civdiv
-
Posts
664 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by civdiv
-
-
I bet if you took pictures of tankers you'd find them sitting on turrets, rooting around in external storage bins, and the like while "on patrol", "providing overwatch", "waiting to return to base", etc. It's not like the photographers are taking pictures of guys who are actively engaged in combatOriginally posted by Battlefront.com:gibsonm,
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I’m not a ground pounder by trade but it does seem a bit casual / lax.
Steve </font>
-
What essay are you refering to?Originally posted by JasonC:That essay is a nearly picture-perfect example of the blatant slander used to preach maneuver doctrine. The only thing it says about attrition strategy that is true, is that it seeks to achieve favorable exchange ratios.
-
I read one account during Gulf War I that the Iraqis accurately targeted the Marine breaches of the berms to the south in Kuwait, but only after about 45 minutes, IIRC. They held up the follow-on forces for about 15 minutes as CAS and CB murdered their arty. After that Iraqi arty was not a factor.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:It can be expected that Syrian artillery, like Iraqi artillery, would be more of an instrument of harassment rather than destruction. US counter battery technology and training is quite good. Even in Gulf War One the addage was "the Iraqis can fire any gun they like any time they like. But only once".
We are not at all into giving the Syrians capabilities that are not likely within their capabilities. And by that I mean no fanciful "what if they did this" sort of thing. The Syrians have, in many ways, a backwards military with backwards technology and backwards leadership. Expecting them to have large scale innovations like microphoning the countryside is too much of a stretch of the imagination.
Having some sort of hightech round, that is known to be in production and known to be effective, is a matter of finding some sort of evidence that they have it. I've come upon no evidence to suggest that they have anything other than standard, run of the mill artillery capabilities. We are not interested in changing that just for the heck of it.
In short, the Syrian artillery will be a nasty surprise to US forces when encountered. If the US commander (i.e. player) is not very good and/or unlucky, the artillery could hurt quite a bit. But it's not the sort of thing that is going to give the Syrians an edge all on its own. It would have to be followed up by some good defensive tactics.
Lastly, a reminder about the experience in Iraq. During the early phases of OIF the Iraqi artillery performed very poorly. Even though they could have had the massive towed artillery prepositioned and covering obvious advance routes, more often than not that didn't happen. And when they did fire their fire was often inaccurate and ineffective. Then it was either silenced or bypassed. I see no reason to expect much more than that from the Syrians.
Steve
Currently, I would assume the US is very adept at CBR (Counter Battery Radar) aquisitions and response, especially with GMLRS. Does Syria, like Egypt had during the '73 battle, have a string of semi-permanent SAM sites?
-
I doubt their artillery would be up to the job, even assuming they get the ranging system right, which is a heroic assumption.Originally posted by Andreas:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Peter Cairns:
Andreas,
However given that the CM:SF scenario gives the Syrians six months to prepare, there is the possibility that they could put in place there own dispersed sound ranging system.
This would see them hide smallish groups of towed artillery in probably urban locations, with the role of quickly striking US artillery.
The microphones would be prepositioned near forward forces well in advance using GPS and linked to a computer with the job of locating US artillery used in support of an attack.
This way towed artillery that wouldn't be expected to last long, could be used effectively to counter US artillery.
If the Towed batteries were to be located in key towns or cities they could be either targeted for a specific advance, or linked to a series of preset microphone clusters being able to switch to attack a target from any one.
The other possible if we are talking ranges up to 50km, is a national network with SSM's tied in to it. At 185,000km2 Syrian could in theory be covered by a couple of hundred microphone stations.
( say 25km radius, 1,800km2 area each, so thats 100 to cover 180,000km2).
Peter.
US artillery seems to be heavily relying on MLRS for CB work, to balance out lack of ranging precision with blanketing of fire. The Syrians can not do that. The US can just PUFO their artillery somewhat after firing, since all of it is mobile. It is also fully armoured, again reducing the effectiveness of CB - i.e. you pretty much need a close hit to do serious damage.
