Coyote

The simple answer is that no two modern democracies have ever fought each other. In a multi party system, the party that can avoid war usually wins. In a business oriented economy, most business people do NOT profit from war and make sure their favorite politicians know that. The sad fact is that most of the wars going on right now are not even in the news. They are happening in the world's poorest countries in Africa and Asia where there is no oil and there are no cozy hotels for network journalists to file satellite reports from. Check out globalsecurity.org or strategypage.com for info on some the mayhem taking place. A lot more people are being killed in Africa right now than in Iraq. "Coyote" [ April 08, 2004, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: Coyote ]

In both the US and Canadian versions, you have 60mm mortars. These have a very small impact area so at accuracy 5, you can get your troops very close to the enemy trenches and still keep the bad guys surpressed. Coyote

1. You have just encountered the inherent limitation of ATGMs as overwatch weapons. Your choices are probably to use tanks instead or use artillery to supress the tree line before you move. 2. If you re-ran the turn from a saved game file, it is likely that the ATGWs obeyed the same pre-generated probability of spotting and engaging the tanks based on terrain and location. Try setting it up again from scratch. Sometimes they will engage, sometimes they won't. Good luck,

US Army Korean War Maps [if you want to create your own. http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/maps.htm http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/web03/atlases/korean%20war/korean%20war%20index.htm The Korean War Project http://www.koreanwar.org/html/maps.html Good Luck Coyote

US M1 and German Leopard2 series vehicles [as well as British Challengers, not modeled in TacOps] use composite armors based on the British Chombham design beginning in the early '80s. The steel slope you can see is just the outer envelope/structural support for the classified armor "package" inside. That is what gives M1 and Leopard2 their boxy shapes. Composite armor is somewhat more effective than an equivalent thickness of steel against KE penetrators. They are significantly more effective against chemical energy warheads. Estimates range anywhere from 40% to 70% more effective depending on who is selling you the tank . Hope that helps, Coyote

rattler set it up and keeps it somewhat organized [are you familiar with the phrase "like herding cats"?] You will find a number of posts from him on this forum, ususally with TT2003 as the subject. The tourament has its own mailing list as well. Go to the "official" site at - http://eventfoto.com/privat/mil/tourney2003/main.html Enjoy, Coyote

What's up doc? Sorry, I had to. Anyway, I'm in the midst of my first large map (25km x 22km) and I've already learned one important lesson - Basic geometery - My map has over 50,000 terrain squares and over 6,000,000 pixels on it. Patience is the primary virtue. Your TacOps 4 CD should include the folder "TacOps Extras" with more maps in it. There is very likely something in there that you can use. If not, send me a private email by click the icon above this message. I collect all sorts of maps and graphics and might have something you can use. Coyote

In a solitare game, there is no point unless you deliberately establish one that uses these units. Against a human opponent, the point is whatever you agree it is. The currently running TacOps tournament includes a scenario in which evacuation of the non-combat elements is critical to mission success. I know because I just lost HALF OF THEM! Everything in TacOps is there because someone wanted it but that doesn't mean you have to use it. Flexibility is one of the things that makes TacOps so great. Enjoy, Gary [ January 20, 2004, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: Coyote ]

Check the SOP for that unit. You must check one of the two Minefield crossing items or it will try to go around any known minefield. Enjoy Coyote

Barring unforseen circumstances, I'm playing Scenario 1 against Bernard Cousin at 1700 GMT this Saturday. Group H. Observers welcome. Hecklers will be slapped. Coyote

Cool! Thanks. Coyote

That's really a hard one, because I've almost never meet a weapon I did NOT like. I share your appreciation of the M-60 series for their shear utility. That and the fact I spent my platoon time on M-60A1s. After infantry, they were the second most general purpose weapons of their time. I think the M1 is almost too specialized and as artillery and IFVs have gotten better, tank support has become less important. An M-60A1 had a good AT punch, especially after FSAPDS rounds came out. With 63 rounds of 105mm we also carried HEP, HEAT, and WP. A little something for everyone. I had a .50 cal I could fire under armor and about a 1/4 ton of 7.62mm ammo (at least it felt that heavy). We had a good coincidence range finder (undetectabel), a mechanical fire control computer, and passive night sights too. I have to stop now, dry my tears of nostalgia and blow something up. Coyote

