Visual Bone

[Sheppy]

is this game out before school starts again?

[Michael Emrys]

Hang around and find out.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

Elmar,

How much of what you name is in service with frontline units?

Exactly right. Just looking at what pieces of equipment are theoretically available to a particular force TODAY doesn't mean much. We only look at what was available around 2007/2008 and would be correct for a frontline environment. This is why the US forces don't have M4A2, M4A3, M16A3, GAU-17, Spectre gun ships, M113, etc. Even though we sorta broke the rules by putting in Abrams TUSK we didn't put in the full theoretical package, but the actual compromise package that has been delivered.

We also haven't always made correct predictions, such as the Marines M-32 being standard equipment. But now that we are 2 years out from the game's timeframe we don't have to make such guesses. SPIKE, for example, was not in service and therefore shouldn't be in the NATO Module.

Now, having said that, clearly a few things that should be on the list were missed. MILAN and Tornado are the obvious ones. We'll get that fixed.

Steve

[c3k]

I remember the Nato page listing a "CF-118" as an aircraft type. I believe that is about 100 too many; it is the Canadian version of the F-18, hence "CF-18".

Thanks,

Ken

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Both CF-188 and CF-18 seem to be correct. Curiously, CF-118 seems to be in wide usage also, though I can't find out why this is. Might very well be erroneous.

[c3k]

A bit of googling led to the following snippets, all from Wikipedia. Take it for what it's worth. I did a bit of cutting and pasting to focus on the pertinent parts.

The McDonnell Douglas CF-18 Hornet (official military designation CF-188) is a Canadian Forces aircraft, based on the American F/A-18 Hornet fighter.

In 1980, the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet was declared the winner of the New Fighter Aircraft competition. The order included 98 single-seat variants and 40 dual-seat variants, for a total of 138 purchased, plus 20 options (which were not exercised). The F/A-18 Hornet was then dubbed the CF-188 (the name Hornet is not used because the translation in French is Frelon, which is already used by a French military helicopter). However, in every context except the most official of military documents, the planes are referred to as CF-18 Hornets.[citation needed] Reasons for the selection listed by the Canadian Forces were many of its requested features were included for the U.S. Navy; two engines for reliability (considered essential for conducting Arctic sovereignty and over-the-water patrols), an excellent radar set, while being considerably more affordable than the F-14 and the F-15.

Variants

CF-18A: Single-seat fighter and ground attack aircraft. Canadian Forces designation CF-188A.

CF-18B: Two-seat training version. Canadian Forces designation CF-188B.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CF-18_Hornet

I will quote this part, again, for emphasis: "However, in every context except the most official of military documents, the planes are referred to as CF-18 Hornets." (There is no citation.)

It has been years since I was assigned with a Canadian exchange pilot, so this is ancient memory, but I have NEVER heard anyone in the USAF (for what it's worth) refer to them as anything but CF-18's. Apparently the official nomenclature is different. You learn something every day...

Now it's time to find some flying Canucks and hear what the pilots in the squadrons call them. I'll lay a fiver it's NOT CF-188.

Thanks,

Ken

[Sgt Joch]

since they were ordered in the late 70s, I have always seen them referred to as CF-18.

[Jonny(FGM)]

This is why the US forces don't have M4A2, M4A3, M16A3, GAU-17, Spectre gun ships, M113, etc. .

Ok I know I know virtually nothing about the modern american military but havn't Spectre gunships been around for donkeys years and still in service?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Thqt's kinda the point being made. Yes, they do have them and they are being used but not in any role resembling conventional warfare.

AC-130s do not fly near defended airspace if they can possibly help it. They are too vulnerable. That it would get involved in frontline fighting is exceedingly unlikely. While it's a cool plane, it's pretty exotic and not all that likely to be used in the environments modelled in CMSF.

[Jonny(FGM)]

Yeah I wasn't specifically asking for it in the game, I'm quite satisfied with the CAS already provided. I must have just got confused with what steve was saying

[Michael Emrys]

Thqt's kinda the point being made. Yes, they do have them and they are being used but not in any role resembling conventional warfare.

AC-130s do not fly near defended airspace if they can possibly help it. They are too vulnerable. That it would get involved in frontline fighting is exceedingly unlikely. While it's a cool plane, it's pretty exotic and not all that likely to be used in the environments modelled in CMSF.

Weeeeellllllll.... You're right about them being vulnerable. But they have been used over forces that were capable of shooting back. They were used extensively in Viet Nam and Laos, but not to my knowledge over North Viet Nam. They have been used in Iraq (one was lost to enemy fire during the 1991 war) and—I think—Afghanistan. I think Iraq was the only theater where the enemy retained any kind of air to air capability. So the Air Force has been prudent about how much danger to expose them to.

Michael

[Jonny(FGM)]

Wasn't the entire iraqi air force destroyed before any troops went over the border?

Again this may be my dismal knowledge

[Michael Emrys]

Wasn't the entire iraqi air force destroyed before any troops went over the border?

Not exactly, although it was quickly reduced to ineffectiveness. Most of the planes that were not destroyed in the fighting sought sanctuary in Iran. They never returned. A few others were actually buried in sand with the intent that they might be brought out after the war and restored to use. I don't know if any of those ever flew again.

