Battlefront.com Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Cpl Steiner, Interesting to see one of the Marines using a captured AK. Probably just for the camera, but it would be nice if CM:SF had the option of including a few captured weapons.Not likely for the same reasons given for CMx1. And that is, by and large using the enemy's weapons is a bad idea. In fact, I just read an account of a soldier in Ramadi (I think it was there) that got cut off and holed up in an Iraqi house along with some other soldiers. This one soldier decided to use an AK-47 that the homeowner had on hand. The result of firing that gun out the window was a whithering amount of incoming fire from other US units. The rest of the guy's units screamed at him to not do that again, and he didn't Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Cpl Steiner, </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Interesting to see one of the Marines using a captured AK. Probably just for the camera, but it would be nice if CM:SF had the option of including a few captured weapons.Not likely for the same reasons given for CMx1. And that is, by and large using the enemy's weapons is a bad idea. In fact, I just read an account of a soldier in Ramadi (I think it was there) that got cut off and holed up in an Iraqi house along with some other soldiers. This one soldier decided to use an AK-47 that the homeowner had on hand. The result of firing that gun out the window was a whithering amount of incoming fire from other US units. The rest of the guy's units screamed at him to not do that again, and he didn't Steve </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 To keep things simple for the next time that Iraq has to be invaded. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 AKD, good point! In this case there were no Iraqi Defense Forces in the area, so nobody was expecting the Kalashnikov Inquisition Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Steve, SOG/LRRPs/SEALs used to make routine use of AK-47s in Vietnam and vicinity, for the very good reason that the sound of their firing wouldn't be automatic cause for alarm, whereas M-16 fire, deep in the VC/NVA/Pathet Lao rear, would've been. As you note, though, use within earshot of standard equipped friendlies can lead to dire repercussions. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
civdiv Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Unfortunately I did not run across Maj Baker. My team and I spent most of our time during my second tour in Iraq with 1-32 IN, a battalion of the 10th Mtn that was attached to RCT-1 of 1stMarDiv, and then with BLT 1/2, 24th MEU. We operated in the North Babil area and the west and southwest side of Fallujah during the first Fallujah push. My tour was from March 04-Sept 04. [/QB]So you probably met LtCol Nussberger then? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Remember, there is a difference between using captured enemy weapons in a general combat situation and that of specialized circumstances. For example, special forces ops or when doing a cordon and search. I remember an example from WWII that good old Simon Fox liked to trot out that involved a behind the lines action that resulted in a British platoon using a dozen MG42 for defensive fire. I think we can safely say that such things are exceptions and we shoudl be very careful about supporting them lest they become common place. Having said that, in CMx2 it is possible to support such things. BTW, I'm giving civdiv an award for most amount of time not posting and still remembering his login info! I tip my "cover" to you Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluefish Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: But with CM:SF, we are expecting most people to play as the attacking force.Does that give us new hope for a US Marines mod, circa 1945? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FAI Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Cpl Steiner, </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Interesting to see one of the Marines using a captured AK. Probably just for the camera, but it would be nice if CM:SF had the option of including a few captured weapons.Not likely for the same reasons given for CMx1. And that is, by and large using the enemy's weapons is a bad idea. In fact, I just read an account of a soldier in Ramadi (I think it was there) that got cut off and holed up in an Iraqi house along with some other soldiers. This one soldier decided to use an AK-47 that the homeowner had on hand. The result of firing that gun out the window was a whithering amount of incoming fire from other US units. The rest of the guy's units screamed at him to not do that again, and he didn't Steve </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
civdiv Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 BTW, I'm giving civdiv an award for most amount of time not posting and still remembering his login info! I tip my "cover" to you Steve I keep an encrypted list of all of my passwords on a jump drive, plus a back-up on a CD-RW. So, because of my organization I win a free copy of CM-Operations, right? So, by using 'cover' I assume you are either a former Marine, or you hung around with them. If you were any other service you'ld call it a hat. P.S. What do they call pockets in the Army? Hand-warmers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 FAI, In theory we can easily allow equipment and what not to be used by either side. This is a side perk to the design that allows for Blue on Blue (or Red on Red, of course) type matchups. CMx1 was not set up to handle anything like this so it was a royal pain in the butt to add captured stuff for one side or the other. Now, just because we CAN do something doesn't mean we will. We are not planning on allowing Syrians to be driving around in "captured" Abrams, for example. The chances of this happening even once are so microscopically small that it isn't even worth thinking about. civdiv, Well done! Yeah, we'll send you a copy of CM-Operation Organizer as soon as we find where we put it No, I am not a Marine, but I play one on TV Seriously though, I am in contact with enough Marines to know some of the lingo. Being a uniform collector also means I know a thing or three about such things. Or at least I should! Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FAI Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: FAI, In theory we can easily allow equipment and what not to be used by either side. This is a side perk to the design that allows for Blue on Blue (or Red on Red, of course) type matchups. CMx1 was not set up to handle anything like this so it was a royal pain in the butt to add captured stuff for one side or the other. Now, just because we CAN do something doesn't mean we will. We are not planning on allowing Syrians to be driving around in "captured" Abrams, for example. The chances of this happening even once are so microscopically small that it isn't even worth thinking about. Steve Bad example, I know But, still, I'd like to know the limitation, if it's already established. I'm guessing scavenging from friendly forces is a given, but what about from enemy equipment, like small arms? Perhaps a la Close Combat? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Like many other areas, I think it should be done outwith player control, ie after a firefight one of your squads one of the guys might suddenly be shown to have e an AK, and sure enogh if you look close at the squad that's what you'll see. But that is not the same as "players" having an option to "rearm" with enemy weapons. In principle I have no objection to a US team manning a D-30 and turning it on the Syrians, but I think it's pretty unlikely, given they'd have no training on it. Re-manning in between scenarios, like an operation might be Okay, but otherwise it should be AI not player driven. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Originally posted by civdiv: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> BTW, I'm giving civdiv an award for most amount of time not posting and still remembering his login info! I tip my "cover" to you Steve I keep an encrypted list of all of my passwords on a jump drive, plus a back-up on a CD-RW. So, because of my organization I win a free copy of CM-Operations, right? So, by using 'cover' I assume you are either a former Marine, or you hung around with them. If you were any other service you'ld call it a hat. P.S. What do they call pockets in the Army? Hand-warmers. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Oh great... drag another branch of service into this why doncha! In defense of the Airforce... "Mankind has a perfect record in aviation; we never left one up there!" And I thought this one was pretty funny too: "Flashlights are tubular metal containers kept in a flight bag for the purpose of storing dead batteries." Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 I once talked to an RAF pilot who flew Shakeltons and they used to say that "After the first few flights they thought it was only held together by the collective willpower of the crew, but after six months they thought it was held together despite the collectve willpower of the crew". Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
civdiv Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Hey! That's an Air Force thing. Getting caught with your hands in your pockets is worth alot of push-ups. Yeah, but the AirFarce does their pushups via correspondence course. As my old regimental commander used to say; 'I don't have a problem with pilots getting flight pay. It's their basic pay I have a problem with.' Oh, BF.com, I meant CM: Campaigns. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperial Grunt Posted January 27, 2006 Author Share Posted January 27, 2006 Here come the machines...and the future war of mankind against them. killer robot 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperial Grunt Posted February 3, 2006 Author Share Posted February 3, 2006 Here is some interesting info about the future of the US military: Quadrennial Review Allows DoD to Make 'Vector Changes' By Jim Garamone American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON, Feb. 3, 2006 – The Quadrennial Defense Review is a chance for the Defense Department to make "vector changes" on the transformation of the American military, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said during a recent interview. Navy Adm. Edmund Giambastiani said the QDR allows the department to assess the path it is on and move the emphasis from certain areas and place it on other more important areas. "For example, we're worried about disruptive challenges out there," Giambastiani said. "Some would call them asymmetric threats. We have to understand today's environment, and see these irregular challenges. We are trying to shape the department to be more flexible, adaptive and to think about and position ourselves to deal with these threats in the future. It's a stock-taking." The admiral said it is important to understand the review in terms of the transforming process the military is going through. He said that since 2001 DoD has been transforming to meet the threats of the 21st century. "We have tried to embed a culture of constant change, constant innovation (in the military)," he said. While the review has always been a chance for the department to take stock, this year the review comes out in conjunction with the president's 2007 defense budget request. At the heart of the review is what Army Gen. John Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command, has called "the long war." This is the long struggle against terrorist networks. These networks "have no compunction about killing civilians, no compunction against causing collateral damage, because