Maj.Hans

Perhaps, if the towed AT gun issue can be worked out, it would be better still if the SB team allowed a second development team to make a complete WW2 tank sim based on the Pro PE engine?

Crew of the 2nd tank:

You know I knew a guy who used to crew Bradleys, and he bought a copy of Pro PE. He commented about the A3 once saying that there was just "too much crap" inside getting in the way and he'd rather take the A2. Then again IIRC he was an old-school kinda guy, TC'd an A2 in ODS I think

Sounds like one hell of a dutch oven...

HAH! Well I guess Infantry life is not only hard but gross as well.

Slips? I assume you mean something else, because, that's ladies underwear where I live! I always thought that the idea was to make sure that everyone had enough to get the job done, so to speak. If they bring extra ammo to the fight, that's a bonus for you. But if you say at some point "I want them to be able to hold out for at least 3 days without resupply", and you know that they will fire an average of 30 rounds per day with a bolt action rifle, then everybody with a bolt action rifle had better be carrying at least 90 rounds...

Could have been. Might have been a carry over from the MP38/MP40 where someone decided 7 magazines was the magic number for whatever reason. Curiously, there seems to have been, more often than not, some kind of standard on paper, and then what the grunts actually carried, and a HUGE difference between the two. For example the "basic load" for your average rifleman in Vietnam was supposed to be 9 20 round magazines for his M16 and 4 frag grenades...But I've seen photos of guys with three or even four magazine pouches jammed on their belt, or a bandolier of 7 extra loaded magazines slung over his shoulders, etc. If you ask the question "how much ammo did a Russian WW2 soldier carry", you need to first ask the question, "Did he get a rifle, or did he follow the man with the rifle and wait for him to get shot?"...

Uh... Stupid question but did somebody decide to stop doing NATO woodland camo or something? I remember an article about the tanks in Europe getting "New" green paint, and that it was temporary paint... I always thought that the vehicles came from the factory/refurb line painted in OD green or desert tan for desert or temperate environments and that the green was just a base for the three color NATO camo?

I'm guessing some of the recent uses of what are meant as anti-tank weapons against non-tank targets has simply been the lack of tanks to shoot. If you're fighting against an insurgent force that simply does not have armored vehicles, I imagine it could be tempting to fire an AT weapon at them for various reasons. Be it the morale effect of doing so, the physical effect of doing so, or simply having an excuse to get rid of it so you don't have to carry it.

OK that makes some sense, to carry a set of loaded magazines and enough ammo to refill them. So they don't have quite as many "ready" rounds as I would expect, but the total ammo load is still decent. (As a historical note, in 1943-45 a German soldier with an MP43/44/StG-44 would have carried 210 round loaded and ready to fire, plus more in boxes. But perhaps the extra ready ammo was a product of fighting against instead of with the Red Horde?)

Working on an East vs. West scenario, and it's come up today that East German infantry may have carried drastically less ammunition for their AKs than I'm thinking. So the question is, how much ammo was your average East German rifleman supposed to carry? At first I had thought it would have been similar to the US standard (7x30 = 210 rounds) but now I'm hearing it may have only been 4 magazines of 30, plus a few stripper clips that you would probably NOT be wanting to play with in the middle of a firefight. Meaning that in firefights between an East German and US unit, the NVA troops would be running out of ammo pretty darn quick instead of a long exchange the way it happens when I max out the ammo for both sides...

Hoping that in the future, we can get some combined disembark/join in formation options. I already know how to get the vehicles to arrive at a waypoint, drop their troops, defend the waypoint, and have the troops spread out and converge on an objective. That's great. What would be better still are the options to get infantry to dismount and then move together with the APCs as a cohesive unit... For example... "Dismount Defensive if..." - Used to allow APCs/IFVs to react to an attack while moving along a route. Troops dismount, find cover within 100 meters of the vehicle they dismounted from, set up crew served, anti-tank, and mortar weapons, and get in the prone, and open fire. Any mortar team that is part of this action will, autonomously, without human orders, fire it's mortar at targets that it has a direct line of sight to. The vehicles will move no further than 200 meters away from their infantry squad. When the condition (for example "Unit this is under direct fire") is no longer true, the infantry re mount and the vehicles continue on route. "Dismount Scout" Route - Creates a "Scout" tactics route. RIFLE teams dismount, and move to a position about 500 meters ahead of their vehicles. All other infantry teams remain mounted. If the retreat condition is met, the infantry pop smoke, run back to their PC, mount, and the unit retreats. "Dismount Engage" Route - Creates an "Engage" tactics route. Rifle and support teams (but not mortars) dismount, and move ahead of their PCs along the same route. Support teams set up and engage when they ID a target. Any mortar teams dismount, but stay at the way point where the route was created. They fire, autonomously, without player orders, at targets identified by the members of their platoon only. "Dismount Assault" Route - Creates an "Assault" tactics route. As above, but only the rifle teams and LMG teams dismount. Teams with weapons that need to be set up (HMG, AGL, ATGM, etc) remain on board their PC and only dismount when they locate a target to engage.

