TankHunter Posted September 6, 2010 Share Posted September 6, 2010 Nice video. It was interesting seeing my actions as seen from the other side of the battle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgehog Posted September 6, 2010 Share Posted September 6, 2010 I am poor, so I only use stuff that came with the OS... Drums... ****WINDOWS MOVIE MAKER!!!!! (hooray!)I am sorry... out.Pah! I don't even have that.I have XP Pro, "F**knuts!"Oh, Anzac,If you fancy a week off to stir the inspiration pot I have something a little, uh "different" to try out for Sunday. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted September 6, 2010 Share Posted September 6, 2010 Shucks, I wasn’t expecting a credit, you guys did all the work. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zipuli Posted September 6, 2010 Share Posted September 6, 2010 I for one would be really interested in hearing what it was like from your side... Especially what did you think our deployment, composition, strenght, was at each phase of the battle. In other words, did you guys manage to "read my plan" from the B coy actions! Go ahead with even a short AAR, TankHunter! Gibsonm: When I counted I killed most the tanks reported by you, I could start pulling damaged vehicles from killzones and stuff like that... If I didn't know the enemy had "only" about a company of tanks, the mission may have ended differently 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankHunter Posted September 6, 2010 Share Posted September 6, 2010 The primary action that I had most experience with was around the town and west of the town. I had not much knowlege of the battles to the north of the town or to the east of it. As such I will stick with what I know. The first phase of the battle involved recce with the BRDM-2 platoon. In my sector (west) I had encountered a strongpoint (the wooded ridge just across the river from the town). I had also found a weakpoint further west of that through some broken terrain which tended towards the boggy/wooded variety, this will become important later on. I had been given a tank platoon to exploit the gap in the west. Due to terrain the platoon became a single tank. In the process of the exploitation a formation of enemy M-60s had appeared to my north. The suprise of this lead me to essentially halting the infiltration till the tanks had passed along the road. I had feared that they may have been hunting my own vehicle. This resulted in a failure to exploit what could have been a prime chance to cause problems with the platoon while it was on the road. When they did pass I had started to find a battle position east of me with which I could engage enemy forces near and in the town. Shortly before doing this Anzac's tank advancing south towards the wooded ridge had encountered enemy forces and had quickly been destroyed. My tank had the luck to get into a battle position soon after this while the enemy tank platoon was still focused on the wooded ridge. This resulted in 1 enemy tank destroyed due to a flank shot and in the process of attempting a second kill (I got greedy) my own tank was destroyed. I had been given a second platoon after that, with simular results to the first platoon. 2/3 of the platoon became mired in the mud (they sadly failed to follow their leader completely) and I had managed to disable a CV90 before the sole operational tank was destroyed in the west. While this was happening Ash had been conducting a bloody minded battle of attrition at the western most bridge leading into town with the intent of rushing the bridge, crossing it and conducting city fighting. This was stopped by a combination of well placed infantry and armor before the tanks had even gotten to the middle of the bridge. This would have been the point of main effort for 1 of my tank platoons had there been success there. After this he focused on causing as much damage as was possible to the defending formations there. North of town was where the BTR-80s had been focused. There was mixed success near the town with those elements being destroyed, but it appears that Toyguy had found a weakpoint with his formation and had managed to threaten the supply route to the town. As I recall the main idea of the operations on OPFOR was to either take the town, or if it was too well defended to cut it off. ToyGuy had the most success with this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaLrOg_70 Posted September 6, 2010 Share Posted September 6, 2010 It was a tough and hard fought battle at the bridge and I sensed that we had a fanatic on our hands. I am just glad the infantry held their ground. I look forward to more of the same. if your looking for some free tool for editing video you could take a look at this http://www.virtualdub.org/I used it for my own humble video a while back. It takes a bit of getting used to but I would be happy to help if you need some basicpointers and it works quite well. But if I recall correctly movie maker should be included with XP Check in accessories on your start bar if that dont work I think you can download it for freehttp://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/updates/moviemaker2.mspx 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 Is it just may imagination or an issue with the UN mod. External views show the well worn white paint, etc. but the views from the commander’s hatch seems to indicate a green roof? For example: Video 1 ( )2 Min 04 Sec: overall white vehicle 3 Min 38 Sec: under the “sub titles” top of mantlet seems green 5 Min 06 Sec: turret roof appears to be green. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zipuli Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 There was no UN roof file, so you are right, it was green 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 There was no UN roof file, so you are right, it was green Ah no worries. Not a complaint, just an observation. I appreciate that Katie indicated it was a “quick and dirty” solution rolled out quickly for the campaign when it was posted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingtiger Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 yeah, I did have a check on the 90c rooftop but if I wanted it white I have to retexture the whole darn thing. maybe someday when I just have to little to do... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 Suppose my ASLAVs should be white too. Great way to stay covert in the recce role. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt_Anzac Posted September 7, 2010 Author Share Posted September 7, 2010 Suppose my ASLAVs should be white too. Great way to stay covert in the recce role. just a question for you all. The UN use the white paint and blue helmet covers to distinguish themselfs from the different parties in a conflict. But, what happen when UN units all of a sudden become one of the parties to the conflict? Since there is no need to distinguish themselfs as neutral, is there anything that stops the units parent country from ordering "blue helmet covers off" and "pop open the buckets of olive drab"? Edit: Been looking into this, it looks like if the operation is UN led, its blue helmets and white vehicles. If its UN sanctioned but led by NATO or some other organisation you can use whaterver colour you want. But UN and other organisations using white vehicles do not appreciate if you use white, since they might be mistaken for combatants. