DerKommissar

Was that an SU-122 casemate on a P. 3 chassis? Amazing... Future Wars? Not yet, unfortunately. Even though UAV/UGVs are everywhere, these days.

Aye, innovation is great! Improvement is great! EA and Ubisoft also release basically the same games with new units (ie. Assassin's Creed, Battlefield, FIFA, Far Cry). They get released every year and are "new", yet fundamentally the same -- often, inferior. I am curious if anyone remembers the Command & Conquer franchise. I would also be happy with that. I am more likely to believe that BFC's new CM game is fundamentally improved than most other developers/publishers. Much more so than I am likely to believe that the new Final Fantasy or Call of Duty is worthy of investing cash into, when there's a new one scheduled for next year.

The title is self-explanatory. I recently got a HengLong Tiger for my brother's 10th birthday. I've been amazed what people do with these things! Would also like to see your RCs, if you own any!

I got excited -- thinking that Peter Jackson was making a Gallipoli movie.

Shh... or the lizard people at the center of the Earth will use nano-machines to make you disappear! I'm no business expert. Yet, staying in business for circa 20 years does sound like it requires some ability. As a customer, I prefer this business model to the mainstream video game industry. Can you imagine BFC making CM:FB online only? Pre-orders units? Making CM console exclusive? Micro-transactions? Recently, I read an article about PAID SAVE SLOTS. All the while, they feed their customers absolute rubbish promises. Showing false videos and promising features that never materialize. I think many of us take BFC's honesty for granted. They can tell us what we want to hear and show us fake screenshots, like Ubisoft or others. What about support? The industry is infamous from abandon-ware. Most of the current big budget shooters become obsolete as soon as the next one comes out, which happens almost yearly. An ironic example of that is SW: Battlefront. CM-BN has been around since 2011, it got a major patch half a year ago.

I'm saying I can't wait to not to wait. Aren't we all, these days? xD

Is that you, John Wayne? Is this me? Shame that these are out of print.

I've read mixed things about the effectiveness of razzle dazzle in Naval use. My inner R. Lee Ermey wants to call this "A Modern Art Masterpiece". Generally the concept isn't to hide the vehicle, but to break up its silhouette, mask the heading and potentially the range. Even in WW1, its usefulness was questionable. In WW2, it became obsolete -- with better optics and range-finding equipment. The theme I keep hearing from urban experiences in the middle east and Chechnya is that many modern AFVs are highly resistant to RPGs. RPG gunners need to hit tanks and IFVS in unprotected places. Places not covered by ERA, cage armour or composite inserts. This often requires knowledge of the AFV's anatomy and from which angle it is most vulnerable. Usually, it takes them multiple RPGs to hit their mark. After the first, their life expectancy becomes considerably shorter. The intention here is to obscure distinguishing features of the AFV -- especially strong spots and weak spots. Any "WTF" confusion caused by this pattern, could potentially buy the AFV time. At least, that's the idea. I doubt we will see repainting of land fleets into Picasso's just yet.

I agree completely. Although, the newer iterations did have vastly improved graphics. In some ways superior to CM graphics (shadows). Aside from the annoying AI and confusing UI, I found that the maps were generally tiny. Things that can be improved. This being said, BFC is concentrating on CM -- which is superior.

Recently, I got the entire Theatre of War collection for a bargain from Steam. I was surprised to find out that Battlefront, apparently, had something to do with updating the original Theatre of War. All the games are fun, but are quite flawed (AI and UI). They, interestingly enough, cover conflicts that CM games don't: Early War, North Africa, Kursk, Korea. If anyone has played them, I would like to hear what they think of those games. I am curious what happened to this franchise? Why are they not making more of them? Do people still play them?

That's truly a fantastic idea. Many potential factions. Considering how popular such scenarios are, I am surprised we haven't got one by now.

