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.

Remember some of this was paranoia to secure more funds for better stuff - and we hadn't actually crawled inside a T-80 at this point. Since 1989 we have gotten in almost every Soviet MBT with the general reaction of "what a cramped piece of crap!" and found out that they weren't all they had been hyped up to be. Hell, actual BMP-2's and T-72's are used at NTC during the battles that we have aquired on the secondary market. Additionally countries such as Kuwait have the BMP-3 which we have a good look at. (decent IFV, but too small internally for most americans, I think they manned them with midgets) I was in high school in 91', my 1st platoon sergeant was an M3 scout section sergeant(SSG) at Medina Ridge, he relayed the stories of Bradleys defeating T-72's with 25mm under 1000m. You are right here. With the possible exception of another middle east war or a india/pakistan conflict, massed armor conflict is largely over. The army has decided to not field a next generation MBT to develop the FCS, which is a "revolutionary" FCS. MG Bell, CG of armor branch, likened it to the change from the horse to the tank. A new paradigm as described in the first post. Some of the technologies included will be: - Non line of sight weapons, a tube launched copperhead, for example. - A "rail gun" that shoots hyperaccelerated rounds instead of HEAT/SABOT - IR/Thermal masking that will severely reduce or eliminate signature in most sights. - The ability to destroy incoming AGTM's and deflect incoming SABOT. - New camoflague that uses electronics to reduce visibility to the eye (sorta like cloaking) - Integrated information systems with UAVs, AWACS, JSTARS, socuts, etc for real time targeting and intel. The army just got funding to spend $3b next year to move this technology from the lab (where it works now) to making it work in the field. They are betting the farm that this will pay off and change warfare forever. We shall see how successful they are. If it does work we should see the first FCS's produced in 2010-2015 timeframe. The M1A2 SEP, M2A3, and LAV will hold the line until then. [This message has been edited by Cavguy (edited 01-26-2001).]

$70 billion is $10 billion more than the army's entire annual budget. Where did you get that figure? The army is spending $4 billion to outfit with LAVs (read the press release <a href=http://www.gdls.com/releases/gdls-pr200024.html>here</a>). And I say again, the six heavy divisions and ACR will remain as is with M1/M2 for the heavy threat. The IBCT is still far superior to using a light division. Listen, I don't think the LAV is the whole answer. You are right, 14.7mm is a challenge. the LAV is an APC, it transports infantry to the battle zone and supports the infantry, it is not an IFV like the Bradley, which has infantry and can fight. The 105mm gives AT capability to the IBCT force. If all the Battlefield Operating Systems available to the IBCT are used, it won't have to get in a stand up, knock down fight. I think we can make it work until the FCS is fielded. I don't think someone intentionally slighted the bradley, it just is too heavy and maintenance intensive to fit the bill. The Bradley is an excellent IFV. In a perfect world the military would get equipment that only it wants. But in the real world congressmen, lobbyists, and interservice rivals fight for "their" way. The air force is not going to get much more lift capability. That is just the way it is, which is what we have to deal with. Write your congressman. I agree with many of your points. But the armored force will be irrelivant for most future conflicts unless it can deploy some sort of medium force quickly by air AND support it. The C-130 requirment makes sense to me. It is the most common AF cargo aircraft, and over 60% of the AF's lift capability. We need to use it. Whatever the limitations, that is what we have to deal with. Even if pres Bush bought us 100 C-17's at $250 million each we wouldn't see them for another few years. We LAV is the INTERIM solution until the force fields the FCS. And yes, I would love an external AGTM on the LAV, I believe it will be forthcoming. [This message has been edited by Cavguy (edited 01-26-2001).] [This message has been edited by Cavguy (edited 01-26-2001).] [This message has been edited by Cavguy (edited 01-26-2001).]

I know this is a cop-out, but I can't reveal specifics because the info is classified. Sufficent to say that it can defeat a T-80 front slope from the info I have been given as an armor officer (brief was summer of 97 with full penetration data on each round (105 and 120) against various soviet tanks and PC's. In all reality, very few countries deploy the sabot-defeating ERA, and fewer still have T-80 MBTs. The export T-72's armor is inferior, as M3's were killing them with 25mm during the desert (my PSG killed 2). The IBCT isn't designed to go against T-80 battalions anyway. For example, did you watch the parade of T-55's and T-62's in Kosovo during the conflict? That is the threat the IBCT is going to face, not top of the line Russian armor in doctrinal formation. Besides, the purpose of the 105mm in the IBCT is as a backup to kill tanks that make it to the battlefield through helicopters, CAS, copperhead, ATACMS, MLRS, etc. If we let a full T-80 formation close with the ICBT unhindered something is dreadfully wrong. Very few countries have aquired sufficent T-80's/T-90's to be a real threat. And then there is the issue of properly trained crews. For example, the Saudis use the M1A2 but I have never met such lazy soldiers in my life. You have to have the personnel and school systems to develop quality officers and troops, which most countries do not have. Additionally, many people seem to miss the point. The IBCT is not a replacement armor TF, or anywhere near as capable in a stand up fight. But it can do what the Armor TF cannot, get to the fight in a relevant timeframe (under a week) with enough firepower to deal with the majority of the world's militaries. If we were attaking, say, India and its T-80's/T-90's, we would plan accordingly and bring in the heavies. But for the Sebrians, North Koreans (heck, most of their armor is T-55/62, someone I know spotted a T-34 being used), Iraqis, etc, the IBCT is more than prepared to deal with the armored threats they currently field. [This message has been edited by Cavguy (edited 01-26-2001).]

