Zala Capabilities

[Vanir Ausf B]

I do know they are pretty small, can fly up to 3.6km above sea level which could make them near impossible to see, and electric motors are capable of being insanely quieter than gas powered engines.  I can only assume they have really attempted to address each flaw with each new model.

I don't know one way or the other, but I'm also not willing to say zala's are gamey because we for sure would be able to see them and shoot them down with small arms in real life.

Maximum flight altitude is not the same thing as operational altitude. The Zala is meant to operate in the 100m to 700m range.

[Vanir Ausf B]

If you look at the camera specs for the Zala they top out at 4x zoom.

This is Zala video from altitude 250 meters.

 

 

Edited September 18, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[hattori]

The picture you linked is from an older model zala, the 421-08.  The specs I looked up for the newer 421-16EM claims they have x20 zoom on the cameras now, with 18 megapixel resolution.  If that is true, that would imply a much higher operational height than the older models.  We also don't know if the zala in game is supposed to be the even newer 421-20.

The other question I have in case I missed it, how do we know for certain the developers hard coded that zala's could not be shot down, as opposed to just giving them incredibly small odds of being shot down?

[Vanir Ausf B]

This is all in the manual. Pg 138:

ZALA 421-08

The ZALA 421-08 is a micro UAV used by some Russian military and interior units. The ZALA weighs only 1.7 kg with a 0.8 m wingspan, and can be prepared for flight in three minutes. The ZALA can be used by Russian reconnaissance units to provide real time tactical intelligence, target acquisition, surveillance, and battle damage assessment. Propulsion is provided by a battery-powered electric motor, making the UAV very quiet even as it flies only 300-500 feet above the ground. Although the ZALA can fly higher, like other micro UAVs it must stay relatively close to the ground in order to provide usable imagery. The ZALA is also capable of automated flight while using GLONASS satellite navigation.

ZALA 421-08s are vulnerable to AAA fire while performing Observe missions, but cannot be attacked by SAMs. If the controller for the UAV is killed or incapacitated while the ZALA is in the air, the ZALA will be destroyed.

Stinger SAMs are the only anti-air units the US has in the game and units not specifically designated as anti-air are presently not capable of spotting or shooting at any type of aircraft, therefore it is impossible for US units to shoot down a Zala. The Ukrainian army can shoot down Zalas because they have Tunguskas.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[Sublime]

Also Hattori I dont just like using ATGMs but hard experience has shown me point wise and experience wise against a good human player you get the most bang for your buck with am atgm heavy mix with tanks. 

For one even the T90AM can be penetrated from the side by a Bradley. The Russian tanks are pretty liable to explode in head to head combat vs the Americans. And the numbers you.re citing are about T72s which are the worst tank in the Russian arsenal and do pretty badly compared to the US.  Since its critical for Russian tanks to get the drop on US armor the T72s outdatedness in spotting and equipment hampers it quite a bit. If youd like to test your theory pm me and we.ll play your 30 T72s with a platoon of engineers or something versus my US rifle company with 4 abrams. I bet I win.

[Bud Backer]

Sublime, thanks for answering my question. 

[Sublime]

your welcome. theres more to it than that of course. But basically a lot of what makes this a game favors the US or any side with superior equipment. 

You also have other factors that while out of the scope of CM I think would play heavily in a hypothetical US in Ukraine scenario. I think such a conflict would see US losses not seen at least since Vietnam or Korea and concentrated into a much smaller space of time. Plus I think there.d be a pervasive dialogue and near panic in Western countries with open media where in Russia  it.d be state propaganda or a bullet.

Basically what Im saying is intense levels of casualties wouldnt only cause civil unrest but would probably be a huge shock to the military that hasnt seen such in 50 years.  It probably would be a major detriment to morale. Remember this isnt the Cold War with the Soviets openly invading Western Europe this is the Ukraine a country many Americans to this day dont know where it is or theres a war there.

Add to that BFCs adjustments to Russian spotting, armor, and now perhaps the AT13 issue.

Also as others have pointed out since its a game a tank will laze even at fifty meters. Ive had abrams slew and kill T90s emerging from smoke less than a hundred meters away because of that laser warning receiver.  Its been pointed out in real life however that plain optics would probably suffice to 500meters.  So there you see another example of its a game versus what crews would probably do in reality and it adversely affecting the Redfor because if nothing else the Redfor is completely reliant on lasers.