I've always been a fan of french armoured cars. Armoured cars have been around longer than tanks, and it's good to see them evolving. It is also good to see the French army evolving. My thoughts on the Jaguar: - Level 4 protection is pretty good for such a vehicle. - Optics and observation equipment looks stunning. - 40mm seems to be the future. - A remote MG for the commander! - NBC systems are not forgotten! - Internal missile storage is good, I am guessing they are reloaded from the inside? Hopefully they are easy to reload. - It's REALLY tall, taller than the AMX or ERC. As a recon vehicle, it may be easier to spot and hit. - It's very heavy. 25 tons is almost twice of all the previous ones. Lighter cars can better cross bridges and potentially off-road. It's a jack of all trades. Standardization is great, and the main benefit of this vehicle. Yet, it doesn't master any of the roles it's replacing. VAB HOT has more missiles and AMX and ERC carry more potent guns. All that being said, I think they're on the right path. If they invest in modularity of this vehicle, it can fill those distinct roles better.

That's a good observation. It's also proof that the games are of a consistent quality. Many franchises suffer from having newer iterations, that may be technically superior -- and yet have inferior content. A flaw of my beloved Theatre of War series. Any CM you pick up is guaranteed to work well and have decent content -- really depends on your interest in the specific conflict. Another interesting observation is that some people prefer WW2-era gameplay, and others prefer modern-era gameplay. I like to mix it up, do a campaign in one era and then switch over. It's a good contrast and makes you rethink a lot of your tactics. I'd suggest getting the DLC for Normandy -- lots of content in there. It's certainly the best supported title. My personal favourites: 1. CMFI -- lots of content, and currently expanding. Unique middle-war setting and a varied Italian terrain. 2. CMBS -- probably the best modern combat tactics game on the market. 3 unique factions with impressive TO&Es. Great gameplay: each tech toy can be devastating if used right. 3. CMRT -- this one grew on me. This one only has 2 factions, but they are both very different and balanced. If you like big bombastic WW2 clashes, this is the one. Battles are generally big and require a lot of combined arms. Both sides have an insane amount of AFV types that are tailored to take on specific situations. Honourable mentions: a. CMBN -- I think this could be number 3, but you already own it. b. CMA -- this is a gem. If you like cold war, this is as close as you can get. Kind of like a polarity-swapped Vietnam. I have not played CM:FB, partly because of my disinterest in late WW2. Mostly because the other CMs have been keeping me well occupied. I do want to buy it soon...

Worst decisions in history? That's a good one, here's a few: 1. Princip's decision to assassinate the Arch Duke. 2. Franz Joseph's decision to declare war on Serbia. 3. Kaiser Wilhelm's and Tsar Nicholas II's decision to declare war on each other. I'd think Tsar Nicholas II may have more than a few up there. By definition, no WW1 means no WW2. Well, that's a rather naive conclusion. No doubt those clowns would have found some other excuse to send the world into total war.

