jrcar

Mark get my on the home email. We would be interested... Cheers Rob

I'll give it a touch UP... Just to annoy the 'Merican's. Pity I can't make it, new baby and all that Cheers Rob

Correct. That is why you see so many chinooks used in Afganistan, the hot high conditions severely limit all the others. MI-17's are okay... Cheers Rob

Before we got the Minimi (M249 aka SAW) the MAG58 (M240) was our section (Squad) weapon for a number of years (the M60's we had were worn out, and the Minimi had problems that took a while to fix). During officer training I used to carry the MAG58 a lot. It was heavy but you got used to it... and it was very reliable (compared to the M60). It is very good in the sustained fire role. Cheers Rob

Guys see the thread on 24/25 Feb get together at Pucka in the General discussion forum. Got 5-6 guys from Sydney coming. Cheers Rob

Eric are you talking about our Virtual Immersive Combat Environment program? It plans to use VBS and Steelbeasts. MD while there are some very sophesticated military products, such as JSAF and ONESAF, the overheads involved in running them put them outside of the abilities of most units. What is needed is simulations that units can use. I'm looking forward to seeing if CMSF will join the select few that have made that list. Cheers Rob Carpenter Army Simulation Wing Australia

The ASLAV-PC mounts the Kongsburg Remote Weapons Station, either a 50 cal or a 40mm grenade launcher. ASLAV is a type II hull, and is still amphibious. It lacks the advanced commo gear of the Stryker but is a good vehicle. Cheers Rob

Well when I did my officer training in the Australian Army in the late 1980's we were told that the use of WP to deliberately cause casualties would be considered a war crime and would be punishable under Australian law. Incidental casualties caused by the use of WP as an obscurant is acceptable as long as you could show the intent was to obscure, not cause casualties. I'll try and check up the current accepted logic to this. Cheers Rob [ November 14, 2005, 01:56 AM: Message edited by: jrcar ]

Just was notified about it, good article. Cheers Rob

My experiance has been that while fewer women WANT to be in combat, those that do are highly competent. We had mixed officer training, and sure there were more of the women who couldn't "hack it" compared to men in a physical sence there were many who could and did, their grit and detrmination was inspiring. Very rarely did I feel that I was "let down" by a female, and more often it would be a guy that wasn't prepared to pull their weight. Cheers Rob

Ah I think so, been working 12-13 hour days, have just been scanning my home email... before getting some sleep before the kids/dawn wakes me up again. Cheers Rob

Cheers Dan, waiting for the opportunity to convice Steve of the need for an Australians in The South West Pacific game Good to catch up last week! Get you down to the Infantry museum to do the modelling, and Pucka for the Matillda Cheers Rob

While resaerching something elese came accross this information. Source "Nothing Over Us" History of 2/6th Infantry Battalion. Talking about "daily routine" in late 1944 in the jungle against Japanese. "On arrival at a new position we would immediately deploy small standing patrols a few hundred yards down any tracks leading into our position. Then work would start on clearing fields of fire, laying of booby traps and the digging of weapon pits." When I was doing my training at the Royal Military College Duntroon in 1991 this was almost exactly the same procedure, however the "booby traps" had been replaced by trip flares and claymore mines. We recognise Jungle and Urban terrain as "Complex terrain". The paraphrased definition of which is when the terrain is such that engagements occur within the effective range of your weapons. Ie you haven't had enough warning to actually redeploy weapon systems to meet a specific threat. My point being IED's are not a new phenomenon, and historically they appear most in "complex terrain" rather than open engagements. Cheers Rob

I was in a unit that was trialing a similar concept in 1996 in Australia. It was called RISTA (Recon, Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition). It worked, but was never implemented due to corps (US branch) politics, the commander of RISTA was an intel officer and the other corps didn't like it... but as an ex intel guy you can sense my allegiance Cheers Rob

Recon, Surveillance, Target Acquisition (ie radar) Also includes an intelligence function. Stryker Brigade Combat Team. Cheers Rob