Pre-positioning is only doing so much, too. If the US artillery happens to be outside the firing arc of the Syrian towed guns, they will likely not be able to adjust quickly enough to engage before the target has PUFO'd.
Syrian CB will have some successes, but it is unlikely to be more than a speedbump, in my view.
Also remember that if the system worked, the US could just turn off GPS, or scramble it in the region. They can then rely on radar CB, which the Syrians can not (any CB radar will be in HARM's way, if you excuse the pun).
All the best
Andreas </font>
-
You don't know me, so if I were you, I'd be more hesitant to tell me what I would do in real life. If in a conversation I am party to one of the persons was telling another one off based on a misunderstanding, and then labelled all that person contributed as useless out of spite, even though he is wrong to do so, I would say something. My original comment was not uninformative, since it informed you of something you were willing to dismiss because you had an issue with an inappropriate remark by fk.Originally posted by Andreas:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by civdiv:
"A low velocity artillery piece would have real problems obtaining that sort of shot group..."
The 25-pdr was not a low-velocity field-piece, as shown by fk's link, either together with existing knowledge about the MV of other field pieces, or a quick google search.
"25 pdr doesn't have solid shot. "
The 25-pdr did have solid shot, as shown by fk's link.
fk provided this info. It was not right for him to link your argument to ex cathedra, but it is equally wrong to dismiss it because of his fault, which is not related to the content. That's all what compelled me to make my useless remark.
Nigel Evan's site can not be linked often enough.
All the best
Andreas </font>
-
All the T-72s the Iraqis had in Kuwait took out, I believe, 1 Abrams. And the Abrams can't even take itself out, as indicated by the Cavalry stampede through the middle of Baghdad proved. And most of those back in '91 were plain-jane M1s, not the ones two evolutions passed that we currently have.Originally posted by Peter Cairns:Steve,
A T-72 will take out an M-1 at 1,000m, so if you come over the hill and run in to 20 T-72's at that range with 5 M-1's you'll probably lose.
In a flat desert with excelent visability day and night supported by Kiowas on the flanks to tell you where they are the M-1's will win the day, as they have,
But in rolling hills covered with olive groves and trees with visability down to less than a 1,000m in most places and under 500m a lot of the time, it's a lot more even and can just come down to luck in terms of who sees who first.
That's far more like the situation the Israeli's found themselves in southern Lebanon.
Peter.
During the invasion of Iraq I heard one media report that one Abrams got m-killed from the rear in the middle of Baghdad, but I have never seen a report to corroborate that.
T-72s killing Abrams from the frontal arc at 1,000 meters? Give me a shred of proff that is possible as I have seen zero info that suggests that. And keep in mind Syrian has a total of like 120 T72s modernized just to maybe 1990s technology, and the evidence I have seen show that modernization appears to have been woefully ineffective.
During the gulf war Abrams were killing T72s through the frontal arc out to 2,500 meters (That is the longest shot I have heard of). At normal engagement ranges of around 1,500 meters Abrams were causing catastrophic damage (Explosion of internal ammo, turrets flying a hundred meters, engines getting blown clean out the rear of the T72) in something like half their hits, through the frontal arc. Yes, optics and such mean the Abrams are engaging first, but when entire US armored brigades are coming at you across an empty desert, and the Iraqis are dug in up to their eyeballs, they still aren't getting any kills on Abrams.
-
Though I gotta defer to those that know more about this subject than I do; what happens to a centrifuge spinning at several thousand rpms when a 7.0 earthquake hits? I realize that pre-shocks tend to happen. I think this regime in Iran will be gone when the 7.0 or higher earthquake hits the Tehran area and there is like a 70% chance one hits in the next 7-8 years. But this is totally off topic. Let us let history take its course rather than have the democratic regime in power get wiped out by the earthquake.
-
First off I would skip CMBO and move straight to CMAK and CMBB. I saw this because the significant advancement of the game system after CMBO. You can mod CMAK to play everything offered in CMBO to include all of the scenarios. CMAK and CMBB are to all intents equal, and the game engine has matured significantly from CMBO. Don't get me wrong, CMBO is a great game an one of the most significant cpu game ever developed, but CMAK and CMBB are evolutionary advancements to CMBO.
