DerKommissar

Oh, when you put them side by side, I have little doubt. The cannon, MG and mantlet are the only thing that looks different to me. Is that an earlier 125mm smoothbore cannon? Do you see that long barrel sleeve-mantlet thing? What is that?

That's the idea, bud. Nobody has even mentioned NBC warfare up until IMHO jumped in. That's the scenario, in which the tank thread (tread) is most relevant. Prior to the fall, the Soviet Army had T-80s, T-72s, T-64s, T-62s and T-55s in active service. Russia has T-90s, T-72s and T-80s in active service? I would argue that the T-62s, and especially T-55s had even more variants, as a result of being deployed in Afghanistan (an area of operations they were not designed for). I completely agree that it's a massive waste of resources. Yet, unlike North America or Great Britain, they do not have secure land borders and cannot rely on any allies. It's a tight situation, and they have to make due.

I had a platoon of 101st clear out a trench line without taking any casualties. After a few overhead bursts of MG fire and what looked like a stray rifle grenade, squad after squad lost their cool and decided to leave the trench. They sprinted in various directions and hid in small bushes. I've also had airborne retreat from trench systems while a single mortar bombarded them with a hopelessly large spread. Both of these scenarios resulted in injury or death of either the troops or the those they were supposed to be covering. I hope they patch it, eventually. I guess I can imagine people going absolutely mad in mortal danger. It's a minor issue and I love the excellent new tracers (a pet peeve of mine), in 4.0.

Is it possible to boil down the largest airborne operation in history to a couple of hours and consider it to be perfectly historical? As a piece of fiction, and as an epic -- B2F explained the story of the operation, instead of a specific protagonist. We got to see the planning, the execution and the results. Lots of fake German tanks, an excellent take-off scene and a great big bridge skirmish. That is what I meant by "too historical." A film that focused on the history (regardless of how flawed), rather than a tight unit. Yes, saw Darkest Hour recently. Good film, I especially enjoyed the tasty stakes. Aye, Darkest Hour was hardly his best work. That being said, I think he did a good enough job.

Sherman was also great because it was a once-size-fits-all solution. Yet, Germans had an entire menagerie of old and new tanks. The RF military, currently, uses 2 or 3 MBTs (depending if you want to call the T-90 a T-72 variant). The Soviet Union had an even greater variety of MBTs in service concurrently. Having the largest borders in the world, and having the worst neighbors puts a serious demand on MBTs and manpower (hence, conscription). As of late, their MBTs have rusted and manpower declined -- but the number of angry neighbors has increased. I would say it would be more fair to compare their strategic requirements and assets to mid-late-war Reich. The T-72/90 always struck me as an effective StuG. They are stuck between NATO and China. While one could argue which piece of kit is more effective, but with today's readiness and strategic mobility -- they would soon be outnumbered in any theatre.

Indeed. They are thinking ahead. That black scheme will be needed when Earth gets invaded by Monoliths.

The movie just did not work for me. Banal rants about the human condition and the endless French civilian scene, felt like they were there to fill a quota. I was distracted by Brad Pitt's funny accent and the Transformer's kid's mustache. Wasn't a huge fan of the shots, either. Locations looked all the same and everything seemed to be purposefully desaturated. I appreciated the tanks but I think this movie over-thought its own premise. I feel like this movie was a compromise designed for no-one but everyone. Not too silly to be Kelly's Heroes. Not too existentialist to be Full Metal Jacket. Not too historical to be A Bridge Too Far. Not too dramatic to be Das Boot. Usually movies of these genres rely on creative writing, directing and acting to make the viewer care, and identify with, the crew. This movie relied on star power and tank-hype (props to Bovington, though). Mediocre film in all sense of the word. Not the worst thing you can see in the cinemas, and certainly not the best. I saw it way back when and haven't felt a need to rewatch it. Hollywood can do better, see Hacksaw Ridge (not a fan of Dunkirk, though).

While I do not completely agree with the guy, but he does bring up some good points. Was oil what broke the Tiger's back? I doubt it. However, it did force the Germans to spend time and resources experimenting with alternative fuels, such as wood gas. This produced some funky modifications we probably won't see in CM: Back on topic. Why did the Germans lose the war? Potentially infinite reasons. However, I think many people overlook the diplomatic work of the Allies. The Germans had dubious alliances with Japan and Italy that only got them into their wars. They tried to not share technology with their eastern European allies and generally had limited support. Yet, the Allies managed to bring men from Brazil to India, train, equip them and put them on the front line. They had, also, great success dissuading Spain from getting involved and persuading the Italian King to put Mussolini behind bars. While the German hegemony spanned from the Atlantic to Moscow, from the Arctic to Africa -- they could only rely on themselves. They either could not, or did not want to, raise many troops form their vast occupied territories both in the West and East. For some reason, they had issues coordinating with the Romanians, Italians and Vichy France and generally relegated all foreign forces to rear-echelon work. As soon push came to shove, their allies turned on them. I do not think it is necessary to mention the debacles that were Yugoslavia and Belarus. Why were the Germans not popular on the world stage? Was it too much of the stick, and too little of the carrot? Was it the lend-lease food and Hollywood? That's a discussion for a different thread.