You are right, I am mistaken. 30 tons for an M2A3, 25 tons for an A1. The M551 is being retired at NTC because parts aren't available for it anymore, and it has signifignant limitations (read up on 11ACR in Vietnam), high maint cost, and is basically too old. However, you are right, it could go nearly anywhere and you had to really work at it to get the thing stuck. I got to TC one at the NTC, it was a good ride. [This message has been edited by Cavguy (edited 01-26-2001).]

I was stationed in Hawaii while the filming went on - for about a month we had about 15 P-40's, B-25's, Kates, and Val's "strafing" Pearl and Wheeler airfield (where I worked). Many soldiers and sailors were extras in the movie. They used the USS Missouri and naval reserve ships for the scenes pictured and from my understanding will be "Modified" by CGI to resemble the older BB's. Every so often you would hear machine guns and see smoke and fire from Pearl - very eerie. Very cool to be there when this was happening. (April 00) Ben Affleck even went through some training with the army while he was there to prep for his role, a friend of mine got to hang with him during the training - said Ben was a pretty good guy...

It is also 33 tons, guzzles gas, makes a big smoke cloud, too noisy for recon, and it tends to get used as a light tank. Don't get me wrong, the M2 is a great vehicle, but can't bridge the gap between the Light Divisions and Heavy Divisions. According to the design specs it can defeat 12.7mm - .50 cal. BTR does not have AGTM launchers. Which gets back to my original point - the IBCT HAS to have a small logistics footprint to be employed by air. The brad requires lots of support and PLL. Remember, the M1 and M2 are NOT GOING AWAY. All Six heavy divisions and 3ACR will still be around with tanks and brads. I imagine because we can't control the Air Force. Yes, we would love it if they would but 500 C-17s. But the air force isn't going to do that - they have focused on the F-22. We have to deal in the current reality, not what we would like another service to do. Still better than a light division .... Exactly. But check your stats - the brad weighs 33 tons. It is not gas mileage. You simply CANNOT support a heavy TF with bradleys by Air alone. The POL requirements alone would take all the airlift available. You CAN support an IBCT. If you have to send a force in by air, which is better - a light division with no armor or an IBCT with some armor? We still have to deal with the reality of what the air force can give us. Again, the brad is too heavy and the LAV can stop 12.7mm MG and light artillery. As junior officers, we all have our personal opinions. We give our opinions when asked, but salute and make the best of what we are given. All of the leaders making these decisions are combat vets. They are not out to kill soldiers. I have seen the Javelin. Yes, I would like a vehicle mount. But the Javelin kicks serious butt over the TOW- I have seen it. (BTW, I had a TOW platoon so I know) There are only 50 C-17s, and only one M1 or M2 can fly on each. By comparison, 4 LAV's can fit on a C-17. Not Really Nice post with serious concerns. But consider the following: - The IBCT has a full BN of Artillery - A Squadron(BN) of Recon. - All will use devices developed in Force XXI (UAV's, FCBC2, IVIS, etc.) Definitely an upgrade from the "too light to fight" light divisions. The heavy forces will still come, but this gives the army something with teeth that can deploy fast enough with what the Air Force has available now to make a difference. As much as I personally like M1's and M2's, they simply cannot deploy and be supported by air - a ship or prepo must be used for anything more than a company. That requires 30 days. [This message has been edited by Cavguy (edited 01-26-2001).]

I am sure the soldiers there would disagree. I have heard nothing but good things about the unit since LTC H.R. McMaster (of 73 Easting fame) took over as the Squadron commander. A friend of mine was in the OPFOR at Holenfelds and said it was the most improved unit in Europe.

I don't have the nomenclature in front of me, but the rifled 105 on the original M1. I have seen the briefings here on penetration, and the 105mm APFDS (DU Sabot)round will penetrate front slope T-80 with force to spare. HEAT is questionable against a T-80, especially with reactive armor. But HEAT is for APCs, not tanks.

Which is why the M1A2 is sticking around until 2031. The LAV is the INTERIM Solution until the FCS is fielded in 2010. The LAV is off the shelf - the FCS is a new new generation of technology - a 20 ton "stealthy" killer. Read my first post carefully. Also, the only way to get enough M1A2's there in force is by ship - takes 30 days or more usually. Which is why the IBCT and FCS are being developed - we need something heavier than the 82d Airborne and lighter than a heavy division that can deploy quickly with reasonable firepower. The IBCT is it. Cavguy [This message has been edited by Cavguy (edited 01-25-2001).]

The Light Armored Vehicle 3 is a 8x8 wheeled armored personnel carrier that will for a common platform for scouts, infantry, anti-tank, artillery, and other functions in the IBCT. It is manufactured by General Dynamics Land Systems. The goal is to give the army a lightweight, air deployable personnel carrier/weapons platform with enough firepower to hold the line until heavy armor can be brought into theater. <img src=http://www.gdls.com/releases/photos/ICV-002.jpg> [This message has been edited by Cavguy (edited 01-25-2001).]