[Sublime]

too late to edit but i meant constant dialogue and pervasive near panic in the west abt the possibility about it going nuclear.

[hattori]

Awesome, thanks Vanir, that definitely answers the question.

Sublime -- I said T72B3s (comes with a thermal imager), not old T72s, and you can take a company of infantry along with those engineers which are very useful for scouting.  I apologize, I didn't mean to criticize your play style, I'm trying to offer alternative approaches to the problem other than just banning APS.  I think most people will toss APS on their Abrams (I certainly do), making ATGMs highly ineffective against them.  It's really hard for infantry not to get spotted close to an Abrams unless they're in a building, so that leaves me thinking the most effective weapon I have against them are my own tanks.  My own tanks are going to get mashed by javelins, so my thinking a counter to that was to go with more T72B3s over less T90AMs.  Quantity is a quality all it's own as they say.

[Bud Backer]

 Quantity is a quality all it's own as they say.

I believe that is attributed to Josef Stalin. 

[LukeFF]

ya a spellcheck that autochanges words. Im all set. I had just worked a twelve hour shift.

Then don't post when you are dead-tired. Seriously man, anything good you may have to say gets drowned out with your hideous lack of proofreading.

[Sublime]

i dont see why if it bothers you so why you just dont ignore me. reality is im pretty much always dead tired or obliged to participate via cell phone and im not saying anything wrong or offensive. Plenty of people also seem to understand just fine and I think this whole misspelling issue is being over blown when its only a portion of my posts as well, plenty are well typed and proofread. Other times I dont have the time.

[Sublime]

If it works for you then play it regarding your T72s. I dont know what would make you think I was referring to anything other than B3s as theyre the only T72 variant in game. Ive had terrible luck with them and my top three Redfor tanks are T90AM, A, then the Ukrainian Oplot.  Thats my personal experience  way I play.  The quantity statement is usually true however in this game its very very hard to swamp a capable commander owning abrams without somewhat ridiculous odds in T72s. One Abrams can kill a few tanks a turn and unless shot in the flanks or rear has an excellent chance of surviving the return shot.

I dont feel like you insulted my playstyle, I mean for one you.ve never even played me. 

As Ive said before and said again I just find my games a lot more interesting without APS or at least sensibls restrictions (i.e. hq units)and have agreements with players i play not to use it   It doesnt force any other way of playing on anyone else or anyone except the parties involved.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Sublime

[hattori]

I think people are only bothered because they want to read what you have to say, but in all honesty, it can be very difficult to follow.  You're one of the few that seems to enjoy playing as the Russians, so at least for me, I'm always interested when you have thoughts about them.

You are right though, head on, Abrams vs T72 head on is a very bad idea.  I've had 2 platoons of 72s crest a hill to take on 1 Abrams head on from about (I think) 800m, and I ended up down 4 tanks for nothing in return.  I definitely never ever put them heads up against an Abrams (anymore).

The T90AM is without a doubt the best Russian tank, I don't disagree.  It's just that it feels like it's equally likely to die from a javelin, and an armoured rifle company has at least 18 javelin shots.  I figured even if they hit with all of those, I still have 3 to 1 odds on the Abrams.  Anyways, just thoughts, I don't have the time to flesh these ideas out as much as I would like.

I also agree no APS is more interesting, but to me, it's in the game, so I have to / want to figure out how to deal with it.  It's a bit of a slippery slope, because then someone can start saying how Javelins are too unfair and house rule ban them too.  

Anyways, please do keep posting, I appreciate your thoughts on Russian tactics to deal with the American technology advantages.

[Sublime]

You can still deal with APS by a combination of tank and ATGM fire and by the basic premise of a tactic where your ATGM fields overlap.  This will mean hopefully launches from different directions at roughly the same time.