I like that setup better than the CROWS setup. IMHO the CROWS setup was slapped on when we were fighting in an urban environment against dismounts, which was fine, but it's NOT what I'd want advertising my location in a tank-on-tank fight...

Hm, can I list more than 3? Lots of my favorites are cold war era vehicles... The M1's are all similar, but I think the IPM1 is a particular favorite of mine. With modern APFSDS ammo (M833, M900) it's got an effective gun, and the armor doesn't make you invincible but it seems to take a good beating. The Leopard2A4 is probably a second favorite, specifically because it is NOT the cutting edge hypermodern tank that other are. It's what I think of when I picture late 80's W.German armor, late cold war scenarios, etc. It's all business and it's good at it... Third place is a tie between the Leopard2A4 (AS1 repainted and waiting for all eternity for ssnake to incorporate a passive IR night vision mode...) and the M60A3 TTS, since they're really the underdog tanks of a 1980s scenario.

I want to know why they went with CROWS again instead of something like the SCWS? The SCWS seems like the perfect solution to me...

Relevant to my interests, as I know I have at least one "IFV Centric" scenario where the M2's are stated in the briefing to be loaded "AP Heavy"

On the subject of Hyper-threading, I've only ever had a single processor that did it. I had an old Pre-HT PC for pretty much forever, one HT PC, and then my modern multicore. I had some odd experiences with Hyperthreading, where as the PC began to show it's age, turning it off seemed to get better performance than leaving it on. No idea why.

"Schadenfreudegerät" Not really tho lol

I know, my point exactly! In fact, I said exactly this, read it again! Now that everyone has nukes, the question is how much can you get away with? IMHO the only way to win the game of Global Thermonuclear War is to simply not play it. You might use just one, but when the other side responds with theirs, even if it's just one to even things back out, or only two so that they get a leg back up on you, are you going to sit there and accept that? Or will you answer them back with more nukes? When does it stop?

The way I'm looking at it is that it might be one thing for someone to throw some chemical weapons around, but it's another to whip out the nukes. We've used chemical weapons before. Used them quite widely in WW1, various dictators world wide have used them against various enemies including their own people, and I recall reading that some chemical weapons were actually used on a small scale in isolated incidents throughout WW2. I can see some commander, American, Russian, British, whatever, deciding that since WW3 has just kicked off, he too can get away with slimeing someone with some chemicals. Nuclear weapons were used twice, and only twice, against the last remaining enemy in a long and bloody world war, an enemy who was seen as being fanatical, suicidal, and quite alien in language and culture to the main belligerents among the allies. And that was also a time when nobody else HAD nuclear weapons to respond with. I'm not sure if they would or would not be used. I do know that I would not want to be the first person to have to push the nuclear button, and then have to wait and see what response there is...

While I don't see an application for Biological effects in Pro PE, I would say that Cold War scenarios need both Chemical, and, to a lesser extent, Nuclear effects to make truly complete cold-war what-ifs possible. I'd pick Chem over Nuke if I had to pick, since "Nuke" means lots of dead dudes RFN, so, game over man game over, while chemical changes how the fight is going to happen...But with modern CBRN filtration on vehicles, masks, etc, there IS probably still gonna be a ground fight.

If that's what they were going for I would be more than happy to help. But they're also working on plugging that armor sim into their FPS, and their flight sim, and their submarine simulator, and and and..... IMHO just too much. Look at how much is missing from dedicated flight/armor/sub simulators like Silent Hunter, Steel Beasts, Falcon 4, etc...

Pretty sure they bit off too much to ever make a good finished product capable of simulating anything in detail...

Well, they won't be snorkeling constantly, although they will probably be coming up to snort frequently, maybe multiple times per day. The thing is a cagey skipper can do stuff like decide to stop snorkeling and quickly take a listen around at random. Diesel subs are really dangerous unless you know where they are. Then they're too slow to run...