-
What happens when an earth tremor hits a centrifuge array? Anybody know how strong a tremer or earthquake would have to be to cause a bunch of centrifuges spinning at thousands of rpms to just explode?
Now that was off topic. I still think the Iranian force pool is more interesting, but I see why you went with the Syrian scenario.
[ February 05, 2007, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: civdiv ]
-
Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Peter,
I say just nuke them. I mean, they want a nuke, why not give them one?j/k
-
Of course not. You are obviously the most brilliant person posting on this board, and nobody can possibly add to a discussion by correcting false statements you made, since you don't make any.Originally posted by Andreas:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by civdiv:
We seem to have solved the issue, but still, you and FK have added nothing to the discussion.
Sorry I forgot about that, won't happen again.
All the best
Andreas </font>
-
To Flamingknives,
I saw something interesting, and asked for help in defining what it meant. In so doing, I admitted I didn't have the experience to make the determination. I freely admitted I wasn't the expert and clearly inidcated my opinion and I asked for feedback. Yet you shelled me in regards to my conclusion.
I stated the problem or the issue. I stated that I was certainly not the expert but based on my rather limited experience this is a possible solution. I caveated my lack of experience or knowledge on many occassions. And here is the data that I have on hand, please someone more experienced on this issue please chime in. And you shelled me for making my initial determinations.
Andreas,
I did miss that portion and I had looked at the reference, so I am wrong. However, despite your point, the picture was wrong for exactly the reasons I pointed out that it was wrong. Low velocity artillery does not produce those effects. So you dwell into minutia yet my original point was correct, and thus, you bring nothing to the argument. In a battlefield situation low velocity artillery did not produce those affects.
Basically what happened was, the artillery FO in me saw that picture and said; 'Whoa, that looks weird'. And I called for experts to look at this and we have determined that my initial suspician was that something 'non kosher' had occurredis correct. We seem to have solved the issue, but still, you and FK have added nothing to the discussion.
[ February 04, 2007, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: civdiv ]
-
Funny, since he is the one who vastly expanded your knowledge about the 25-pdr, regarding direct sights and solid shot, and it's use as an ATG.Originally posted by Andreas:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by civdiv:
To all, you have vasty expanded my knowledge of this incident due to your astute observations and your detailed knowledge. Well, except flamingknives.
All the best
Andreas </font>
-
"They appear to the layman I am..."
"I certainly claim to be no expert on the issue."
"Again, I assume..."
"I don't ever recall reading..."
Flamingknives,
The first quote is from my first posting and the subsequent three are from my second post. I won't defy you to note where I issued an 'ex cathedra" comment because you can't find one. I mentioned my status as a former arty FO as it makes me more educated on the matter at hand than most of the posters here whose military experience is limited to pushing sprites around on their computer monitor. But there are still lots of posters who have real experience either in the military or with defence related items such as ballistics. The original intent with the posting, as is clearly stated is to get THEM who have more knowledge of the issue to chime in.
Your reply seems to indicate that someone found a cool new phrase to use and used this topic as the oppotunity to use it. I am aware of the phrase in question just because I encountered it years ago in my reading (Barbara Tuckman's 'Through the Looking Glass' IIRC) and I had to look it up at the time.
Your reply was rude, period. It doesn't matter to me and it won't alter my life other than my telling you I felt it was rude. If you had said it in person I would have verbally eviscerated you, but here I took the high road as nothing is ever settled here in text.
The original point of the topic was a genuine call for insight into the matter at hand as I was curious about it. Secondary was helping Kevin in his search for information. I have succeeded at both aims.
In regards to low velocity guns being as accurate as high velocity in the direct fire mode, you are just plain wrong. Your preamble in regards to 'constant wind' 'ranging', etc, kills your argument before it starts. So they are just as accurate once they are ranged in and if the winds don't shift? So they aren't as accurate, is that what you are saying? 'Tell that German tank to stop until we figure out what the wind is.' I've fired artillery pieces in the direct fire mode; they are very inaccurate.
