Cavguy

First, I am a lowly Captain who will have to salute and ride in whatever they give me. However, opinions are like A**holes, everyone has one so here is the predominant one making the rounds at AC3 and the consensus of the groups of junior officers (who seldom have the bigger picture) - Almost unanimously we would have preferred the M8 AGS/M113 combination over the LAV. The M8 was cancelled in 96 as the replacement for the M551 Sheridan. It is an airdroppable light tank with a 105mm, autoloader, and add-on armor. The 113 is tracked, available, and reliable. Soldiers always prefer the known to the unknown. That being said - we weren't asked, didn't perform the tests or write the specifications for the BCT, there were other factors in the decison the brass made. - We have serious differences over the armor protection (or lack therof) on the LAV. I would not be confident with it in urban fighting. RPG's would tear it apart. It wouldn't have been much help in a Somalia scenario with tires and weak armor. (Pakistani M113's saved the day) Another good argument is that a wheeled APC can't run stuff over to get out of a bad situation. However, we will work with what is given to us. - The lack of a turret and weak main armament (M2 .50 cal or Mk19 on the infantry/scout variant) is a matter of concern. Anti-armor capability is a javelin crew in the back. I would like to see something more substantial - a 20-30mm chain gun, and a hammerhead Javelin missile launcher. - I believe the army picked it for logistical reasons. A common platform reduces the parts required in theater. If two platforms were used the logistical requirments would increase. If the goal is rapid deployability, you must have a small logistics tail. A common design goes a long way, and the LAV is a common platform. - Again, it is an improvement over what the light infantry has now, and heavy armor will still be around. - The two BCT's developing doctrine at Lewis will come up with tactics and techniques for MOUT employment, I am inclined to see what they come up with. Cavguy [This message has been edited by Cavguy (edited 01-25-2001).]

This has been the subject of much acrimony and gnashing of teeth since the early 60's when the army went to the pentomic "battlegroup" that removed the regiments. Basically the army did away with the battalion, and had 6-8 companies in a "battlegroup" commanded by a full bird. Didn't work for many reasons, not the least of which was span of control. The army reorganized in the mid 60's. Instead of bringing back regiments with their proud histories, it created the brigade=>battalion=> company system. However, the battalions were all affiliated with a regiment for lineage purposes. For example, I was in 3rd Squadron 4th Cavalry (3-4 CAV) Regiment which belongs to 25th ID in Hawaii. In the WWII system the 4th Cavalry was organized and fought as a regiment. Since the 60's the regiments were split up and the battalions given to brigades. 1-4 CAV, which is the same regiment, now belongs to 1 ID in Germany. The colors and history of the regiment stay active but the units were split to brigades. 2-4 and 4-4 CAV are deactivated. A weird system, I know. The only two "regiments" still together are 2 ACR and 3 ACR. 1/327 IN, 2/327 IN, and 3/327 IN in the 101st all belong to the same brigade at Ft. Campbell, but that is the only other place I know that has a regiment together. Others may be able to explain it better. We retain the regiment designation to keep the histories alive. To answer your last question, the Army has focused on Brigade Combat Team (a plused up brigade with attachments of FA, Engineer, CSS, etc) operations for years. All rotations through NTC and JRTC are as BCTs, not divisions. Every deployment I have seen (except the gulf war) has been built around a BCT. Divisional maneuver will be rare in the future. The army will still retain its divisional structure for the foreseeable future, however. Brigades will become much more self sufficient than in the past. If you ask me, an ACR is the way to go! CavGuy [This message has been edited by Cavguy (edited 01-25-2001).]