If you are running Windows you may have trouble reading the downloaded tournament text files. I changed the file extensions [on my XP machine] from .txt [text] to .rtf [rich text format]. Windows then opened them in a more compatible viewer. I also posted this to the list. Enjoy,

TacOps doesn't quite model the "Longbow" system. The laser designator in the nose is for laser-guided Hellfires, the mast mounted antenna is for the millimeter wave "Longbow" Hellfire. One Longbow Apache exposes only its antenna to locate and designate targets. Other Longbow aircraft get their firing information from the designating aircraft and fire from even farther back. No one pops up, only the one antenna is ever exposed to the enemy. No idea how reliable all this is in practice, but the operational concept is frighteningly simple.

Try to get a copy of US Army CGSC student text ST 101-6, Combat Service Support Battle Book. Chapter 4 is all logistics stuff. I tried to download an html version but it keeps crashing my browser. Combat Consumption Rates for Bulk Fuel (Gallon Per Hour (GPH)) Vehicle - Idle - Cross Country - Road M1A1 ---- 10.8 -- 56.60 ------- 44.64 M2/3 ----- 2.0 -- 26.58 ------- 18.79 M113 ----- 6.4 -- 18.00 ------- 8.60 M157 -----60-100 (Fog Oil) M88A1 ---- 2.0 -- 36.76 ------- 25.54 M9 ACE --- 1.42 - 12.35 ------- 9.26 D7F ------ 6.00 N/A N/A Class III Haul Vehicle Type for Heavy Divisions [unit] -- TPU -- HEMTT -- 5k Tanker Tank Bn --- 0 ------16 ----- 0 Mech Bn --- 0 ------ 8 ----- 0 FA Bn ----- 0 ------ 4 ----- 0 MI Bn ----- 2 ------ 0 ----- 0 Cav Sqd --- 0 ------16 ----- 0 ADA Bn ---- 4 ------ 9 ----- 0 Eng Bn ---- 0 ------14 ----- 0 FSB (X3)--- 3 ------ 0 ---- 11 MSB ----- 4 ----- 0 -----34 Atk Bn -----0 ----- 7 ----- 0 ASB ----- 12 ----- 12 ----- 6 Send me a privat email if you want my html file. Coyote

Hope this helps, Coyote

Several people have asked about night vision technology. Page 86 of the August 2003 issue of Scientific American has fairly detailed two page discription of how an image intensifier system works. Image intesifiers, commonly referred to as "Starlight Scopes" are much more common than thermal imaging equipment. Enjoy. Coyote

Seems reasonable. What is the Attrition Point cost going to be?

I accidentally found an interesting source for situation maps of various hot spots. It's run by an international relief agency. Here is the link for the city of Monrovia, Liberia and vicinity. http://www.reliefweb.int/w/map.nsf/wByCLatest/2C77843C1420170B85256D580066161F?Opendocument Although this file is a jpg, most files seem to be in Adobe pdf format. Coyote

The short answer is, it varies. For one look at the long answer go to: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/unit/toe/17376F100.htm. Warning: Actual TOEs are very tricky to read, they show modifications and shortages as well as full authorized strength. As an example, look at the line showing 4x 4.2" mortars, the next line subtracts them, the next line adds 120mm mortars. It's even harder with trucks because DoD often assumes that two 2.5 ton trucks will haul the same bulk cargo as one 5 ton. Enjoy, Coyote

Dave, If you have Windows 98 or above, you may have a built in screen magnifier. Click Start, Programs, Accessories, Accessibility. If it isn't there you will have to load the Accessibility portion of Windows that wasn't installed initially. There are also several free versions of this program available. Check on CNet.com. Send me a private email if you need more help.

Using proposed Med Inf Bde TOE's from about two years ago, I've played a number of scenarios with this alternative force structure. Using the import/export OOB functions to replace the original scenario OOB and look at various "what if" situations is very easy and is one of my favorite pass-times. Happy Gaming

If you are interested in the future of military technology and feel up to reading actual science and engineering presentations (very dry!) go here: http://www.asc2002.com/Papers.htm Most files are in Adobe .pdf format. Enjoy.

Hey, a great big "thank you" to everyone who stuck it out through all of the comm problems. I had fun. [ April 21, 2003, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: Coyote ]

Best of luck, Henk. Gary Chilcote