The Khriz is good too because it fires 2 missiles back to back very quickly often (Salvo fire)

[antaress73]

Javelin is standard US equipment and frankly in the games i've played they shoot once and then get killed by return fire, are supressed by HE artillery  or are severely degraded by my artillery deployed smokescreens. They Kill my tanks 50% of the time since I dash from tree to tree whenever possible so they are not a uberweapon against a competent russian commander  (like sublime). As for Abrams having an excellent chance of surviving return fire , I would say moderate since weapons mount, top armor and lower Hull penetrations are fairly common at the average ranges  in game (depressingly so when I play the US). Even the thickest armored parts (right and left front turret) are ônly 100% effective if the shot comes from head-on. As soon as the shooter is not right in front (a little bit to the side)  you start to see disabling partial and full penetrations on those areas.  You achieve this by having multiple spread out shooters at a single Abrams. The only part of the Abrams 100% invulnerable is the upper front Hull IF the shooter is at the same terrain level. If its higher its à question of luck.  

I always play as or play against veteran and crack Russians .

Edited September 19, 2015 by antaress73

[Sublime]

While I certainly try to get veteran and crack Russians it depends on the situation.  Many qbs I play me and my opponents have a backstory. Generally I play with regular Russians and have some veteran or rarely crack units and some green units.   Sometimes I use green, or veteran and crack units more.   But generally to be realistic I will not use all veteran or crack troops.  That'd be very rare for a Russian force of battalion or above - not to say there arent such units, but it would be the exception to encounter these units.  Even US units I generally play regular with some veteran and crack, a little more veteran and crack than Russian units.  The US units are probably on average better trained, but this is also reflected in the fact that theyre more expensive than the Russian units.

Also playing with all elite (or high skill high motivation troops) all the time takes  a lot out of the game imo.  You'll miss a lot of the real human reactions that would be seen on the battlefield and in real life with an artificially high level of training and motivation for everyone that frankly isnt there in real life.

[antaress73]

I tend to think that spotting and reactions are not whay they should be, especially for the Russians and some bugs persists that mainly play in disfavor of the Russians thats why I artificially use veteran and crack Russians to compensate when I play against a friendfriend who also own thje game .   I know this is not realistic . We do the same whenwhen he plays the Russians. When.this is fixedfixed (side turret armor of Abrams too strong or AT-13 Too weak, no  lasing at close and battlesight  range, slower and less robotic reaction times, side Hull armor on T series too weak, slow spotting in perfect conditions and less than 1000 meters for the Russians )  or more state of the art and powerful equipment (RPG-27,  rpg-28, weapons optics , a T-90AM1 with that new gun with giffel ammo, T72B4 with panoramic sight, kurganets, more krasnopol ammo dotation, arty deployed HEAT bomblets with 100mm pen each)  is added to the russian family we'll revise.

[antaress73]

I tend to think that spotting and reactions are not what  they should be, especially for the Russians and some bugs persists that mainly play in disfavor of the Russians , thats why I artificially use veteran and crack Russians to compensate when I play against a friend who also own the game .   I know this is not realistic . We do the same when he plays the Russians. When.this is fixed (side turret armor of Abrams too strong or AT-13 Too weak, no  lasing at close and battlesight  range, slower and less robotic reaction times, side Hull armor on T series too weak, slow spotting in perfect conditions and less than 1000 meters for the Russians )  or more state of the art and powerful equipment (RPG-27,  rpg-28, weapons optics , a T-90AM1 with that new gun with giffel ammo, T72B4 with panoramic sight, kurganets, more krasnopol ammo dotation, arty deployed HEAT bomblets with 100mm pen each)  is added to the russian family we'll revise.

Edited September 20, 2015 by antaress73

[Sublime]

I think actually the infantry spotting is about right. Same with the tank.  You and I will have to agree to disagree. The other stuff you mentioned hampers the Russians but still doesnt have anything to do with spotting.  Also the RPGs you named I dont believe the Russian Army hasnt adopted.

The Arty deployed HEAT bomblets would be the same as US having DPCIM (sp?) so really both sides didnt get it.   I have no knowledge of the T72B4 being in active duty. Could be wrong.  Just because theres a weapon system out there made by someone doesnt mean its being used by the Russian military.  Ive noticed this a lot with other Russian players.  Theres plenty of equipment made by companies in the US or that the US military could buy if it wanted but has no adopted and therefore isnt in the TO&E.

Kurganets and the whole Armata thing - I mean cmon man really?  Theyre not in active service or even mass production.  They're still very much in an early stage of development and wouldnt be around in a conflict taking place in 18 months.