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 Yes I think it all boils down to what the UN approves.If its UN led and authorised under Chapter 6, its "peacekeeping" which is the issue the Dutch had in Bosnia at Srebrenica (and we had in Rwanda) in that they were legally limited in terms of what they could do (or stop from happening). If its UN led and authorised under Chapter 7, its "peacemaking" which usually lets you use force to keep the two parties apart, if that's required to make the peace.Both of these though are white vehicle and blue helmet jobs (and the UN pays).This is why Fiji can afford to have 3 x Inf Bn's because at any one time they have one in the Middle East on a UN task and the UN pays for it. The Govt of Fiji then takes that money and can afford three Bn's on the money the UN pays.If its UN sanctioned (like Desert Storm, etc.) its far less restricted again but the UN doesn't pay. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt_Anzac Posted September 7, 2010 Author Share Posted September 7, 2010 Yes I think it all boils down to what the UN approves.And we all know that in the UN building they definde the term urgent diffrently then commanders in the field. I would guess that it will take a few weeks for the decition to change colour to be made.In that time that division will be a heap of burning scrap metal. There will be peace, and everyone will be happy. Exept for the guys repainting their AFVs when they could be partying at the messhall celebrating the end of the conflict =) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgehog Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 Was that last mission a "peacemaking" or a "stop pestering us" mission? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 And we all know that in the UN building they definde the term urgent diffrently then commanders in the field. I would guess that it will take a few weeks for the decition to change colour to be made.In that time that division will be a heap of burning scrap metal. There will be peace, and everyone will be happy. Exept for the guys repainting their AFVs when they could be partying at the messhall celebrating the end of the conflict =) No to be fair, they tell you before you go. Maybe only hours before, but before. So you arrive at the location with your kit coloured appropriately and the various briefs etc. given and ideally having conducted a couple of MRE's (mission rehearsal exercises) to make sure the brief sank in. Now if it changes during the course of the OP, then you might need some paint in your back pocket. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brun Posted September 8, 2010 Share Posted September 8, 2010 This is why Fiji can afford to have 3 x Inf Bn's because at any one time they have one in the Middle East on a UN task and the UN pays for it. The Govt of Fiji then takes that money and can afford three Bn's on the money the UN pays. Major Nations each pay about 22.00% of the UN tab for what Results? So Fiji can raise Inf Bn's to look good on parade. If only the UN would do it's job and help Africa. That is Why I like this campaign. It is real world Simulated battle, in the purely Fantasy RPG situation of the UN helping Africa. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashdivay Posted September 8, 2010 Share Posted September 8, 2010 just a question for you all.The UN use the white paint and blue helmet covers to distinguish themselfs from the different parties in a conflict. But, what happen when UN units all of a sudden become one of the parties to the conflict?Since there is no need to distinguish themselfs as neutral, is there anything that stops the units parent country from ordering "blue helmet covers off" and "pop open the buckets of olive drab"?Edit: Been looking into this, it looks like if the operation is UN led, its blue helmets and white vehicles.If its UN sanctioned but led by NATO or some other organisation you can use whaterver colour you want. But UN and other organisations using white vehicles do not appreciate if you use white, since they might be mistaken for combatants.back in 90's Indian Army under UN was deployed in Sierra Leone, Due to some circumstances they had to conduct a offensive op against RUF rebels. For this op they replaced all blue helmets and white painted bmps with something more sutiable for the Op. So under certain circumstances the Mission Cmdr can direct the forces to ditch the UN "blue&white".BTW it was fun to kill one cv and one tank. i did manage to drag one of the bodies of your men from that burning AFV. Thankfully it was allready rosted so me and my boys had a good lunch. You white devils taste good. Next time i eat all of you thank you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgehog Posted September 8, 2010 Share Posted September 8, 2010 Major Nations each pay about 22.00% of the UN tab for what Results? So Fiji can raise Inf Bn's to look good on parade. If only the UN would do it's job and help Africa. That is Why I like this campaign. It is real world Simulated battle, in the purely Fantasy RPG situation of the UN helping Africa.Indeed, its nice not have your thumb legally jamed up your own arse.As to our currently simulated campaign,I think we are undertaking a "peacemaking" mission:"You will behave, or we dish out some UN sanctioned 40mm violence."Rather than a "peacekeeping" mission:"Will you mind playing nicely, please?" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt_Anzac Posted September 11, 2010 Author Share Posted September 11, 2010 Well, it was "peacekeeping" during the first missions. But as soon as that northern neighbor decided it didn’t like that UN interfered with their covert dirty business in the area, and decided to make you leave. It became a "fight for your life" mission. The issue on what to do now is being debated at the highest level. The Security Council is divided into two factions. One wants the UN to pull back and avoid combat. The other point to the fact that the northern neighbor is conducting an offensive war on Blueland and that the UN should take actions to push them out of the country.At this time the general in charge of UN operations in Blueland have decided that delaying the advance of the Redland forces is the priority. Lots of UN personnel need to be evacuated from the areas threatened by Redland, and even if the Security Council decides to pull back, you need to evacuate them. 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.