Kurtz Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 A scenario with just an (I)ED would be boring. Just as a CMx1 scenario with a single Panzerschreck team with only one round would be boring. Or a CMx1 scenario where you're only armed with a single anti-tank minefield. On the other hand, using command detonated devices in an ambush (as a component among others) would be interesting. I have no idea how it will be implemented, but imagine that you target a vehicle with your (I)ED and it is detonated when the designated vehicle (or other target) comes within the effective range of the device. Assuming the person who controls the device is alive and not suppressed, of course. Depending on the skill of the operator, the device might be triggered at the right moment, too early or too late. Just because it's a military action doesn't mean it'll be interesting in CM. Just as putting a 2000 lb LGB into an office building used by some obscure Syrian goverment agency will not be very interesting in CM terms, even if it is important in military terms. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REVS Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 No Mac OSX compatibility - not buying No PBEM - not buying No WWII - not buying That's just me. The only war I feel remotely good about is World War II. It was a just war. As far as I read 20th century history (and the early 21st), all the other wars since then have been fought for crappy, indefensible motives, and I don't have the slightest interest in treating these tragedies as a game. But that's just me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Originally posted by ozi_digger: Well I asked for a civil debate but niceties in personal interaction seem to evade you JDS. You are hardly entitled to demand civility from people when you display so little yourself. Phrases like: "If you got nothing from the book, well thats not my problem." Charmed, I'm sure. "If you'd rather use guestimation and fuzzy logic, then knock yerself out." Oh, right, you know that I prefer guesstimation, do you? "[sNIP blah and rant]" Blah and rant. Lovely. "I always get amused when 'army-ophiles' see something with air power content and write it off straight away." Yeah, I couldn't possibly have reached this conclusion after lokking at the book, could I? Originally posted by ozi_digger: When do you let off on the name calling to try and get a point across? Makes me think you're deliberately trying to be offensive. Rest assured, my delicate little flower, that when I start name-calling and deliberately trying to be offensive, you will be able to tell. I think I have so far treated you with rather more civilty than you deserve. Originally posted by ozi_digger: There is no "I disagree with your opinion because of [fact]" in your lexicon. Don't you think you are being just a teensy bit rude and arrogant in presuming to tell me what I think? Don't you think that ostentatiously ignoring the reasons I've posted for disagreeing with your opinion, trying to pretend I never posted them, is a pretty offensive way to behave? Can you see no rudeness in your failure to answer any of the questions I put to you? Originally posted by ozi_digger: Only allusions that I may have thin skin. To me it smacks of bait and flame.... Maybe I'm copping a whole load of sarcasm from you because I tried to defend my position? And you're not used to it? Used to steamrolling people with swagger and jive and they back down? I think this must be what the trickcyclists call "projection". I've given some of my reasons for disagreeing with your high opinion of the book. You have chosen to ignore these, pretend I never posted them, and descend to personalities instead of discussing the book's content -- and now it's somehow my fault. My problem is really that you seem so unwilling to defend your opinion of the book. It's now entirely unclear to me just what purpose you are recommending it for. Originally posted by ozi_digger: Who mentioned BDA or combat assessment? I think you need to look at the real reasons behind inaccurate BDA reports and I think you might find it has nothing to do with weapon accuracy. Sure, you can define "weapon accuracy" so that the delivery of extremely large amounts of explosive ordnance on things that were not their intended targets has nothing to do with "weapon accuracy". That, however, was not the point I was seeking to make; it was rather than the adoption of any particular technique by the USAF does not give any guaranty of its accuracy. This of course is a superfluous point, because... Originally posted by ozi_digger: Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the US Army uses Driels for weaponeering too. ...you were using an argument from authority. Adding additional authorities to an argument from authority doesn't do anything to strengthen it. Originally posted by ozi_digger: Where are the 'fly-boy' comments now, hmm? So the Army has fly-boys too! ^ | Right there. HTH. HAND. John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen Von Television Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Originally posted by REVS: No Mac OSX compatibility - not buying No PBEM - not buying No WWII - not buying [...snip...] I second that, and that, and that too!!! From my point of view, I can only subscribe to what had already been wrote by Zemke too... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felixgrey Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 I agree with Kurtz about the IEDs. I have seen on numerous occasions where IEDs were the trigger for a complex ambush. IEDs hitting the target in the kill zone, followed by small arms and RPG fire, then a break in contact. Just because it is an IED doesn't make it a political weapon, it's just a weapon that the enemy is comfortable using against a stronger force. IEDs allow for greater survivability as opposed to classic ambushes. An IED is just another means of delivering a planned attack on an enemy, like artillery. The person laying a command detonated IED is pulling the trigger as effectively as if he pulled a lanyard. Scott 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozi_digger Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 Originally posted by John D Salt: Rest assured, my delicate little flower,... So who's projecting now? Or are you coming on to me? Originally posted by John D Salt: ...that when I start name-calling and deliberately trying to be offensive, you will be able to tell. No thanks, I'm not here to see who can p1ss furthest up the wall. Originally posted by John D Salt: Don't you think that ostentatiously ignoring the reasons I've posted for disagreeing with your opinion, trying to pretend I never posted them, is a pretty offensive way to behave? Can you see no rudeness in your failure to answer any of the questions I put to you? Excuse me? Did you say something? Sorry, must have been ignoring you. Must apologise if I was responding to your "You are a/an...[insert insult here]" posts at the time. Originally posted by John D Salt: Sure, you can define "weapon accuracy" so that the delivery of extremely large amounts of explosive ordnance on things that were not their intended targets has nothing to do with "weapon accuracy". That's right. Op Allied Force was a celebration of weapon accuracy. Target intelligence, on the other hand, was faulty. Originally posted by John D Salt: That, however, was not the point I was seeking to make; it was rather than the adoption of any particular technique by the USAF does not give any guaranty of its accuracy. True, but more accurate than getting your information from Janes, or any number of websites these days that claim to have information that is simply not accurate... or attempting to create a model that is based an flawed logic. For example, Janes may tell you that the footprint for a given cluster munition is X by Y feet. They do not take into account delivery altitude, fuzing or whatver. In my opinion, I'd rather have a derived formula, rather than what I referred to earlier as guestimation or fuzzy logic. I can see how fuzzy logic worked for BFC with CMx1. However, when simulating modern technology, you may want a copy of the modern handbook that discusses some of these formulas. Take it or leave it. Originally posted by John D Salt: Adding additional authorities to an argument from authority doesn't do anything to strengthen it. I don't entirely agree, especially given the nay-sayers - some 'army-ophiles' dismiss anything that is perceived to be written from an air power perspective. Driels has not written his book solely for the air force masters program. The models offered for AFV compartment damage, artillery, and small arms fire versus infantry may have some imperfections. BUT those imperfections are recognisable. That is, you don't read it, say to yourself 'oh this saved me from writing the code' and adopt it. Its a reference - how the Army weaponeers do it - ok, thats given me ideas - this is how I'm going to do it. Originally posted by John D Salt: So the Army has fly-boys too! ^ | Right there. HTH. HAND.I think I can see the humour in that. But I honestly don't understand the acronyms. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwazydog Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 Ozi/John...I think its time to put this one to bed before someone pokes an eye out Dan 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.