DerKommissar

Great photos! I can't imagine what it's like to have Combat Mission: Battle for Normandy happen on your doorstep.

The fact that they're getting rid of these beauties makes my heart bleed. All this talk of wheeled long-range recon AFVs reminded me of this classic: A favourite of T.E. Lawrence, from what I hear.

Now, this is truly a modern art masterpiece! A cool source for all your strange improvised armour needs: Weird tank modifications in Syria I have to say, these SAA boys are generally very fashionable -- trimmed beards, Eminem backpacks and ironic MARPAT fatigues. Nice reference! The vivisection of BMP 1s into VBIED hulls and technical turrets reminded me of the GLA, from Zero Hour.

That's the Bovington one, isn't it? I have a love for the P. 3, as well. My favourite German tank. It was way ahead of its time with the 3-man turreted, and soon was adopted by the entire world. To this day, the concept has not changed. This is the grand daddy of the MBT concept. It is rightfully associated with the early German victories, a jack of all trades and the master of all. Even as its pre-war weapon became obsolete, its chassis was still the basis for the StuG -- a very successful design in its own right. I have to admire the P. 3 for its practicality. The P. 4 was a good companion, but a make-shift replacement. I do not understand how the Panther got so many basic tank details wrong, after the P. 3's superb results. For all its glory, it still had thin side armour and shot-traps on the turret. What were they thinking with the interleaved suspension? Did the Germans specifically design vehicles to get stuck in the dirt? I'm a Centurion fan-boy. The 3-inch armed wheeled vehicles have always been a curiosity. How effective is that concept, in reality? What IS that?

I'd rather play this, than be hit by 5mm steel balls and lead bullets. Big Fish don't cry.

The Sherman is infamously huge compared to its rivals, P. 4 and T-34. A more spacious crew compartment would make shuffling between positions and pieces of your comrades easier than on those, more cozy, models. There are some really cool videos of the interiors of tanks on youtube, called Inside the Chieftan's Hatch. Generally talks about the crew ergonomics within each tank. After all, it's inside what matters: In this museum, they put the 3 different mediums side-by-side, so you can see just how bloody tall this thing is.

I think Stalin accidentally the officer corps. Prior to the Treaty of Versailles, the Germans tried to capture the successes of the British tanks. They built the A7V and later tried to develop a cavalry tank via Sweden (reverse engineered the whippet). However, in the context of 1930s Germany, I completely agree. I guess, calling the light tractor, "cavalry tractor", and the heavy tractor, "infantry tractor" -- would probably raise a few eyebrows. Could the origin of light/medium/heavy be the result of sneaky euphemisms? I doubt it, but it's fun to imagine. Here's some British inter-war designs: Vickers Light Mk. VI, Vickers Medium Mk. II and Vickers Medium Mk. III The previously mentioned Independent being the heavy tank that would complete the trinity of light, medium and heavy. It also built by Vickers and could go 32 km/h, which was faster than the Matilda II -- let alone, infantry tanks at the time. According to Tank Encylcopedia, in 1926, Soviet spies captured the plans and even sold a copy to Germany. Speaking of which, is it just me, or does the Medium Mk. III look a lot like the T-28 medium? Curious, isn't it? Considering Soviet light tanks also, famously, came from Vickers 6-ton Mark E Light tank (pictured below). May I suggest that the Soviets copied their entire light/medium/heavy tank doctrine from the British and shared it with the Germans?

It's a lot of hot words escaping from the friction between two geopolitical plates. How come politicians are not asking for the denuclearization of Pakistan or India, or plenty other countries? This flavour of the year is about the tug-of-war in Korea, which has been going on and off for 50 years without any changes. This is just another rumbling that will come and pass without consequence. Before you lose your worlds, I am not referring to any specific conspiracy -- but a model of supply and demand (Complexes not Complex). Geopolitical tensions and the mere threat for mobilization creates demand. Demand that allows for investing more money in one's military budget. As the ruling party, you would want demand for your government's services and your industry. If all goes well, you can increase your public support and create factories, security and jobs. It can also make headlines really /pop/. Walmart and Apple are massive, but they mostly sell consumer products. The military industry mostly relies on government contracts, and there is nothing wrong with that. I am not suggesting any conspiracy here. I am not making an ethical or political argument. I am stating the audience cares about potential threats to their safety, and are rarely interested in frozen conflicts with hermit states. Traditional journalism is struggling to be relevant and there was a lot of elections happening recently. Is it possible that Cold War 2 may just be a popular pathos?

