek out the top? That's a big boon of open-topped vehicles.

Yeah, never really got sniper variant of it. A Mosin is simply superior in that role. I guess those were more needed for battle rifles, more so than actual battle rifles. Yesterday, I watched the Barbarossa episode of World at War. I saw a lot of SVTs in the hands of Moscow's defenders, issued to just about anybody. I think that was a legitimate fear to have, especially in the supply situation of 42 and 43. It was also criticized for not being to launch rifle grenades, mount a bayonet. FG-42 was a very innovative weapon too, marred by unrealistic requirements. We already discussed the G41 dilemma. I can imagine the idea of a hybrid rifle/smg that used a new cartridge may not appear attractive, in the backdrop of late '42. In retrospective, if the MKb-42 was manufactured as a "rifle", I can imagine it could have become as ubiquitous as the MG-42. The Kar98 required much more machining and a big part of the MP-44 was stamped. It's entirely possible they could simply production greatly, like the PPS43 did. Kurz cartridge did also benefit from being easier to transport in higher quantities.

The beauty of the Abrams is that it's a one-stop solution for TANK. The Soviets wanted to transition to the turbine with the T-80 as their new MBT, the T-72 being the budget T-64. After the fall, that transition was halted. So, to this day, they have both diesel and turbine MBTs in service. **** or get off the pot, as the say. Either go with diesel, or go with turbine. They both have their pros and cons. From the bean counter's perspective, the T-80 was an unnecessary luxury since '90s. They tried to stop upgrading them, and get rid of them for a while. Ukraine replaced their T-80s turbines with diesels, that seems to have worked. Why don't the Tank Forces do just that? I think if they switch to diesel and give it a welded turret, it can be better than the T-90. A Commander's TI and ammo bustle would make it near-peer.

Tandem, I presume SACLOS, Malyutkas on those Type 08 IFVs? Do they still make those, or is it just old stuff being slapped on?

If I had a nickle for every time I heard a retired officer complain about the various perceived deficiencies (physical, mental, moral) of the younger generation, I would have enough money to feed and clothe the entire PLA. I seriously doubt this is an issue that's exclusive to the past 40 years. Is it possible that the test is obsolete? I'd be interested in seeing more data than the correlation here. This being said, there are some silly programs in Uni, these days (no doubt somebody is getting a nickle for newer programs being called silly).

I'll be happy if we actually get to SEE helicopters. Big C&C fan here. Shame what EA did to it. Rivals... *shudder*. You can actually put a lot of heavy weapons in buildings, which is cool.