Michael

[Dietrich]

While the AC-130 itself is unavailable (and for valid reasons), its tactical capability can to a limited extent be simulated in CMSF with a US M119 105mm section in fire missions using one howitzer at a time (especially with Heavy/Quick/Armor settings).

This may well sound fanciful to those who are more knowledgeable than I, but I've been mulling over the concept of a nighttime Rangers/SF scenario in which a short but sharp (pre-planned) barrage from the 105mm cannon of an "AC-130" demolishes the motor pool (seven or eight pickups and technicals) at the edge of an uncon compound before the Blue infantry rush in.

Of course, one could call for one-howitzer fire missions throughout a scenario (though such simulating of an AC-130 would only "fit" in nighttime scenarios), but AFAIK the AC-130 is much more responsive than any indirect artillery asset in terms of being able to bring down fire accurately and promptly.

[Battlefront.com]

The point of the AC-130 is to do very, very specialized missions. They do not provide conventional ground air support for the sort of environment CM simulates. There are only a few of them in a theater at a given time, so just by virtue of how few there are the rarity of one showing up to help out is extremely tiny.

BTW, the one that was shot down in the 1st Gulf War modified how they were used so that more wouldn't be lost. At least that's how I understand it.

Again, CM never has and never will ever attempt to simulate everything that has ever been employed, could be employed, or may in the future be employed. It tries to cover the widest possible spectrum of conventional warfare only. Outlier weapons, units, tactics, etc. are just simply not worth investing the time into because there is always more to do with the nuts and bolts of battle. Distracting our focus from the common to the exotic would be a massive mistake.

I could probably name a dozen US weapons systems and vehicles we don't simulate, so to think that we're going to have everything the German, Dutch, or Canadian Armies have on their roster is setting oneself up for unnecessary disappointment. That being said, as stated above we definitely left a few things off the equipment list that will be in the shipping version. I can say that for sure because two of those omitted, that I can think of, are actually in the game already

Steve

[Pvt. Ryan]

But CM Normandy will have Calliopes, right?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I never quite got the point of the Sherman Calliope. Thus I feel the same about their inclusion.

[Pvt. Ryan]

What's not to get about rockets? They are awesome. The game will be fundamentally flawed without the Sherman Calliope.

[c3k]

The AC-130 lost in GW was lost due to ground fire. The plane's aircraft commander made the decision to stay on station, against SOP, in order to continue to provide much needed support to the user. They stayed past sunrise. So, the loss did not result in a "change" in how they were used, but an increased emphasis on the SOP's.

[Michael Emrys]

But CM Normandy will have Calliopes, right?

Have you heard of them being present in Normandy? I haven't. In fact, I am having difficulty recalling them in combat before the end of the year.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

I never quite got the point of the Sherman Calliope. Thus I feel the same about their inclusion.

The idea was to saturate a small area with HE over a very short period of time. It was a relatively cheap way to do it. ISTR the results were somewhat ambiguous, which is probably why that particular practice was not more widely seen after the war.

Michael

[Elmar Bijlsma]

But why mount them on a tank? The tank certainly isn't better for it. Quite the opposite. I don't see what it adds.

That is a calliope+vehicle I can approve of.

[hcrof]

Not knowing anything at all about WW2 calliopes, I ask have you seen this?

The TOS-1 is a MLRS mounted on a tank that fires incendiary warheads. The reason it is on a tank is because the rockets are short ranged, most of the rocket is warhead. The tank armour allows it to get that bit closer to the target.

[TheVulture]

Have you heard of them being present in Normandy? I haven't. In fact, I am having difficulty recalling them in combat before the end of the year.

Michael

For use in France, I've only found an unsubstantiated quote on Wkipedia:

"It was developed in 1943, small numbers were produced and were used by the 2nd Armored Division in France in August 1944."

http://www.752ndtank.com/RocketTanks.html has some fairly detailed info on dates of outfitting, training etc. but is talking about the 752nd tank battalion in Italy, and includes the following quote:

"It is assumed that the 7.2 inch T40 rocket launchers were generally considered unsatisfactory, because by 24 October 1944 the 752nd began receiving information about the T34 4.5 inch 60-tube rocket launcher, which had already been in use in France and Germany. The T34 “Calliope” had several advantages over the T40, including a greatly improved range, lighter weight, and better access to turret hatches. A test firing of a tank-mounted 4.5 inch rocket launcher was conducted on 17-18 December 1944 near Viareggio, Italy (See photo of this rocket tank below). "

If by October they are getting AARs on the use of the calliope in France, then it would have been in August or September.

The base Normandy game is slated to go up to "sometime in August", with modules possibly extending it to the end of September IIRC, so it sounds like the Calliope could conceivably be in the timeframe of one of the modules at least, but pretty tangential to the base game.

[c3k]

What kind of results would occur from hitting a fully loaded 60-tube launcher with, say, a 75mm HE round? I'm thinking a combination of 4th of July and rock concert level fog machine...with a bit of conflagration thrown in for good measure.

As for the German vehicle pictured above, that seems to be a captured 60-tube T34 4.5 inch launcher field modded onto the halftrack. Ammo supply would be difficult. Also, what if the enemy ISN'T to the right side of the vehicle?

Ken