The way I understand it is that "heavy" is a way to distinguish it from medium and light tanks, and therefore a relative term. I think of it as weight classes in sports -- they are relative to their specific sport (country) and change with time. As light tanks became dedicated recon vehicles, the medium and the heavy merged into the main battle tank concept. As such, I think it is incorrect to equate medium tanks with MBTs and assume that modern MBTs don't fill the previous role of the heavy tank. Russian Wikipedia entries seem to use the adjective "тяжёлый" which translates to heavy. Here's their entry on heavy tank , which seems to be relative to World War 2. Interestingly enough, the original role of the heavy tank was to support medium tanks with heavier guns to break fortifications and, only later, to battle tanks at long ranges and support mediums. They refer to the proposed T-14 variant with the 152mm to be a "heavy breakthrough tank." What I find funky about the inter-war period is how the German and Soviet tank doctrines evolved from the cavalry/infantry tank roles to the light/medium/heavy tank roles. Which is no coincidence because their tank theorists trained together. The British, too, experimented with the light/medium/heavy concept, but never went anywhere. The Soviets, at the start of the war had light, medium, heavy, cavalry and infantry tanks, in service. Which tripped me out when I was making my force in WinSPWW2.

Earlier, I posted four of the original heavy tanks. Those were the dawn of the concept -- and here is the dusk. M103, Conqueror and T-10m -- 59, 64 and 52 tons, respectively. Made pretty useless by ATGMs and APSDFS -- and replaced by the lighter MBTs. Hailing from the era of manual loading, RHS-only, and coincidence rangefinders. I really hope we see a CM set in the 60s. Interestingly enough, modern MBTs are around the same weight and generally sport the same diameter of cannon. Maybe the heavy tank is gone, but its memory lives on.

In my experience, airsoft hurts less. Yet, I suspect it depends on the velocity of the projectile. Still, a small, air-filled, plastic ball has less mass than a gelatin paint capsule. I think, why they use paintball is because it leaves paint. You know exactly who hit what, because it's painted. In Airsoft, you have to raise your hand and call out if you were hit. Letting a lot of dastardly gentlemen pretending not to feel it. Large hectic battles would lead to confusion with people calling hit, or maybe just moving. Airsoft works with small close-knit teams, while paintball is more suitable for such a mass melee. Really cool reenactment. I apologize, in advance, if I derail this thread further:

I see Umbrella still hasn't lost it's style, albeit this OT-64 is a bit too practical for them. I'm guessing the recession hit them hard -- no massive underground bases or laser fences. Did Wesker sit in the commander's position? (I've seen too many of those 'films', xD)

OMG, they're soo bloody cute! I want one -- or three!

I do not think anyone involved truly wants reunification -- via diplomacy or war. There's nothing to be gained, hence the conflict has been frozen for decades. Fear sells and there's massive Military Industrial Complexes on all sides. Barking, shaking fists and feeding the media allows one to retain relevance. Nuclear weapons are nothing new. I think just about anyone who's anyone these days has at least two. No one is overly worried about Pakistan and India, and they constantly get into skirmishes. I say, there are many more pressing issues plaguing the western world than some little hermit that thinks it's still the 1950s.

Ukraine is probably my favourite faction in BS, because of the underdog feel. It still has good, solid, equipment, only lacking modern dandy tech. For a person who finds the Cold War era more interesting than the modern era, it is a treat to work with the upgraded T-64s and the 100mm anti-tank guns. It requires you to be pretty crafty. If you know your equipment, you will best opposing tech. Now, if you really want a challenge -- try playing Ukraine versus US Army. It really feels good to destroy their expensive toys with remixed old-school charm or get smitten in a nanosecond. This being said, I do think Ukraine should get some of their upgraded T-72s and Russia should get T-80s. A dream come true would be M60s (or L7 M1s) for the US, xD.

Plausible deniability? *puts on shiny hat*

I'm just a peasant. Can I have some shoes? I would think so. I'm curious which frequency band they would use or if their electronics can switch (bit rate, modulation, filters, etc.), in case of jamming. I think it may be less vulnerable to jamming than ordinary radio communication. Even the most rudimentary of digital wireless devices require acknowledgements and checksums. I'm sure they also have ambient statistical logging of SNR and will retry on a set of, previously agreed-on with the receiver, frequency bands. I am sure modern jamming is much more sophisticated, than just mimicking noise on a specific band. But then again, I'm hoping a 10 million machine, built for the 21st century, has a few tricks up its sleeve. Aye, I think that'll be the new standard for tanks, going forward. Swapping out armour packages would simplify logistics, repair and add flexibility to any chassis. I even see them doing this now with the Puma and CV-90.