I read some of "The German Way of War", by Dr. Citino, while on holiday. I may have to finish it. I think it's easy to call Operation Barbarossa and the subsequent strategic decisions to be silly. In memoirs, German generals always love drawing blame away from themselves -- and blame Hitler, oil, winter, etc. Nobody mentions a key cultural and historic factor that most non-Germans are simply not aware of. To us, "Blitzkrieg" was the new way of waging war. In reality, it's old Prussian tradition. Famously starting with Frederick the Great. Prussian military doctrine relies on "quick and lively" strategy. With a smaller corps of well trained troops, one can achieve surprise and out-maneuver their enemy -- trapping them in a kettle. After that, it's chow time -- launching simultaneous attacks to break up and isolate enemy formations. With this strategy, Prussia managed to defeat much larger armies and quickly press for favourable terms. The picture perfect example of this being the Franco-Prussian war. Unfortunately for them, WW1 shattered all estimates of a "quick and lively" war. Yet, the tradition remained, and a lot of this sentiment continued to the next generation. The Stab in the Back theory resonated well with this new generation. Nothing wrong with the old Prussian doctrine, they thought. It was the civilian (political and economic) systems that lost them WW1. One can see why so many Germans, especially in the military supported a new Reich with glee. When Hitler called, they answered. Their first few strategic offensives were resounding successes. The westerners were getting ready for a war of attrition -- they never expected "Blitzkrieg". The old Prussian officer, following the old Prussian doctrine, had managed to defeat France in a fraction of WW1. It was a pipe dream. Yet, a pipe dream on which all strategic thought originated from. Why not declare war on the U.S.? The Japanese opened up with a resounding success, and it would take time for them to rebuild -- let alone to deal with the less immediate threat (Germany). Who cares? This war will be won in a few months. It has to be won in a few months. That's the only way wars are won, according to Old Fritz. In retrospect, I, as a young enthusiast of military history, first assumed that Hitler was stark raving mad but all the officers at the operational level were level-headed pragmatists. As a less younger enthusiast of military history, I see the reason why the Third Reich had such domestic support -- is because most all German officers, believed in old myths. After the fact, they say they did not believe and were just following orders. After WW2, the cycle continued, there was a Stab in the Back theory II. It wasn't the German officer that lost Germany the war, it was X. X often being a politician, a resource or a natural event. For some reason, everyone in the Wehrmacht is blame-free of the atrocities of WW2 -- it was all the SS, or the Soviets or Allied strategic bombing. I recommend watching Citino's lectures or reading the books. He states this much more eloquently with very good sources.

Aye. Almost afraid to ask if you ever worked with any Canadians.

NATO has guidelines regarding defence expenditures commitment, the guideline is 2 percent. How much of their money are they putting where their mouth is? US has a much higher GDP. For some reason, it spends 3.58 percent on military expenditures (and has their largest land deployment in Germany). The Germans have the economy to support a larger army, yet they don't. Is it possible that it has to do with foreign commitment to the defense of their borders? Let's forget about GDP, for a moment. Let us consider the total expenditures. Defence Expenditure, in millions of US dollars: France: 44,333, Germany: 42,875, UK: 54,863, US: 683,414, Canada: 20,315. It is important to note that Germany has the highest population in the EU (List of European Countries by Population , all of that data is from Government cites). Table 5 has Defence expenditure per capita (2010 US dollars): Germany: 569, France: 761, UK: 897, Canada: 665, US: 1,887. Table 5 also has total Military personnel (thousands): Germany: 179, France: 209, UK: 161, Canada: 73, United States: 1,308. What does this mean? Despite its potentially dangerous strategic location, Germany spends less to defend a larger population. It relies on its allies for protection more than similarly populated countries. I am sure that they have shiny equipment. Considering the previously mentioned statistic regarding equipment expenditures, I would question the readiness and logistics behind that equipment. A decent parade army that was never intended to defend their borders sufficiently (that is what the rest of NATO is for). For the record, I welcome questioning of the context of these statistics. I do not have any political goal in this debate. I am simply drawing conclusions from observations.

Sweet Mama, that's a T-35 in running order! Nice parade, cheers!

An interesting video about how Germany planned to win the war. TIK often cites this guy, too.

How many troops does the US have deployed in Germany? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments That's 35k total troops, 20k of them being land Army. Which is the biggest external deployment of the U.S. Army, more U.S. Army personnel than in all of Asia. I am guessing the U.S. would deploy even more troops, should something occur. I think the Bundswehr, from its conception, always relies on foreign troops, in case of fire. No more Wikipedia, let's get some real data. Here's Defence Expenditure of NATO Countries (2010-2017): https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2017_06/20170629_170629-pr2017-111-en.pdf Fancy that! In 2017, Germany spent 1.22 percent of its GDP on military. Estonia spent 2.14, Latvia spent 1.7 and Lithuania spent 1.77 percent. Canada spent 1.31. That's right. Canada. We only share our borders with the U.S. If you're curious what the broomsticks are doing there. Well... check out Graph 4. Their equipment expenditures, relative to their total military expenditure, is 14.8%. Which is below the guideline of 20% and less than many smaller countries in Europe. Bundswehr's a parade army. They're quite insignificant in comparison to the U.S. and U.K.'s commitment to regional security. I don't know why anyone is surprised.