Thanks for the welcome. I have been lurking for awhile but haven't posted much. Love CM! I have also posted some on th TacOps board since we are wargaming with it in AC3 -executing our TF and CO/TM plans. Agree with you on the IR jamming and active defenses. The CIS has the sentinel(?) which apparently is sort of a variation reactive armor - it explodes before the missile hits sending shrapnel to destroy/detonate the AGTM before impact. I got a lot of this info at a luncheon with MG Bell (he was talking to a group of us AC3 students) and he was talking active and passive countermeasures. The COL from doctrine branch also gave a presentation (Death by Powerpoint) on the IBCT that contained some useful info. And of course we junior captains see the need to impart our wisdom in daily discussions during small group. From my understanding we will not be seeing it soon as all armor mod funds are dedicated to the SEP, LAV and FCS research. So many needs, so little money I guess. We have been doing some very interesting threat info briefs, the Russians are having a fire sale on good equipment to lots of countries. However, you have to have a competent army to use it well. The Iraqis had good equipment but not good troops or training.... Cavguy

I have seen a lot of mis-information about the LAV fielding generated from the Popular Mechanics article and speculation about the role of light tanks. I am an Active Duty US Army Armor Captain currently at Ft. Knox where they are doing a lot with the Interim Brigade Combat Team (IBCT), better known as the LAV brigades. I have received a few briefings on the developments. I would like to state the following points, all of which are public info, unclassified, and I will gladly answer any further questions. 1) The army is not ditching the M1 Abrams. Six brigades are transitioning to the LAV until the Future Combat System (FCS) is fielded in the 2010-2015 timeframe. Of those six brigades, five are currently light infantry brigades being upgraded with LAVs. Having served in light cavalry with a HMMWV, I can definitely attest this is a step up. The net loss of Abrams tanks is 2 battalions across the force. 2) The M1 is being upgraded over the next few years to the M1A2 Separate Enhancement Package (SEP)version with FLIR sights, IR Jamming, and other improvements. It is projected to serve in the force until 2031 (a 50 year old tank!) when totally replaced by the FCS. The LAV is only a INTERIM solution until the FCS is fielded. 3) The M1 is too heavy for most operations. The majority of bridges in the world simply cannot handle a 70 ton MBT. As an enemy, you can predict where our armor HAS to go based on terrain and bridges that can support our armor. Therefore, the Abrams makes us predictable in restricted terrain choke points. Not to mention it is logistically impossible to provide fuel and deployment through air resupply alone. We just don't have that many C-5's and C-17s to dedicate as tank haulers. For every tank flown, something else is left behind. 4) Adding extra armor to defeat new improved AGTM warheads is a zero sum game. This only increases weight, which exacerbates the problems of the current MBT. With the advent of the SAM the Air Force stopped trying to make its aircraft "survive" a hit. Instead it focused on "avoiding" a hit through various countermeasures - ECM, flares, decoys, stealth, etc. If you can't see/hit us, you don't need as much armor. The navy has done the same with its Phlanax system to defeat cruise missiles. 5) Technology currently exists to defeat incoming AGTMs through IR Jamming and active intercept. In the very near future we will be able to deflect APFDS rounds traveling at 5000/m sec with various intercept technologies. These will be part of the FCS. IR/Thermal masking technology will render the FCS nearly invisible through most sights. This is not star wars - it exists. Armor will still be needed to defeat small calber (<14.7mm) weapons. If you can't hit me, I don't have to have 50 tons of armor and a huge fuel guzzling powerplant, I can weigh 20 tons and have much less of a logistical tail. (which is huge for the M1) 6) The IBCT will have its own recon Squadron (Battalion) organic. For comparison, a DIVISION has one recon squadron currently. The thought is that having extra recon assets linked digitally using UAVs, LRAS3, and other new technologies will provide a much better picture of the battlefield for the IBCT commander which will allow him to pick the time and place of the fight through better intelligence. 7) There will still be six heavy divisions in the active force for the foreseeable future to deal with situations that require heavy armor. The IBCT simply allows the army to be relevant for rapid deployment situations with added firepower. Having been in a Light Infantry Division, I can say that this is a definite step up. (8) 105mm vs. 120mm. Our 105mm currently can defeat all MBTs in service around the world. The 120mm was adopted on the Abrams for a number of reasons, most importantly that we promised the Germans we would standardize on the 120mm(they build the gun). The 120mm provides overmatch for future armored threats and also doesn't wear as quickly since it is smoothbore vs. rifled, but that is another discussion. Plus we have HEP and Beehive rounds for the 105mm, which haven't been fielded for the 120mm. I know I haven't covered everything, so feel free to ask questions or send follow-up. I don't speak for the army and am not involved in the project (I am preparing for command of an Armor Company or Cavalry Troop) but would be happy to answer questions to the best of my knowledge. BTW, some high speed pictures and info on the LAV 3 is available at the General Dynamics Land Systems website (URL not handy). Cavguy [This message has been edited by Cavguy (edited 01-25-2001).]