Never heard of it, and I think what he meant is that the radio frequency platoon/company level communication could be spoofed. Ie. Black Lotus convinces a Type-10 that it is receiving target information from platoon leader -- the target information being false. Mayhaps, receive RF packets, decrypt them, and find out critical info about the platoon's orders, friendly targets, IFFs, etc. Just playing devil's advocate. It's a day dream, IMHO.

Thanks for clearing that up. I remember there was a caveat to that narrative. Still, there would rarely be a hull MG and an AA MG, correct? The Americans liked to stuff every vehicle with MGs. 4 MGs MINIMUM!

The whole idea behind the Type 10, in my opinion -- is that they do not need numbers. Japan's terrain is simply not tank country. I can imagine the cyber security on those things is top notch. Military hardware generally has fairly high standards of encryption. I am sure that the time and effort that is require to "hack them" would be less effort than the crew to fall back to radios -- maybe even flares and flags. Hopefully they have better training than cashiers. Snarkiness aside, I do think that they went a little too overboard with the electronic toys, on this one. Funny enough, from what I read the C4I was one of the first, and most paramount, requirements for the design. Knowing the Japanese, I can imagine all the electronics are domestically designed and manufactured.

This may be conjecture: I've heard that AA MGs were rarely mounted on Panzers, even if we see a lot of them on models and in museums. They generally were of better use, elsewhere. MG-34s were also, as a general rule, preferred for vehicle use. I can't imagine the supply situation was too good in BotB, and not only for MG-42s -- but also for trucks! Germans put a premium on trucks. They had a deficit of trucks at the start of the war and their trucks often got bogged down or broken in Winter months. Yet, they were invaluable in the chain of supply and were often pushed to their limit -- increasing wear and tear. I think a sled mounted MG, pulled by a horse, would be a better mobile suppression unit.

I recently experienced that in SF. I was playing the convoy mission in the British Campaign and escorting some armoured american trucks. A BTR managed to spew out some 14.5 and hit two of the armoured cabins, resulting in no injury or death. Then my Warriors smoked them, on the same turn. However, the crew of the two trucks jumped out, lay on the ground and refused to obey orders for 2 turns. There were MGs, rifles and snipers outside. None of them died and I eventually got them back in their trucks -- which were undamaged.

Certainly an AFV. I have a soft spot for the Stummel, as well. Sd. Kfz. 234/3 and Sd. Kfz 250/8, respectively. In my experience, if you have these babies over-watch infantry advances -- it'll blast any bugger that gets wise. I also like the HEAT round on these. It can defend itself against armour, if need be. I've had success using these guys to ambush tanks (T-70s) in close range. However, such tactics were used in utter desperation and lack of AT weapons. Even the Panzer 3/StuG Stummel HEAT can be preferable to early German AT weapons -- if they can hit, of course.

Cannot stop the battery. Rip Cliff Burton.

I used to play Real Time only. I actually didn't like We-Go, during my first two CM games. Now, I have some advice, based on what I used to do. Is it the best way to do it? Probably not. a. Try to spread out your infantry as far as possible. Blobs are vulnerable to mortars and MGs. b. Try to keep squads close to their platoons and platoons close to their companies. This is invaluable for radio-lacking armies. c. Try to keep your platoons and companies in distinct pattern formations. For example, for a platoon, 3 squads at the front row, HQ and mortar in the back row. For a company, have three rifle platoons in the front row, weapon platoon in the middle row and HQ at the back. d. Double click on HQ (platoon or company), which selects all units and you can order them all at once. Move is good for getting a formation through relatively safe ground and Hunt is good for dangerous areas. This will help you visually separate company from company, and platoon from platoon. Hopefully, it will let you give orders to your units with as little clicks as possible. Keep in mind, while such rigid abstraction can save you time, it may be a bit inflexible (almost Napoleonic). Now, I play We-Go exclusively and generally micro manage each unit. That's the way to get the most out of your units, especially in campaigns where units carry over. However, play the game the way you enjoy!