The side hull issue on the T series has been fixed - the fact is that it is that weak.  I agree on the AT13 thing *perhaps*  - meaning Im taking your word for it - though Ive never suffered from them being ineffectual and have killed both Abrams and Bradleys aplenty with them.   The lasing thing is a problem and sucks, but it also affects the US.   The Russians have robotic reaction times too to with LWRs.  Their tanks just arent as good as Abrams.  No offense Antaress but being Russian are you sure you're just not upset about the inequality in equipment and trying to artificially shape the game? Reality is reality, and though there are certain advantages the Russians would have in real life that they dont in game the same applies for the US.  Now having no APS alone is enough for me. Ill buy some veteran troops but take mostly regulars and I get wins against the US.  Its how the player plays.  Using only veteran and crack Russian troops really is just a form of nerfing the game for 'balance' like an RTS when really most of the issues with the Russian side are real life deficiencies that having some of the things you mentioned wouldnt fix -

for one the RPGs mentioned havent been adopted by the Russian Army

Griefel ammo is fine but it still wont fix the T90AMs armor or fact that its still about 10-15 years behind Abrams technology especially with thermals and has much weaker armor.

Even with the panoramic sight on the B4 I know the B3 upgrade on the T72 really revolutionized the weapon system bringing it decades ahead of where it was - and I still think theyre godawful and would rather have T64 Bulats.  Maybe its anecdotal luck but I never ever have good luck with the T72s.

More Krasnopol ammo wont do much- its still relies on lazing the target and thats fine and all, I guess it would help for more precision missions.  But lasing tanks for Russians doesnt work as well against US as US vs Russians. Because the US uses GPS guided munitions so its basically a surprise while the US player will get a laser warning.   And as I said, they left out US stuff, even stuff still in active duty like the A10 Warthog.   And clusterbombs and DPICM munitions (again sp?)

The robotic reaction times are just part of playing a game where theres an AI at some level.

Finally infantry spotting is really about equal. BFC has stated repeatedly and its true that no side gets a nation bias.  That said, the average US squad has more optics on its weapons and with its men than a Russian squad, and the Javelin launchers CLU unit can be used as an excellent Thermal imaging spotting device.

At night the US night vision obviously is far superior to Russian and is noticeable.  But still using good tactics in game even with regular russian troops vs reg americans (who at default settings for both sides you'll see more reg and green russians while more reg and vet americans) I tend to see during the day my infantry spots about the same as the US does.  A lot is just situational.   The US thermals on Bradleys and all other AFVS are far superior to Russian though and account for superior tank spotting.  Its true though and just a fact of life right now and will be in the hypothetical 2017 conflict. 

You play however you want - its your version of the game and your opponent, but shaping it with veteran and crack troops is really just using a method to nerf the US side some to gain an artificial advantage. 

Yes, the US side has advantages over the Russians.  This would be true in real life with many of the issues in game.  Yes there are other issues that would apply in real life that would help the Russians.   Would it completely reverse the results we see in game? I highly doubt it, and many of the effects wouldnt be seen on the battlefield at our level in game.   I find that with lots of practice using the Russians, and asking the US player to either not use APS or restrict it to HQ vehicles only, that a player with enough experience with the Russians can consistently win and when they lose give the US player a bloody nose anyways.  And this is with regular troops across the board, with some of my tanks being veteran, maybe one crack, and maybe making a Khriz or two I take veteran and or crack.

[antaress73]

I think actually the infantry spotting is about right. Same with the tank.  You and I will have to agree to disagree. The other stuff you mentioned hampers the Russians but still doesnt have anything to do with spotting.  Also the RPGs you named I dont believe the Russian Army hasnt adopted.

The Arty deployed HEAT bomblets would be the same as US having DPCIM (sp?) so really both sides didnt get it.   I have no knowledge of the T72B4 being in active duty. Could be wrong.  Just because theres a weapon system out there made by someone doesnt mean its being used by the Russian military.  Ive noticed this a lot with other Russian players.  Theres plenty of equipment made by companies in the US or that the US military could buy if it wanted but has no adopted and therefore isnt in the TO&E.

Kurganets and the whole Armata thing - I mean cmon man really?  Theyre not in active service or even mass production.  They're still very much in an early stage of development and wouldnt be around in a conflict taking place in 18 months.