[ February 04, 2007, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: civdiv ]
-
M.K., in the first photo I assume that is 2 88 penetrations and then 1 75 penetration, and I can't tell what is along the seam where the armor cracked. Is that your spin from the photo? Does someone have a good photo of a HEAT penetration?
-
To all, you have vasty expanded my knowledge of this incident due to your astute observations and your detailed knowledge. Well, except flamingknives.
"ex cathedra" refers to an infallible decision made by the Pope, while I said right up front in my original post that I was no expert on the issue. Oh, and you use ex cathedra when referring to an internet discussion board?!?!?!
I did what normal human beings do; I pointed out my own status as not being an expert on the matter and I appealed to others on their opinions on the matter to bring their experience to the matter at hand.
A low velocity artillery piece would have real problems obtaining that sort of shot group unless they were like 200 meters away and the target was stationary. And, as someone more astute than I has pointed out, some of the penetrations are not present in both pictures. That is an example of moving the discussion forward, something Flamingknives, you have not done. So maybe they set up a 25 pdr 200 meters away and did penetration trials on the hulk, that seems to be the way we are assuming this went.
Funny that someone mentioned shipping plugs. As an arty FO I could tell when someone shot a round with the shipping plug as it made a different sound. I would keep my mouth shut on the issue as in the pre-war USMC that usually meant someone had lost a fuze or miscounted, and that was something a gun chief could lose their job over.
But as a funny aside, I'll freely admit I was an ass as an FO. When I started out I was with a split gun battery and we had 3 105s and 3 155s. I would survey the battery with binos and if they hadn't dug breech pits for the 105s I would always call for 'high angle' fires, and then watch them scrambling to dig pits in the gun position. The 105 required them to dig a pit under the gun to allow the gun to recoil during high angle fires.
[ February 04, 2007, 04:46 AM: Message edited by: civdiv ]
-
Good catch Kingfish! Also, if you look at the slide where you two pictures are side-by-side, maybe it's the angle or something, but you can see the German Cross on one, but not on the other. And one thing I noticed in the beginning, though the angles of the two pictures are slightly different, it looks like in one the TC's hatch is open, and in another it is closed.Originally posted by Kingfish:It appears the tank was used for target practice after it was knocked out.
Take a look at the third slide in the series where the penentrations are outlined in small boxes. Take note of the one on the right, just below the supposedly dead crewman's head, and the one in the middle. Now scroll forward to the slide showing the fire between the 4th & 5th road wheels. Still shows up clearly there. Now go forward one more slide. The middle pen is not there, and the tool box shows no sign of damage, even though the RH pen is right behind it.
Edit: something else I just noticed. Take a look at the 4th road wheel in the first slides and then the same wheel in the side by side comparison shots.
Are we sure it is the same tank, I now have my doubts. Do you want to inform the writer of your discovery?
-
I certainly claim to be no expert on the issue. But I did use to be an artillery FO, so I know something about arty. Does a 25 pdr have direct fire sights? Plus, due to the uniformity and large size of the holes, I assume they are solid shot. Again, I assume holes from HEAT would be smaller. 25 pdr doesn't have solid shot.
I don't ever recall reading about a 3.7 incher being used in the anti-tank gun, and as with the 25 pdr, the 4.5" gun doesn't have solid shot.
-
Those are some huge holes in that tank, any idea what made them. Given the time frame they are quite a bit bigger than I expected. They appear to the layman I am to be solid shot penetrations, but that is a total guess. I'd expect a HEAT hole to be smaller than the diameter of the round, is that correct? I'd rule out 25lbr due to the shot group. Seems like a high-velocity gun due to the accuracy, any thoughts on that? But the holes look bigger than 75mm, which IIRC, was the biggest anti-tank gun then in service.
