Cavguy

I took my CMBB CD with me to Iraq (long deployment) and removed it from my hard drive. I got nostalgic the other day and wanted to reinstall but I realized that I must have abused the CD since there are now some deep (and irreprable) scratches on it and I can't make it work even with lots of cleaning. I am a proud owner of CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK. Can I get a replacement without buying again? Thanks, Niel Smith

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by RMC: Tac ops and Decisive Action were not DoD developments. There may be people in DoD who are using them for various reasons but dod still clings to JCATS, JANUS, CBS and BBS. All of these are massively multiplayer and reinforce staff procedures and the Military Decision Making Process. CM can't do that.<hr></blockquote> Currently TACOPS has been licensed and used for the US Army and was incorporated into the Armor Captain's Course. We MDMPed, wargamed, and fought battles aginst other small groups. The "company commanders" actually saw the screen and had to use handheld radios to call in reports. The commander and his staff had to battle track and issue orders to the commanders, which a "puckster" put into the computer. We even designed some custom scenarios on the NTC maps to practice company and TF Missions we planned. So at least at some levels, the Army is using it. But the sad fact is that most senior officers have no concept of what commercial computer sims can do - M1TP2 and Steel Beasts are 90% of CCTT and a hell of a lot better than SIMNET - and cost a lot less! [ 01-19-2002: Message edited by: Cavguy ]</p>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker: I seen this reported recently; it looked like they mated an M1 turret with the hull of an M60.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A diesel version has been available for years, we fielded a version to the Koreans called the K1, but it also did not have the special armor. I don't believe there has been a design mounted on an M60 chassis. The next generation M1 is the M1A2 SEP with numerous improvements - a more fuel efficent and powerful turbine (also less maintenance intensive), a FLIR instead of thermals, armor upgrades, and numerous electronics upgrades. I believe the engine is to be retrofitted on M1A1/A2 designs other than the SEP over a period of time. Also of interest - a beehive round for the M1 is due to be fielded beginning FY02. CPT Niel Smith, US Armor Officer [ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: Cavguy ]

I can say that throwing grenades in the prone (both on your belly and on your back) is a trained task in the US Army. Mind you, your effective throwing range is MUCH shorter. (10-20m)

The Sheridan was retired from combat service in 1997 and currently only serves as a BMP/T-80 VISMOD at NTC. The M8 AGS was to replace it but was cancelled to pay for Bosnia. It was retired because of numerous problems and lack of repair parts. The LAV is much more deployable from a logistics standpoint. Its PLL load is smaller, support systems less, and can be lifted by C-141's and C-130's. Only the C-5 and C-17 can carry an M1. And when they do that they aren't carrying something else. There simply isn't enough heavy lift in the AF to make air-deploying more than a company of M1's feasible.

Remember, the LAV-3 (or whatever gets finally approved) is the INTERIM vehicle. 1) The $70 billion over 10 years is for the Future Combat System(FCS, not the LAV-3. The LAV is getting $4 billion over 5 years for the IBCT. The army is betting the bank on the FCS being a revolutionary new vehicle with gee-whiz cool technologies that will enable it to be 20 tons, fast, deployable, lethal, and (no kidding) invisible. The army is spending $3b this year to move the technologies from the lab to the field. 2) There was a competition/demonstration between many makes of light armored vehicles that included the LAV-3, M113A3, M8 Buford, Stingray, Commando, and some other similiar vehicles. Most all armor guys would pick the M8/M113 Combo. However, I speculate that it was not picked in order to give the IBCT a common chassis which reduces logistical overhead, a key requirement for the IBCT. Many people seem to be confusing the LAV with the FCS. They are VERY different. [This message has been edited by Cavguy (edited 02-22-2001).]

I am second from the right. If you ain't Cav .....

I am sure there is a money/marketing issue to it - but what is keeping CM from getting involved with one of these services? Finding a central place to find a CM opponent on a whim is difficult and cumbersome. Thoughts anyone?

Some clarifications: I already posted an exaustive thread on this in the CM forum, so you can read it HERE. Read it because it dispels much bad info floating around the boards. The LAV-3 will come in many variants. 1) A Turretless 105mm 2) A scout version with the LRAS-3 Sight and .50 cal or Mk19. 3) The infantry version with Mk19 or .50 cal. 4) An artillery/indirect version 5) plus various service support models. None of the variants will have a turret. There is no 25mm version planned. The weapons will be operated from inside the hull remotely, similar (but supposedly improved) to the TC's .50 on the M1 Abrams. I haven't heard on whether the 105mm will be stabilized or not. One point that many people miss is that the Army is losing *one* battalion of armor in the transformation. All the other brigades are light infantry receiving "upgrades" from using their feet/flack vest to the LAV, which is a darned bit better than what they have now. There are "better" ways to get firepower, but none that fit the maintenance and deployability requirements of the IBCT. The goal is to be able to put a reasonably protected force in theater within a few days. The M8 AGS/M113 combo has been a favored alternative, but was rejected for logistical reasons mainly. Around 2010-2015 the army will begin fielding the Future Combat System (FCS) which will supposedly use leap-ahead technologies to redefine land warfare (if you believe the hype). Again, read the linked post. My 1st PSG, who was with 1-1 CAV in Saudi alleged that they had Bradleys routinely kill T-72's in the desert with 25mm AP. Had something to do with the shoddy export T-72's the Iraqis were using and the higher quality of "service" ammo. Cavguy

SFC Thomas Earley (SSG at the time w/ B/1-1 CAV I believe.) Great 19D and best PSG a cherry 2LT could hope for. Yeah he said the T-72 Armor the Iraqis used was very brittle. Also claimed they had a brad hit front slope by a T-72 125mm without penetration - just a big dent.

EXACTLY! Perhaps I was being too complicated. You hit the nail on the head.

The army is fully committed to the FCS, the LAV is being bought for the meantime with the full realization that it does not fill all of the needs of the army. Trust me, no one wants the LAV to stay around longer than it has to! But it is available now, is cheap, and can do the job required during the next 10 years. The army is spending $3b on FCS research this year alone. The concept is a 20 ton AFV that uses revolutionary technologies (described earlier in the thread) to fight and survive on the future battlefield. Don't confuse the FCS with the FSCS/Tracer, which is a joint US/UK scout vehicle project that is currently in danger of being cancelled.

It isn't so much the cost but the supplies and tools required - the more reliable=less tail. Also a common chassis equals more common parts which reduces logistical overhead.

CPT, US Army, Armor Scout PL, HHT XO and HHC XO - 3-4 CAV/AVN BDE 25th ID(L), Hawaii 1997-2000 currently at Ft. Knox in AC3 prepping to go to 1AD in Germany.

This gent at Ft. Knox wants it. The last OH-58C's have been removed from the active force. All have the MMS now.