The side hull issue on the T series has been fixed - the fact is that it is that weak.  I agree on the AT13 thing *perhaps*  - meaning Im taking your word for it - though Ive never suffered from them being ineffectual and have killed both Abrams and Bradleys aplenty with them.   The lasing thing is a problem and sucks, but it also affects the US.   The Russians have robotic reaction times too to with LWRs.  Their tanks just arent as good as Abrams.  No offense Antaress but being Russian are you sure you're just not upset about the inequality in equipment and trying to artificially shape the game? Reality is reality, and though there are certain advantages the Russians would have in real life that they dont in game the same applies for the US.  Now having no APS alone is enough for me. Ill buy some veteran troops but take mostly regulars and I get wins against the US.  Its how the player plays.  Using only veteran and crack Russian troops really is just a form of nerfing the game for 'balance' like an RTS when really most of the issues with the Russian side are real life deficiencies that having some of the things you mentioned wouldnt fix -

for one the RPGs mentioned havent been adopted by the Russian Army

Griefel ammo is fine but it still wont fix the T90AMs armor or fact that its still about 10-15 years behind Abrams technology especially with thermals and has much weaker armor.

Even with the panoramic sight on the B4 I know the B3 upgrade on the T72 really revolutionized the weapon system bringing it decades ahead of where it was - and I still think theyre godawful and would rather have T64 Bulats.  Maybe its anecdotal luck but I never ever have good luck with the T72s.

More Krasnopol ammo wont do much- its still relies on lazing the target and thats fine and all, I guess it would help for more precision missions.  But lasing tanks for Russians doesnt work as well against US as US vs Russians. Because the US uses GPS guided munitions so its basically a surprise while the US player will get a laser warning.   And as I said, they left out US stuff, even stuff still in active duty like the A10 Warthog.   And clusterbombs and DPICM munitions (again sp?)

The robotic reaction times are just part of playing a game where theres an AI at some level.

Finally infantry spotting is really about equal. BFC has stated repeatedly and its true that no side gets a nation bias.  That said, the average US squad has more optics on its weapons and with its men than a Russian squad, and the Javelin launchers CLU unit can be used as an excellent Thermal imaging spotting device.

At night the US night vision obviously is far superior to Russian and is noticeable.  But still using good tactics in game even with regular russian troops vs reg americans (who at default settings for both sides you'll see more reg and green russians while more reg and vet americans) I tend to see during the day my infantry spots about the same as the US does.  A lot is just situational.   The US thermals on Bradleys and all other AFVS are far superior to Russian though and account for superior tank spotting.  Its true though and just a fact of life right now and will be in the hypothetical 2017 conflict. 

You play however you want - its your version of the game and your opponent, but shaping it with veteran and crack troops is really just using a method to nerf the US side some to gain an artificial advantage. 

Yes, the US side has advantages over the Russians.  This would be true in real life with many of the issues in game.  Yes there are other issues that would apply in real life that would help the Russians.   Would it completely reverse the results we see in game? I highly doubt it, and many of the effects wouldnt be seen on the battlefield at our level in game.   I find that with lots of practice using the Russians, and asking the US player to either not use APS or restrict it to HQ vehicles only, that a player with enough experience with the Russians can consistently win and when they lose give the US player a bloody nose anyways.  And this is with regular troops across the board, with some of my tanks being veteran, maybe one crack, and maybe making a Khriz or two I take veteran and or crack.

 

hehehe quite a reaction  

1- At long range I agree that US thermals are far superior . But at close range I've seen spotting slowness that is frankly mesmerizing on part of the russians on the order of  "Stop taking selfies in the middle of combat Ivan"

2- I'm not russian  (maybe on my mother's side, unconfirmed, she was adopted but the little info we have  DO points in that direction) I have no trouble playing the russians and getting my fair share of winning. My favorite opponent is less at ease. WHen I play the americans, especially against the AI, I like my russians to give me some challenge.

3- GPS precision arty can be jammed (and is at the strong EW setting). The russians are VERY strong and superior to the US in jamming capabilities. But having a few more missions of Krasnopol would be realistic since John Kettler cited sources saying that Krasnopol is much more widespread than shown in the game.

3- RPG-27 is in active service (RPG-28 is not I agree). Having RPG-27s instead of RPG-26 as disposables would make russian infantry very lethal for tanks and AFVs at close range.