We have begun to use it to wargame (not necessairly the MDMP version) the BDE and BN OPORDs we have been writing. The SGI picks one of us (usually me) to play the OPFOR commander and we input the OPFOR in something that resembles the situation template. We then allocate the blue forces as per the task org. The mission is then executed with each staff element fufiling its function. One technique my SGI wants to use is to put the blue commander and his staff in an isolated room with mapboards and radios and have the blue controller radio in spot reports to create a more TOC/Warfighter like atmosphere. Should be interesting. Finally, each small group is going to put their best player forward in a head to head competition to determine the tactics award winner. (I hope to get this one ) The school is really just beginning to feel out the uses of it. The senior cadre from COL Antal on down is very enthused about using it so I expect it to develop while I am here - they are rewriting the whole POI and testing it on my class.

===== mattwagner Does the military usually use commercial wargames like TacOps for training or operations planning/prediction? I suppose they would mostly be for training, but I do remember reading in Dunnigan's Wargames Handbook how a commercial tabletop wargame was used to help plan Desert Storm. Also, not too long ago I ran into something about West Point buying copies of Steel Beasts, although it's more of a tank simulator. ====== The army - at least at the user level, has been strongly resistant to using commercial computer sims. The ones most senior officers were "rasied on" were custom made, horrible interface pieces of junk like JANUS and others used for warfighter CPX's and the like. There are many officers who, like myself, are hobbyists with wargaming and plan to use it to help in training. Outside of the mandatory MS Office and Pwerpoint skills, most military combat arms officers I have met have a distaste against using computers for much of anything. Tacops is a perfect example. It debuted in 1994/5 and in 2000/2001 16 CAV (armor school) decides it might be a worthwile training tool. M1TP2 and iM1A2 (haven't played steel beasts) have been out for years and the graphics and play is better than what I saw in SIMNET - CCTT is close but how much does a few copies of those games cost? They have spent untold millions on COFT, PGT, SIMNET, and CCTT. We already have the computers and the networks but no one is using them for training. The only part missing is the "switchology" that is inherent by using a keyboard/mouse. Using the major's advice my small group at ACCC played a reconnaissance scenario to test our group's plan - I played OPFOR while the rest of the class played out their plan on the proxima projector. It turned out to be a great tool and they were all amazed - but many of them still perceive it as too hard to set up. (If find it easy, but I'm a computer guy anyway) I would love to see a modern version of CM and a Tacops that supported varying elevations better, as is, I am planning to use the above to help train my LT's and PSG's as a commander. Also MajorH - a scenario editor would be beautiful - is this very hard to do? [This message has been edited by Cavguy (edited 12-18-2000).]

I am an armor officer and I can tell you no one in the armor school I have met (short of O-7 and above) is thrilled about the LAV either. Congrats on becoming a 19D, best soldiers in the army. You will have superb NCO's and leaders. United Defense sued and got an injunction to stop LAV procurement on the grounds that the Army was biased from the start. I doubt it will be successful though. I would cost more to develop LAV's than to buy upgraded 113's and M8 AGS's. Both can be transported as easily by air and the latter is much more survivable. However, the infantry branch was the proponent on this one - not armor. The results speak for themselves. There was no turret added because a turreted version wouldn't fit in a C-130. The thing is taller than a LAV 25 as is, and that is a hell of a sillouhette. We shall see. On the upside, as a light cav scout (HMMWV's) this is a step up and only the light divisions and 2 ACR are converting to the new system. The heavy divisions are going to remain heavy through 2020 or so. (My opinions are mine and mine only)

We are looking to create some scenarios using map 230 (Irvington) since we do our practice tests on it. We were going to wargame them on the large screen proxima and have someone playing OPFOR. I have read the manual several times and am unclear how to create a scenario and save it for later use as a two-player game. I go the "custom US Army" route on a two player game - but can't create the scenario for both sides where I can load it later for a network game instead of a hotseat. Is there an easier way or have I missed it somewhere?

