Blackhorse

This looks like it will be awesome. Thanks for the heads up.

If you all were here. I'd be serving them up. It's A-1 grilling weather here in Northern Virginia. Dirtweasle, go for it. I believe you'll be quite happy with them. They were the best burgers I've made in a LONG time, and I grill almost exclusively (weather permitting) from spring to fall (and even in the winter at times).

holy crap that was funny... 0% infantry 100% Easy LOL

Blackhorse's Inside Out Cheeseburgers: I made these on the 4th and they were a huge success and ultra delish 1/4 cup shredded Cheddar cheese 1/4 cup shredded Gruyere cheese 1 pound beef 1 tablespoon Worcestershire sauce 1 1/2 teaspoons paprika 1/4 teaspoon ground pepper Combine cheeses in bowl. Set aside. Mix beef, sauce, paprika and pepper in large bowl, with hands. Shape into eight 4-inch-wide patties. pile 2 tablespoons of cheese on each of 4 patties, leaving a 1/2-inch border. Cover each with one of remaining patties. Crimp and seal edges closed. Grill stuffed patties over medium-high heat, about 4 minutes per side, for medium-well.

I don't think it's so much the oil companies screwing us over as it is the consumers (us) and automobile industry. I read last week that GM is contemplating selling a car here in the US that it produces in Asia and Mexico. This car gets 42 mph. whiskey tango foxtrot over? contemplating? Contemplating?? They should have contemplated that a long time ago. http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzbeat045751591jul04,0,1343913.story Add to that our friggin insatiable need to drive F350s and Hummers and Navigators, and it becomes clear as to who is doing the screwing.

blackhole? almost....

w00t "message too short"??? ..must add more characters..what an odd requirement...

I believe that is evolutionary. What it may not be is revolutionary. The origninal CMBO was, in my opinion, revolutionary. It may be cliche', but CMBO took the tactical computer wargame genre to an entirely new level.

Progress and evolution are completely natural. Otherwise the world would have been content with biplanes, muzzle loading rifles, rotary phones, tape decks, or even old wargames (today's crop of wargames is so superior to most of those from the "golden age" of wargaming as to make the old games pale in comparison - have you seen Devil's Cauldron?).

WOW! Second TC was my first gunner!!!! SGT G. 1st TC is SGT H, who ended up gunning for my first CO. 3rd TC is SSG P, who was my wingman. incredible. Thankee kindly Paratroop

Adam, Yep. the numbers denote 3 Armored Division 3rd Battalion 32nd Armor, B Company, 1st platoon. I was in B Company 3rd Battalion 32nd Armor, 3rd Platoon... The battalion cohorted back to Fort Hood in late 86. I joined them there in Jan 87. It was all the same guys then as in Germany, except they now had Abrams vice the M-60s. So, I will most likely recognize a few if not all of the soldiers in the image.

paratroop, Where did you find the second image (interface)? I'd love to get a copy of it, as I'm sure I'll recognize the faces in the photo. tia, BH

This has nothing to do with the STRYKER discussion, but it does have bearing on the nature of the posts that make up these threads. I offer this simply for readers to understand fallacies and the line of thinking that goes into debate/discussion, and quite possibly into this debate/discussion/whatever you want to call it. From The Thinkers Guide to Fallacies: The Art of Mental Trickery and Manipulation 44 Foul Ways to Win an Argument There are several in use throughout both threads. Accuse him of sliding down a slippery slope (that leads to disaster) Appeal to fear Assume a posture of righteousness Attack the person Beg the question Call for perfection Create a false dilemma Question your opponents conclusions Create misgivings: Where there’s smoke there’s fire Create a straw man Deny or defend your inconsistencies Demonize his side, sanitize yours Evade questions Ignore the evidence Ignore the main point Attack the evidence Insist loudly on a minor point Make (sweeping) glittering generalizations Make much of any inconsistencies in your opponenets position Make your opponent look ridiculous Oversimplify the issue Raise nothing but objections Rewrite history Shift the ground Shift the burden of proof Spin, spin, spin Talk in vague generalities Talk Double talk Throw in a red herring Alos from The Thinkers Guide to Fallacies: The Art of Mental Trickery and Manipulation (pp 5-6) Uncritical Persons The over-whelming preponderance of people have not freely decided what to believe, but, rather, have been socially conditioned (indoctrinated) into their beliefs. They are unreflective thinkers. Their minds are products of social and personal forces they neither understand, control, nor concern themselves with. Their personal beliefs are often based in prejudices. Their thinking is largely comprised of stereotypes, caricatures, oversimplifications, sweeping generalizations, illusions, delusions, rationalizations, false dilemmas, and begging questions. Their motivations are often traceable to irrational fears and attachments, personal vanity and envy, intellectual arrogance and simple mindedness. These constructs have become a part of their identity. Such persons are focused on what immediately affects them. They see the world through ethnocentric and nationalistic eyes. They stereotype people. When their beliefs are questioned – however unjustified those beliefs may be – they feel personally attacked. When they feel threatened, they typically revert to infantile thinking and emotional counter attacks. When their prejudices are questioned, they often feel offended and stereotype the questioner as “intolerant” and “prejudiced”. They rely on sweeping generalizations to support their beliefs. They resent being “corrected”, disagreed with, or criticized. They want to be re-enforced, flattered, and made to feel important. They want to be presented with a simple-minded, black and white, world. They have little or no understanding of nuances, fine distinctions, or subtle points. They want to be told who is evil and who is good. They see themselves as “good.” They see their enemies as “evil”. They want all problems to admit to a simple solution and the solution to be one they are familiar with – for example, punishing those who are evil by use of force and violence. Visual images are much more powerful in their minds than abstract language. They are overly impressed by authority, power, and celebrity. They are eminently ready to be directed and controlled, as long as those doing the controlling flatter them and lead them to believe that their views are correct and insightful. Skilled Manipulators (weak-sense critical thinkers) There is a much smaller group of people who are skilled in the art of manipulation and control. These people are shrewdly focused on pursuing their own interest without respect to how that pursuit affects others. Though they share many characteristics of uncritical thinkers, they have qualities that separate them from uncritical persons. They have greater command of the rhetoric of persuasion. They are more sophisticated, more verbal, and generally have greater status. On average, they have more schooling and achieve more success than uncritical persons…