4- Grifel and new cannon would make Abrams pretty much die (penetration AND energy left for internal catastrophic damage)  as soon as hit under 2000 meters, With good tactics this would do much to equalize the fight. At long range, beside spotting, with russians on defense in  hull down positions at 3000 meters, the ABrams would be toast. I've killed 7 Abrams for 3 T-90AM lost under these conditions at 3000 meters, with relikt stopping many sabot rounds and this with the actual much less powerful gun and ammo. 

5- Kurganets is more likely to be fielded soon than Armata. BMP-2 and 3s are not very survivable and that's the new trend in the russian army. 

6- The lasing at battlesight ranges affects the russian player more than the american. Smoke deployment is slower for the Russians and US reaction for firing is faster. On the other side, russian aiming is a little slower and US smoke deployment is almost instant. That makes lasing at close range for the russians a very bad proposition but much less of a problem for the US side. You can battle russian tanks head-on with the Abrams and win regularly. You have to be much sneakier playing the russians. That's why getting close, surprise and flanking on the offensive and ambushes when  on the defensive are very important. All this is often spoiled by having the russian side lase all the time. 

7- I just want the game to be the most realistic possible while not underestimating any side. I agree with the designers on 75% of the stuff in game. They made decisions according to the info they had (much more available on the US side) and within the time constraints they had to abide to.  I do think that the Ukrainians tanks are awful at spotting and they should not be that bad in real life. I.ve seen WWII tanks spot better and faster under the same conditions in the WWII titles (Red Thunder)

 

Regards Sublime !

 

 

 

Edited September 21, 2015 by antaress73

[Sublime]

yeah agree on the Ukrainian tanks too. Interesting on the Kurganets and Griefel.  When is Kurganets slated to enter service then?  I apologize I thought you were Russian, what nationality are you then? Anyways regards bud

[antaress73]

yeah agree on the Ukrainian tanks too. Interesting on the Kurganets and Griefel.  When is Kurganets slated to enter service then?  I apologize I thought you were Russian, what nationality are you then? Anyways regards bud

For the Kurg, it is much less technogically challenging and less expensive and would solve a BIG problem for the russians. This is an assumption on my part. 

As for where I'm from... Well, let's just say french is my first language and I do not like the Boston Bruins much  

[Sublime]

haha too bad you dont most of our players are from your homeland anyways and everyone knows everyone who isnt a fan of Boston is going to hell

Edited September 21, 2015 by Sublime

[Sublime]

Btw I have to add Antaress that without a set introduction date I wouldnt advocate the Kurganets being included in game at all. In fact the T90AM isnt even in active service but BFC gave the Russians the benefit of the doubt.  A fact that seems lost on a lot of people with that piece of Russian kit.

Some of the other stuff  you mentioned is true, and yes the Russians at least seem (no one would really know unless there was a real war god forbid) to be better at jamming and other stuff than the US.  And yes EW settings can affect JDAMs, call in times, and precision artillery strikes.

The new ammo whilst would make a difference in that every shot would be an almost definite kill as you stated I dont think would be as much a game changer as you think.  A completely revolutionary new tank like the Armata or new set of spotting systems that are realistically somehow going to be in place in Russia in 18 months would help a T90 or tank equipped with the same gun and ammo way more against an Abrams,  because as you stated and from my personal experience I get frontal kills (though I almost always try for flank kills because frontal usually means you lost the surprise element and flank shots are guaranteed penetrations and probably kills) on abrams with T90s all the time.

Without evidence on the spotting we'll just have to disagree. Of course my green troops dont spot as well.  Of course at night the US has an advantage. But in daytime battles my Russian infantry spot just fine, with maybe  a minor advantage to US.  What also aids the US is better info sharing between units and if there are any AFVs the definitely superior thermals that negate the once powerful ambush advantage of being in heavy woods, which now are basically a death trap for Russian infantry if you're trying to ambush Bradleys or Abrams.  In fact trying to ambush Bradleys or Abrams without being seen only seems to have one surefire way to work without being spotted first - buildings.  Though in my opinion if you're down to relying on RPG7s or 26s in your infantry squads to fight Abrams and Brads (besides of course chance surprise encounters or opportunity situations) things are already really screwed up on your part.

Repent on your sacrilege of the holy Bruins name before its too late my friend! Death could strike at any time! Next you'll tell me you prefer the Yankees over the Sox...

Edited September 21, 2015 by Sublime