I am also curious as to organization of the SAA. To me, it seems a large part of the SAA's front-line units are irregulars. They have been fighting a civil war for some time, and those are rarely conventional conflicts. A lot of these guys look older than I would have expected. I can imagine after so many years, in constant conflict, these units are fairly experienced. In the more recent videos, the ones in Arabic, everyone seems to know what they're doing. Much more camouflage, helmets and radios in that one. I am guessing the "regularity" changes depending on where you look on the frontlines. There's also the use of drones on a fairly low level -- platoon, maybe company. There's also some combined arms. Dedicated engineering vehicles making a breach, tanks break through and paving the way for infantry. I think that by conventional standards, the SAA is ill suited to fight a combined arms enemy. However, they have put in serious man hours fighting ISIS, FSA and Al-Qeada. Albeit, that's just my speculation from the videos. I do not claim to truly know. Also, it's important to keep in mind that these videos are edited. So, maybe they cut the parts with Private Snafu, Private Pyle and Corporal Jenkins.

Aye. A mate of mine once posed the question, "If Germany developed the atom bomb in 1945, could they have won?" At first, we considered the power of the bomb and its dramatic role in the fall of the Empire of Japan. Yet, after quick deliberation, we concluded that they would have to drop atom bombs on almost every country in Europe, and North America. I watched more of TIK's videos. A lot of them are very good, and have excellent sources. Lots of good myth-busting. He does like to make click-bait-y titles, however.

I always saw the Hero of the Soviet Union to be a civilian award. The Red Star was more military-focused. Unlike the Moh or the VC (Commonwealth, as well), more akin to the Iron Cross, the same individual can get multiple, and, therefore, a higher honour. The history behind all these medals has always been interesting, to me. Often, medals and their requirements are changed from one war to the next. The Soviets tossed all the pre-revolution medals, and came up with new ones -- but then took a few back during WW2 (order of Suvorov, Nevsky, etc.). Aye, that makes more sense to me. LL tanks shipped with fancy radios -- as opposed to early Soviet models. Especially for a commander of an elite unit, a fancy radio is more important than caliber of the gun, speed of the tank or thickness of the armour (although the Matildas were tough little cookies). I can imagine enforcing discipline is easier with a tank -- especially with a good BESA MG. NKVD can just call them on their imported radio (much safer). I believe later-model Valentine tanks served in Operation Bagration. I do think CM titles need more Matildas and Valentines. They are some of my favourite tanks and they practically served everywhere around the globe.

I am okay with the lack of gillie suits, because they would have to match the terrain to make sense. I do not believe I have ever witnessed effective sidearm fire. Only people that use sidearms are disembarked crews. Crews are usually trying to pull back, after their vehicle/weapon was taken out. Even then, many crews are issued with carbines. Every time I used snipers, I was entirely disappointed in their marksmanship. Their trigger discipline and spotting was also nothing special. I had a comedic situation where a sniper team on a roof could not take out a stationary technical. They would continue to shoot at the driver, only to keep hitting the side of the roof.

#sajjanbattles I recently faced these in the British campaign: http://combatmission.wikia.com/wiki/File:T-72M1V_Turms-T.jpg They managed to go toe-to-toe with Challenger 2s. Sometimes, they even got off the first shot (TI and FCS greatly improved) -- and rarely missed. Probably my favorite mission, so far. My western defensive MBT tactics were put to the ultimate test. I love all the cool NATO toys that you get in SF. I would like some allies for Syria, in SF2 expansions, though. Maybe Iran and Russia would help tilt the scale a little bit?