Re: Apache Penetration. I am an active duty Armor/Cavalry officer and a former Aviation Brigade HHC XO. Trust me - the apache is not "invulnerable" against anything - remember that Clancy wears *extremely* rose colored glasses regarding US equipment. (read "The Bear and the Dragon" for the worst example, RSR is probably his last reasonably accurate book) The critical components can deflect or absorb 7.62mm fire. However, the easiest way to kill any helo is to simply shoot the tail rotor or the engine intakes. Many an aviator I work with agreed with these solutions. An apache will never go toe to to with any machine gun. The armor simply provides enough crew protection and survivability to get the hell out of dodge once shot at without sustaining (hopefully) critical damage.

Here is the errorlog. CPU speed rated at 881 # normal sound channels: 3 % CPU usage for standard channels: 0 # 3D sound channels: 5 % Total CPU usage: 0 Sound is NOT Microsoft certified Sound card has memory (K) = 0 K/s download rate to hardware = 0 Software overhead in CPU % = 0 Max # of static buffers that can be mixed = 96 Max # of buffers (static or stream) that can be mixed = 96 Max # of static 3D buffers = 16 GKernel.cpp 634 GKernel.cpp 778 GKernel.cpp 397 Combat Msn ** 675676160 ## 0 CMApplication.cpp 751 GKernel.cpp 1708 GKernel.cpp 1714 GKernel.cpp 1718 GKernel.cpp 1723 DRIVER: display DEVICE: RGB Emulation MODE: 640 x 480 @0 DEVICE: Direct3D HAL MODE: 640 x 480 @0 MODE: 800 x 600 @0 MODE: 960 x 720 @0 MODE: 1024 x 768 @0 MODE: 1152 x 864 @0 MODE: 1280 x 1024 @0 Attempting to locate 3D preset Using 3D preset Attempting 3D DRIVER: display (Primary Display Driver) DEVICE: Direct3D HAL MODE: 1024 x 768 @0 Red bitmask = 63488 Green bitmask = 2016 Blue bitmask = 31 Set up pick engine... GSound.cpp 2479 PUBLIC BETA Version 1.1b16 CMApplication.cpp 922 Total VRAM (K) = 14554 VRAM available (K): 9386 Has AGP schijndelroad.cmb CMApplication.cpp 4572 Battle.cpp 5634 Map.cpp 1107 Map.cpp 1244 Map.cpp 1250 Map.cpp 1274 Map.cpp 1283 Map.cpp 1441 Battle.cpp 5637 Battle.cpp 846 CMApplication.cpp 4585 CMApplication.cpp 4595 CMApplication.cpp 4602 Number of downsamples: 0 Texture VRAM usage (K): 9398 Battle.cpp 907 Battle.cpp 915 Battle.cpp 922 CMApplication.cpp 3038 GKernel.cpp 5644 GKernel.cpp 2450 GKernel.cpp 118 GKernel.cpp 120 GKernel.cpp 128 *** QUITTING *** CMApplication.cpp 719 CMApplication.cpp 721 Battle.cpp 1366 Battle.cpp 1343 Battle.cpp 1348 Battle.cpp 1382 Map.cpp 1451 !!! For ID# 1801 Windows refcount is 1 My use count is 0 Map.cpp 1470 CMApplication.cpp 723 CMApplication.cpp 725 CMApplication.cpp 729 GKernel.cpp 130 GKernel.cpp 132 GKernel.cpp 136 GKernel.cpp 141 GKernel.cpp 143 GKernel.cpp 147 GKernel.cpp 204 GKernel.cpp 206 GKernel.cpp 213 GKernel.cpp 215 GKernel.cpp 217 GKernel.cpp 219 GKernel.cpp 221 GKernel.cpp 223 GKernel.cpp 225 GKernel.cpp 227 GKernel.cpp 151 GKernel.cpp 153 GKernel.cpp 155 GKernel.cpp 164 GKernel.cpp 180