James, Going back to log, I would venture that the SBCT sustainment is between the HBCT and BCT sustainment. The HBCTs use significant amounts of CL III,CL V, and CL IX($$) while the SBCT wll use less. On the low end of the spectrum will be the BCTs.

Thanks. I don't have any info on the log tail. Maybe the STRYKER 1SG can shed some light (if he's still around).

I didn;t interpret it as meaning armor was obsolete. I saw it as reflecting the nature of armor development since the beginning. It doesn't mean tanks are obsolete any more than it meant tanks were obsolete when we fielded the Abrams or when the Germans fielded the Tiger. If Steve meant tanks were obsolete, then I disagree with him. Again, I didn't read anywhere that the STRYKER was replacing the HBCTs. [ August 15, 2007, 06:13 PM: Message edited by: Blackhorse ]

Yeah ok... Anyway, your first point was, in fact,interesting. It would have been worth commenting on if you had been more specific and had not lumped every single light infantryman into the argument. [ August 15, 2007, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: Blackhorse ]

Interesting, but too sweeping a generalization upon which to effectively comment. I can't seem to find that line of argument. This is chock full of sweeping generalizations. Jason has conveniently avoided the Army's BCT endstate with this argument. Here, once again, is the Army's BCT endstate: Heavy BCTs (Bradley/Abrams): 20 Active/ 10 Reserve Component Squads: 36x9-man INF 58 M1 Tanks 90 M2 / 29 M3 Bradleys 16 M109A6 155mm SP Howitzer 36 Javelin 14x120mm Mortar Carrier Infantry BCTs (Light): 8 Active/23 Reserve Component Squads: 54x9-man INF / 18x9-man WPN 16 M119 105mm Towed Howitzer 76 Javelin 28 TOW and HMMWV Mortars: 12x120mm / 8x81mm / 14x60mm Airborne BCT: 10 Active Squads: 54x9-man INF / 18x9-man WPN 16 M119 105mm Towed Howitzer 76 Javelin 28 TOW and HMMWV Mortars: 12x120mm / 8x81mm / 14x60mm STRYKER BCT: 6 Active/ 1 Reserve Component 81x11-man Inf Sqds / 27x7-man WPN Sqds 307 Strykers, including: 127 Infantry Carrier Vehicles 51 Recon Vehicles 27 Mobile Gun Systems 13 Fire Support Vehicles 9 Engineer Support Vehicles 9 ATGM Strykers 18 M777 155mm Howitzers 121 Javelin Mortars: 36x120mm/12x81mm/18x60mm Note: These BCT numbers do not include any of the 17 Aviation Brigades or 56 Support Brigades. Thus STRYKER BCTS comprise roughly 9% of the Army's total BCT strength. Everyone can draw their own conclusions from that. [ August 15, 2007, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Blackhorse ]

Excellent pics! Stay Safe.

How do we reconcile the popularity of the Close Combat series games to this topic? Weren't they the same, conceptually, in terms of 1:1 representation, generally the same number of units the player had to control, RT, etc. What was different was MUCH Smaller maps and an overhead view allowing the player to see everything as well as a bar along the bottom that reflected the status of every unit, thus helping to deal with some of the span of control overload.

Nice topic. As someone else stated, command span and the potential for command span overload are definite pitfalls that challenge any wargame designer. The Army believes a Command Span of 2-5 units is optimal. This creates problems for designers. Unless the game is truly multi-player, then this span of control issue becomes problematic and has the potential to overload players. Adding RT into the mix further complicates the design process. A game system that seems to have somewhat effectively addressed this issue is the Airborne Assault series. There, players can in fact give orders to just a few units, and those units will in turn transmit orders to their subordinates. The game system is apples to oranges compared to CMSF however, so a comparison is not enntirely fair. However, if CMSF were able to do something like that, would it change the nature of the issues people are having with it?

Jon, Since sadly I don't know anything about the organization of the NZ LAVIII infantry (sorry), would you do a quick side by side comparison with the US STRYKER infantry comparing the numbers of dismounted infantry at plt, company, and Bn levels? I'm curious how it falls out with the 7 man limitation. Also, do your 7 Man dismounted elements eaach have their own JAvelin missiles with reloads? TiA BH

Everything you ever wanted to know about the Operational Requirements Document and Key Performance Paramaters for the STRYKER. They probably changed as time went on, but this gives you an idea where they stood in late '99. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/bct/index.html

I'm interested in the answer to that as well.