One vehicle that caught my eye was T-72 "Khorramshahr". Apparently, a Ukranian upgrade that looks like a T-90a. Can it be a T-72 with a T-84 turret? After a quick google search, I didn't find much under that name except the Karrar tank. Which looks like a T-90ms, and I would guess the development of this "Khorramshahr". If we get Iran in CM -- I want this!

They should make to-scale Goliath firework-carriers.

It depends how good your spotter is, how accurate the artillery is and how many rounds they have. What is the propability that you'll get in a good direct hit on that StuG 3 or Mk. 4? Odds are that most of your rounds will fall around the target and shower it with shrapnel. A direct hit is a good-night to any halftracks, and shrapnel can wound passengers and damage the wheels. This being said, I usually have time to move them away. Have I had 105s and similar knock out tank type vehicles? Not really. Have I had 105s and similar render tank type vehicles combat-ineffective? Absolutely. In one scenario, I had a StuG bugger hiding in a hedgerow. It cut off my advance by suppressing infantry, and kept my Shermans behind. I got desperate and dumped all of my medium howitzer artillery where I last saw it. After 5 to 10 minutes, my troops cautiously probed toward the hedgerows. I noticed the StuG was abandoned. I had no issues moving up my Shermans and taking out any nasty infantry in there. Eventually, I had a squad sight the crew chilling in a crater and blasted them with a BAR. Was the StuG damaged, did a crew-man hit his head, did the crew just decide to desert? Could be any of them -- worked out just as well.

Truth be told, I am expecting Combat Mission: Napoleon. I am sure, everyone wants to go back to the good old days: when gentlemen were gentlemen, uniforms were classy and the rate of fire of weapons was as appalling as their accuracy. Besides, there's nothing more tiresome then having to scatter a company of troops across a kilometer of uneven terrain -- it's much more neat to have an entire battalion walk a-breast in a field. The enemy was truly sportsman-like back then, and would allow your troops to come close before opening fire. Drums, deadly diseases and cavalry charges -- oh, yes, that's the CM for me.

Sick reference! Lots of limited production soviet stuff, western museum pieces and Mercedes G-class (great investment). I have always been fascinated by the Cho'nma-ho series. What if the T-62s had been more successful and the Soviets had continued the manual loading concept rather than transition to 3-man tanks?

Love all of them, even CMA. My favourite will have to be CMFI. Takes place in an under-appreciated front, and as close to early-war as we got in CM2. Lots of armies to try out and beautiful maps of the Italian countryside -- offering terrains of all shapes and sizes.

In Normandy, I generally tried to isolate forested areas and usually bombard them with on-map platoon/company level mortars. This would often encourage the enemy squads to change positions, giving my over-watching tanks and infantry targets. This tactic may have worked against demoralized rear-echelon Germans (possibly Ost troops) -- it may not work against well-trained GB paratroops. My recommendation is to take it slow and spread out your troops. Try to get as many angles as possible on their suspected positions, without moving in. I always envy the German 8cm mortars, but you said you do not have the time to properly call them in. Could you get a LOS close to the suspected enemy position and direct fire on them? That'd save time and may flush out a few squads into your other units' LOS. If you can afford it, only advance with HUNT or SLOW into blasted territory. I think a theme in WW2 CMs is that time and casualties are generally inversely proportionate to one-another. Take it slow, and save a few buds -- go in fast and expect heavier losses. Modern CMs give you well stabilized 120mm and autocannon AFVs and rapid fire infantry weapons with advanced optics. Against a less modern force, you can expect minimum losses in minimal time. I can only imagine how a WW1 CM would play -- taking hours and unreal casualties to win trivial victories.

I am curious if you guys ever played the Dynamic Campaign Generator for Men of War. It was a .net app that would generate a we-go-like strategic board stitched up of various maps that you have installed. It would let you build a platoon level force much like Quick Battle force manager, then it would generate a scenario based on the map that was engaged by conflicting nations. Once you finished the scenario, it would read your save file and adjust the in-app forces based on results (including experience, ammunition, fuel). Strategic board would usually also include other units, both friendly and enemy that would move around and cause havoc. Resources were always tight, and if you let the enemy out-maneuver you on the strategic scale, you would have isolated troops that would not be able to resupply/reinforce. Provided a fun rogue-like experience, that was, honestly, the only thing to play in that game. Some missions were cake-walks and other un-winnable nightmares, in which even retreat was difficult. I may be wrong, but I think it did carry over wrecks -- I am not sure about map scarring.

It's like real life Necromunda. Better cinematography and longer takes than most Hollywood films, these days.