No. You can't even get that far. Here is how it happens every time 1) Execute Beta Program 2) Click past intro screen 3) Select new game 4) Selecting the scenarios listed on the initial screen works fine. When the down arrow in the top right corner is pressed, it immediately crashes to Windows. This does not happen in 1.0.5. There is never a chance to select modifiers. Niel

Okay, I D/L'ed the 1.1 Beta patch, ran it, and tried to play a single player game. When I hit the down arrow in the scenario selection screen, the game crashes and exits to Windows. This does not happen when I run 1.05. If I select one of the scenarios on the screen, the game loads normally. System: Win98 Celeron 466 192 MB RAM Ideas?

Okay, I D/L'ed the 1.1 Beta patch, ran it, and tried to play a single player game. When I hit the down arrow in the scenario selection screen, the game crashes and exits to Windows. This does not happen when I run 1.05. If I select one of the scenarios on the screen, the game loads normally. System: Win98 Celeron 466 192 MB RAM Ideas?

Thanks for all of your help. I applied some of the techniques in the TF Moody scenario and got much better results. Some questions - 1) Battle Positions - Better in trees, rough, reverse slope, front slope? The problem I had with fire and withdraw was that a withdrawal through trees was way to slow and resulted in T-80's kicking my butt. 2) Use of scout helos. Prefered alt/distance? 3) Supression of Air Defense. Even wit arty hammering the SAM squads my planes aborted half the time. 4) Engagement ranges. The close ranges provided more hits but also allowed OPFOR to kill the M1's better than max range engagements. 5) Unit size - combine from indiv vehicles into platoons, squads, or sections? More micromanagement at the smaller level - is there an advantage to the dispersion it offers? Thanks, Cavguy [This message has been edited by Cavguy (edited 11-22-2000).]

Let me clarify some misconceptions. I am currently in the armor advanced course at Ft. Knox so this is the talk of the town. - All of the LAV's selected are turretless. The 105mm version supposedly has no turret - just a gun that traverses. - There are no plans for the M1A2 to go away until 2025. In fact, extra money has been allocated to upgrade the M1A2 to the new M1A2 SEP package which contains new electronic gizmos, a new engine, and some other mods. By then the Future Combat System (whatever that is) will be fielded. For at least the next 10-15 years there will still be heavy armor in the active force, and lots more in the Guard. - Many tankers here are not happy with the LAV3, although few of us have any direct experience with it. Weak armor, high profile. Most of us had hoped the M8 AGS (light tank) would finally be produced for the tank variant. Having a common maintenance platform will be nice for the motor pool though. - General suprise that we are building a new version of the LAV, the origial scheme was to buy a vehicle available immediately off the shelf. The house favorite (armor captains) was a upgraded 113 and M8 AGS. More survivable and still deployable. Cavguy

The current plan is to also procure a 105mm turretless wheeled "tank". Basically the new IBCT will all use the LAV 3 or variants. The army will still be keeping 3 or 4 heavy armored divisions for the forseeable future. The current plan is to equip 4 to six of these "medium" brigades. Unfortunately, the timeline for procurement completion is 2010, and if it is anything like Force XXI, much will change over the next 9 years. Cavguy.

Hi all! As pointed out here previously, 3-16 CAV is using Tacops in the Armor School for tactics instruction. Now I am fairly decent at playing the game but we have a "tournament" between the students in the advanced course coming up and I wanted some strategies that would put me over the top. Figure I will be working with US Company Teams and Armor/Cav Battalions. Any techniques out there to give me an edge (i.e. battle positions, TRP use, hide positions, infantry employment, etc?) Thanks, Niel cavalrylt@yahoo.com