AlphaOneSix

MANPADS would not have helped the Iraqis much in that case since nearly all of the engagements (at least initially) were at night, and the Iraqis had an incredible lack of night vision devices. They had quite a bit of AAA in the form of ZU-23s ans ZPUs, but as these are visual weapons, the whole night thing made them useless. There were a couple of ZSU-23-4s here and there, but they were by and large destroyed by weapon systems that outranged them. Iraq also had a fairly decent Integrated Air Defense System, but this was one of the highest priorities for most of the early missions (including the very first one of the "air war" by Apaches against several radar sites that opened the way for the first F-117 strikes). Gunships (i.e. AH-64) in SB can be an incredible killer, it just depends on the environment and whether they are properly utilized. Hint: If your AH-64 is within 4-5km of the enemy, it's too close, unless it's infantry with only light weapons, then you should be fine closing to around 1.5-2km.

I'll CO Blue.

Yes, but not a good one! (I guess it depends on your perspective)

I was going to say how much I enjoyed this mission, but now that I know how much of a complete sham it really was, I must say that I am terribly upset at having wasted my time with it!

The example of BMS seems to be solely a comment on weather. Real-time weather is not very valuable except as a single-player gimmick, in my opinion. It can be entertaining and interesting, but doesn't really have a place in planned missions. In other words, I think it's better for the mission designer to dictate the weather for the mission in the way that suits the mission designer's aims the best. Also, while the weather may not be as "pretty" as BMS, the effects of that weather are there for the most part (which really just boils down to affects on visibility). While some people don't see the weather as just eye candy, unless the actual affects of that weather have an impact on the mission, then that's all it is. Again, I'm referring to affects on visibility and ground conditions (SB already implements visibility reductions, and no combat sim that I know of has weather that affects ground conditions very well, although SB does do some things like reducing dust). DCS was mentioned as an example of great ground graphics, but again, they really aren't that great. What I mean is that there are lots of things about DCS terrain that is really pretty, but the two biggest problems are trees (absolute show stopper for ground units) and the poor terrain resolution (here I am referring to the lack of undulating terrain in DCS, it is generally either too flat or too steep with regards to ground units). This is another example (at least as it pertains to ground units) of graphics that do look good but simply do not have any practical use other than looking nice. It seems like one of your major points is that better graphics equals greater immersion which then results in "realistic psychological pressure" and I'm not sure that's really the case. Also, it must be noted that the terrain is BMS and DCS is either not able to be modified, or takes a great deal of effort, unlike SB, where it is very simple for a mission designer to modify terrain to suit their training objectives. I do think it bears repeating who the target audiences are for DCS/BMS/Il-2 vs. SB. Even the Personal Edition of Steel Beasts is not intended as an entertainment product or even as a study simulation. It's a training product. The only good example is your example using Il-2, but I don't know anything about Il-2 so cannot comment on it.

I think this is the whole point. Your usage of Falcon BMS as an example was purely to show realistic weather effects.

I think his point is that they battle it out WWI-style, where units just mash into each other with no real tactical thought at all.

DCS terrain is really horrible for ground combat right now. The terrain resolution is nowhere near good enough for any kind of decent ground-to-ground combat. It doesn't help that trees not only have no collision model, but they also are invisible to AI. BMS is also really bad in that the majority of ground detail is part of the texture, and isn't a 3D object. Sure there are lots of 3D objects, but so much of the terrain is just a flat picture. It looks great from the air, but worthless for a ground simulation. IL2 I don't know much about, so I'll give you that one.

Here is where I set the bar: Moon phases!

Oh man, I cannot WAIT to see this video! For the record, my platoon (Charlie 2) lost three tanks this mission (two destroyed, one mobility kill (engine)). All frats.

Better yet, "Fly Emirates"

This thread has officially jumped the shark.

U.S. Army has been testing this for a while now on helicopters...

Will do.

Tracking.

I did, thanks.

From my understanding, it is not possible to dismount troops or divide units during the planning phase of the mission. It would either need to be done in the mission editor prior to the mission being loaded, or manually by the players after the action phase begins. My hope was that since there has been time to prepare bunkers and vehicle emplacements, there would also be time for the infantry units to be distributed during the planning phase instead of having them inside their PCs at mission start. The only platoon I'd personally like to see split into individual vehicles prior to mission start are the vehicles in the AARMD platoon (in addition to having their MILAN teams start the mission dismounted).

PM sent

I have built a plan for the entire battlegroup. I don't think it was influenced much, if at all, by Tac's plan. It's probably a horrible plan, but as a wise E-8 once told me, "a plan is just something to deviate from." Should I screenshot it and post it here? Or I suppose MD, Tac, and I could meet on TS whenever convenient. Only a couple of immediate questions come to mind: 1: What are the compositions of the infantry in the back of I29, I29A, I39, and I39A? I'm assuming they are same as platoon commander vehicles, but I don't like assuming. 2: Is it possible to have infantry dismounted prior to mission start so that they can be placed more accurately without having to dismount and move them at mission start? 3: Is it possible to break up platoons (specifically, the AARMD platoon) into individual vehicles prior to mission start? This would be in order to facilitate their placement over a large area. I may end up talking myself into being BG commander for this one.

I'm currently UTC+4:30, I'm typically available from around 1900Z to 2200Z.

Yes sounds good

The AH-1Q started getting fielded in 1975, and that last one was phased out sometime in 1979. I don't know exactly dates for Europe-based Q-models, but it would probably line up with these dates. It's also quite likely that some Cobra units in Europe went straight from the AH-1G to the AH-1S (MOD) and skipped the P variant altogether.

I would like to volunteer to be a tank company commander for all three missions (e.g. KpChef/3./203 or KpChef/4./203 in mission 1). I do have a caveat, unfortunately, in that I won't know for sure that I will be able to attend until about a week prior to the event. I fully expect that I will be able to attend, of course. With that in mind, if it would be best for me to leave CO slots open for other volunteers, that's perfectly fine with me, I'm willing to fill in for any tank as necessary. I can go into further detail regarding my situation via private message, if you'd like. Oh, and I'm "Cupcake" online and on TS, so probably best to use that for the manning list because, as the name implies, I'm sweet and everyone wants me.

There are several types of trainers. All are inert, but some have no seeker at all and are just used for show/realistic weights, while others have real laser or radar seekers in them for training. We don't really know which was shipped, and I don't think the one is the picture is the same one, the picture is probably what the reporting person got when they googled images of "hellfire training missile".

Funny you mention this, I'm in the same boat. Unfortunately, I don't think I ever registered my dongle. I've resigned myself to buying a new one, but since I'm away from my home country, I'm currently using the month-to-month license.