they see this as part of their extremist ideology," Giambastiani said. "How this QDR fits into this is that it recognizes this long-term struggle against these terrorist extremists." The QDR is aimed at emphasizing agility, flexibility, speed, responsiveness and pre-emption, the admiral said. "So what you would emphasize is special operations forces against such a threat." The review recommends substantially increasing special operations capabilities. "We're increasing capability in people, expertise, skill sets and also getting more equipment," Giambastiani said. In addition, the review calls for a force with better language capabilities, better intelligence-gathering capabilities, better human intelligence "and all those things needed to pursue a long campaign not operating against state entities, but terrorist networks." The Marine Corps has added 2,600 Marines to U.S. Special Operations Command. The Army is increasing its number of units assigned to SOCOM and is adding to the number of Special Forces units. The Navy is adding SEAL teams, and the Air Force is adding squadrons to the command as well. But conventional forces operational arms also will grow, Giambastiani said. This means conventional forces will shift people from combat service and combat service support jobs into combat jobs, the admiral explained. The services will do this inside their end-strength constraints - in other words, without adding to their authorized overall manning levels. The admiral said shifting emphasis "from artillery units to military police, civil affairs, engineers - those who can be helpful in this long war, the more irregular war." The conventional forces also will perform more special operations jobs, the admiral said. Conventional forces will train foreign militaries, as the Marines have done in the country of Georgia, for example. "In the long war, it's important to assist in creating police forces and armed forces like in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia and Kosovo," he said. The QDR looks not only at forces, but also at the business side of the Pentagon, Giambastiani said, and includes recommendations about defense acquisition process. "This looks at how can we produce the best for the least taxpayer dollars - or how do we get the biggest bang for the bucks," the admiral said. The review also stresses the way the services work together, the communications and intelligence networks that allow the services to be more joint and also looks at what America's allies bring to the long war, Giambastiani said. The admiral said the department is "not going to be shy about asking for or recommending changes to Congress. They have been receptive in the past." The themes of the review are uncertainty and surprise, Giambastiani said. "It's impossible for any of us to see the future; we can only speculate or use informed judgments about what is ahead of us," he said. "In an era of uncertainty and surprise, where we have these very devastating weapons that could be used anywhere in the world including the United States, you have to have an ability to defend the homeland." The review looked at the supporting role the department plays in homeland defense. "We created U.S. Northern Command for homeland defense," he said. The command showed its usefulness in DoD's response to hurricanes Katrina and Rita, he noted. The review also looked at the training and equipping of the National Guard and Reserve in support of the homeland defense mission. "The ability to have them properly trained and equipped to respond to such emergencies is a key component in making sure we are a more capable force inside the United States," Giambastiani said. "That is a major theme inside the Quadrennial Defense Review." And there is much more in the Quadrennial Defense Review, the admiral said. But the bottom line is that the review is a tool for building "a more useful, more capable military," he said. Biography: Adm. Edmund P. Giambastiani, USN 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperial Grunt Posted February 3, 2006 Author Share Posted February 3, 2006 Here are some pics of some American warriors with their Iraqi Army brothers-in-arms: US Army soldier US Marines US Army Strykers on patrol US Marines US Army soldiers (101st Airborne) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
civdiv Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Originally posted by LtCol West: Here are some pics of some American warriors with their Iraqi Army brothers-in-arms: US Army soldier US Marines US Army Strykers on patrol US Marines US Army soldiers (101st Airborne) Did you take any of these? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperial Grunt Posted February 4, 2006 Author Share Posted February 4, 2006 The 101st pic didnt work. This should work: 101st in Iraq 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperial Grunt Posted February 4, 2006 Author Share Posted February 4, 2006 Originally posted by civdiv: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LtCol West: Here are some pics of some American warriors with their Iraqi Army brothers-in-arms: US Army soldier US Marines US Army Strykers on patrol US Marines US Army soldiers (101st Airborne) Did you take any of these? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
civdiv Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Originally posted by LtCol West: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by civdiv: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LtCol West: Here are some pics of some American warriors with their Iraqi Army brothers-in-arms: US Army soldier US Marines US Army Strykers on patrol US Marines US Army soldiers (101st Airborne) Did you take any of these? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott B Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Love the hula girl on the Stryker. Scott 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.