-
Showing one's teeth is a submission signal in primates. When someone smiles at me, all I see is a chimpanzee begging for its life. </font>Originally posted by PseudoSimonds:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by _Axe_:
-
JasonC;
You bring up some very valid points, but your definitions are a bit off. Fall Gelb was maneuver warfare, period, by the definition of US and NATO military doctrine. Lind defined exactly what Maneuver warfare is in his book of the same name. The target in manuever warfare is not always a political target, it is anything that if destroyed/captured etc would cause the enemy to stop fighting. In actual maneuver warfare the goal is the enemy's 'critical mass'. In France this was surrounding the enemy and forcing him to surrender.
Maneuver warfare is not defined by Fuller, it is defined by Lind and his proteges. The military acadamia, military leaders and the practitioners of the art define what maneuver warfare is. I have been classicly trained by the military in maneuver warfare, and you simply aren't correct. It started with Lind, and then moved on to 'Forward From the Sea'. Maneuever warfare doesn't aim always for a political target, it aims for what will make the enemy stop fighting, or it aims for the political or military goal that the military has been assigned. It then uses maneuver warfare to succeed. Kuwait is another good example. No political target within the military realm. Threaten the Iraqi LOCs, push from the south with the Marines, and he drives back to Iraq.
So while Boyd and Lind and Hooker and dozens others DO have their roots back in Fuller and arguably Sun Tsu, and others, that doesn't mean the latter define what maneuver warfare is today.
[ February 04, 2007, 04:56 AM: Message edited by: civdiv ]
-
Way to point your rifle at your buddy's head, or to sit with your rifle pointed at your face. No wonder like over a 100 soldiers have been shot by their buddies in negligent discharges. I hear the SAW has been especially dangerous.Nice pic of an Army sniper team (1st Cav.): -
Funny thing about the combat patch came out last week. Seems a lot of Army soldiers have been wearing Marine combat patches instead of those from their own Army division. This was for when their baptism to combat came when their units were attached to Marine units. A bunch of Army units petitioned the Marine Corps to give them permission to wear USMC combat patches, which the USMC did. Dept of the Army got pissed and issued a regulation last week that forbids this practice. The Army is so pissed that soldiers would rather wear Marine combat patches that the regulation actually states that the USMC regulation giving soldiers the right to wear Marine combat patches 'is not worth the paper it is written on'!
Basically it means that the Marine Corps can't give the soldiers the right to wear the patches because Army regulations say they can't. I'll see if I can find a copy of the message.
[ February 03, 2007, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: civdiv ]
-
Manuever warfare IS at the operational and tactical level. Knocking France out of the war is neither Manuever or Attritionist. What, invading Spain to get behind France would be Manuever Warfare at the Strategic Level?
When you talk about Maneuver Warfare or Attritionism you are talking at the tactical and operational level. Or you are talking about a strategy. But a strategy is not Strategic just because the words sound the same. You could argue that conquering France to have a base to attack England or to keep them off the continent was strategic, but the invasion of France is at the operational level. If it was ONLY Germany and France fighting you could attempt to call it strategic. But as the field is the entire world, in the context of 1940, France was operational. Fall Gelb was an operation, and thus it was operational in nature. And it was maneuver warfare. The goal was to flank the French and the Brits, drive to the channel and cut them off. They weren't fighting to kill the other army as their immediate goal. Their immediate goal is terrain and positioning, and they fought only those forces that were trying to prevent them from accomplishing their intent.
France in 1940 was the classic example of maneuver warfare on the German side versus the use of attritionist methodology by France. And in that I am not saying it shows manuever warfare is superior, it was just superior on this day.
[ February 03, 2007, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: civdiv ]
Shock Force Dedicated Website
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Couple of small, VERY minor points. Can we get some left handed shooters? I know it seems trivial, but us lefties are just plain superior from the marksmanship standpoint, so put a few of us in the game. We should also get an FP bonus, but that would be too much to ask for.
Second, for the mortars, I would like to suggest an increase in the realism firing animation. I don't know how the Army does it, but in the Marines (At least in the '90s), they taught the loader to slap his thigh after dropping the round. That little muscle memory trick made sure their hand got out of the way of the muzzle. That would be cool to see in the game.