SgtMuhammed

Especially if you were to say that Argentina would start it.

As to cross training, the Army is constantly moving people around so while officially you are supposed to be qualified for various fields it is often a case of who knows how to do the job. With vehicles, for example, there are various levels of maintenance, operator (10), mechanic (20), depot etc. Technically operators are only supposed to perform 10 level but by the time I left Hohenfels I could do everything to my 113 except actually pull the engine apart. If you want it done now you often have to do it yourself. Plus it got you in good with the mechanics if you were willing to get dirty to keep your track running. Same thing with the arms room. I could fix anything that the armorer could on any weapon in the arms room. Official policy and actual practice rarely resemble one another unless there is an expection.

4 - 8 whatever it takes.

I don't think you can expect an AFV named Schwarzkopf any time soon. Spelling issues there... plus I don't recall any US AFV's named after a living person, are there any? And who's General Stryker? </font>

The M249 can technically use mags but it is so unreliable, unless they have fixed it since I got out, that it has been officially nixed. I guess it could still be done in an emergency.

If they keep having problems with the MGS I wouldn't be surprised if they brought back the M4 AGS. It was almost ready to field when they killed it. I knew a bunch of officers who were already studying the manuals on how to employ it.

Especially since by the time the game comes out it could be more than conjectural.

It's a good sign to me.

What saves the U.S. Army is it's NCO Corps. Young officers are a lot like privates, some are good, some are bad, some just are. Privates are the product of a technologically advanced society with a good educational system. As a result they are not scared to use all the toys the army gives them and are able to quickly adapt to new situations. It is from them that the NCO's come. Usually they are men who have been in for more than one enlistment and have been on real deployments of various types. They are used to rapid changes and have a natural distrust of officers until they prove themselves. In many armies NCOs are assigned rather than created and so have little experience that their soldiers do not have. They never learn to be soldiers before they have to learn to be leaders. In answer to your specific questions; I don't believe the U.S. Army has had any better or worse small unit leadership but I believe the U.S. system gives its NCOs a lot more responsibility than many armies do. An American squad leader doesn't need to consult an officer every time he wants to do something. The major effort to get more competent leadership was the creation of the various leadership schools for both officers and Non-coms and the creation of the major trainin centers. The main purpose of the MTCs (CMTC, JRTC, and NTC) is to stress units to the breaking point to see how they react. Hopefully you will be able to weed out bad performers although I have never seen anyone booted because of bad performance at one of the training centers. The U.S., just like most other nations, continues to commission kids straight off the street to lead men into combat. I would love them to commission entirely from the enlisted ranks but I don't believe that will ever happen. The one major advantage U.S. troops have is that you can take soldiers from nearly any unit and throw them together and they will still perform with some level of aptitude. Of course a squad that has been together a while will be better but U.S. soldiers are flexable enough to perform a wide range of missions. [ October 08, 2005, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: sgtgoody (esq) ]

Holy cow! Leave for a few hours and the world changes. I think this one will be a real blast. The screenies are quite impressive, especially as they are just rough drafts.

Holly cow! Leave for a few hours and the world changes. I think this one will be a real blast. The screenies are quite impressive, especially as they are just rough drafts.

I just.... well lets just say my fingers are sticky.

One of the biggest complaints about the Dragon was that it was so old. Most of the rounds being fired were older than the soldiers firing them. We had several cases of missiles sommersaulting out of the launcher because the wires corroded and caused the guidance jets to fire at random. Pretty spectacular but not very effective against enemy armor.

So was the Dragon. I swear it looked as though a tank could outrun that thing. We were firing them once and I seriously considered trying to shoot it down with my M60 (it was a platoon live fire).

One of my best friends had a rather funny experience in Marine basic. Well I thought it was, he didn't at the time. His DI had his platoon in formation and asked where all his infantry were. Only a few boots raised their hands. He then asked for all the open enlistments. Most of the others raised their hands including my friend. (Jerry had joined planning to be an MP.) The DI told them to put their hands down and then told them that when he asked were his infantry were all the open enlistments were to raise their hands. And so Jerry began his career as a Marine Rifleman. Strange how things work.

A lot of more recent stuff suggests that the Sagger wasn't nearly as effective as thought. Lots of IDF tanks were lost to RPGs and such because they outran their infantry support. Many returned from battle draped with Sagger guide wires. It wasn't the easiest missle to aim.

I was in on the ground floor when the Javelin was being fielded. We had 5 teams in each company, 3 of which would be assigned to the platoons. Each Squad carried two extra missiles and the AG in the Javelin team carried one giving 7 per platoon. I don't know exactly how they are assigned now.

One idea I have used in my Kursk Operation is putting friendly minefields to represent known enemy mines. That way the enemy doesn't automatically know what you know.

I didn't realize Finns weighed so much.

Hey! Even more pictures of Hohenfels. My favorite Gasthaus is just up the street from where that picture is being taken.

The normal way to use explosives was to place a small bit on the mine. This still meant you had to find all the mines in the intended path (minefields were breached rather than cleared as is done in the game) then inspect them for anti-handling devices, then prep them with an explosive charge, fuse the charge (usually in a chain so they all blow at once once you are ready) take cover and boom. Once the debris settles you have to proof the lane because any mine that is left will ALWAYS be right where the most important vehicle will run over it. Needless to say this process takes much longer than it does in the game. You can clear a minefield through direct or indirect fire but the results are not quite as sure as by having people do it.

For the ones where they obviously hit something probably, for the ones where they got stuck or whatnot, probably not. Stuff happens. The ground can do some funny things when you run over it with a really heavy piece of metal.

Hey I know that mud!!! Looks like Hohenfels. Stuck M1

You could also look at the Russian use of mines during Kursk. Mines were sown in fields that were then planted with wheat and corn. This made them extreemly hard to find. They were fully intended to cause casualties as part of the plan to bleed the Germans of their armor.

And wacked your head on one of the Mullberry pieces at Omaha.