Jump to content

mattwagner

Members
  • Posts

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by mattwagner

  1. The foxes were deployed to Iraq. The Stryker apparently is not working as an NBC platform. They can't get it sealed for an NBC attack. Foxes were nice as far as audio goes... so damn quiet. Once I was walking around in the motor pool and somebody yelled at me to get out of the way. Was a FOX VC. It was about 12 feet behind me. Didn't even hear it.
  2. im cool with it. mainly because of the focus on MOUT... which is extremely difficult. I agree China vs US would've been pretty cool. Especially if it were a land invasion of the US. heh!
  3. The vehicle does not do well in soft sand. It depends a bit on the driver's and vc's experience... It doesn't happen a lot, just when it's maneuvered in a bad place... like a wadi. Ahem.. hmm. Definitely can't go places a tracked vehicle can. the FBCB2 is definitely a pain in the butt at times, but its use is immense. It shows the actual location of every vehicle in the unit... providing the other vehicle's systems are working. The thing is definitely slow... programmed in Java! runs on Sun Solaris. as far as RPG's and IED's go... everyone I've known who got hit by one while INSIDE the vehicle with the hatches shut, have been ok. The vehicle on the other hand... not so ok. Plus, the insurgents weren't very good shots. Only severe casualties due to enemey actions that I know of were vc's due to being exposed. My old room mate who was a driver did have his foot messed up due to an IED, but he made it out ok. The vehicle caught fire and was toast though. Everybody else made it ok. Anyway, that stuff aside... if you ask a Stryker soldier whether they'd rather be in a hummer or a stryker.. well... im sure you can guess the answer.
  4. I agree, having been active for 3 years in a Scout unit. Although you do get your occasional "dont wanna work dirtbag" and braindead types, combat units seemed to have rather intelligent people. A lot of middle class types too. Although, I do think quite a few did want to get out of the house. A lot of us joined because we were bored and lacked ambition in other areas, not because we didn't have opportunities/came from the ghetto(i love how the media mentions that a lot). The military gave us a type of motivation we couldn't get on the outside. A swift kick in the @$$! Maybe it's my anti-pogue sentiment, but a lotta of the support types seemed to be not so bright.
  5. My buddy(as well as a bunch of other guys i used to work with) was in this same ambush and had a very similar story to tell. RPG's, shrapnel in the face, disabled strykers, rocking the .50 and thinking he was going to die, and whatnot.
  6. C-130 and Strykers simply dont mix. Unless you like getting 10% of your force on the ground in a few days, but non combat ready, and the other 90% about a three weeks later by boat.
  7. To me... the Stryker is pretty much a broken platform for these reasons: a) MGS NBC c) Too heavy d) ****ty armor Anyway, it was typical military crap. Write up a bunch of stuff on how things are supposed to work... when they dont work like that, its too late, drive on. Still... it isn't complete junk. It's alright. My unit made do with it. They didn't lose too many people. They lost Strykers, but the people inside made it ok. And thats a big deal in my book. --- Also, for the record, I did not go to Iraq with these, nor have I seen combat. My opinions are strictly from the standpoint of someone who used to drive one. I do have friends who are still serving however, and one is the VC of a Stryker and saw combat in Iraq. [ October 11, 2005, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: mattwagner ]
  8. There were several on Fort Lewis. Back in 02/03. Right next to my motorpool. They dissappeared after a few months. Same reason I listed above. Anything beyond firing straight ahead left them on their sides. Honestly, I don't think they'll ever be deployed per spec. Maybe if they make em 90mm and add about 8,000 lbs to the base! Profile is way too high. Its physics. I forget the name of the vehicle(was told centurion, but isnt that a tracked tank?), but soon after there were several of these low profiled, wheeled, 105mm tanks sitting where the MGS used to be. Somebody told me they were the Abrams platform on wheels... pretty sure that was wrong. They were loans from Germany.
  9. I think the reason why things ran the way I saw them during my enlistment was that there was a strong sentiment(from command) that the LTs were just in the platoons for training and should watch and learn. I think there is a strong focus on that in other combat arms branches as well.
  10. Just wanted to point out that the MGS is not in use in Stryker Brigades. Why? When they fired the gun with the turrent turned 90 degrees, the vehicle would roll on its side. Nice huh? If anybody knows of a Stryker unit that deployed to Iraq with MGS, let me know. I helped load the Strykers for 3rd BDE on the two ships that went to Iraq and I didn't see a single damn MGS.
  11. While I was in a Stryker Brigade, my platoon did some very fun MOUT training with 1st Special Forces Group. We were using Sim Rounds, which are basically 9mm paintball rounds... you simply replace the upper reciever on the M4/M16. We thought we got our asses handed to us, but during the AAR, we were told that we did rather good... all things considered. They told us how in the same MOUT village(about 8 or 9 buildings), they(one SF team) defended while the 2nd Battalion, 75th Rangers attacked. After a day, the Rangers had 70% casualties and had just established a foothold in the village. Thats how ****ty MOUT is. We were told to always expect at least 50% casualties.
  12. Greatly improved graphics and animation, awesome AI, and easy fast online play. A friggin Mod bonanza. Basically, I expect to blown away.
  13. In my scout squadron, the LT was unofficially 2nd in command. And the replacement for an LT was a few wisecracks. Honestly though, my platoon had a couple of kick ass LTs come through... probably because they were both prior enlisted. But... as far as things go at the enlisted level, there was never any doubt as to who really ran the show. I can't fathom this being a new thing... but it seems like war movies always show officers calling all the shots and the PSG and 1SG staring off into space, let alone getting any camera time.
  14. The 'sniper training' they give snipers at the platoon level for line units is pretty lame. Some real snipers trained a few guys at the Brigade level... and they in turn trained guys from individual platoons. 1 week. That's not real sniper school. One of my old room mates went. Here's your M14, and off you go. He was also the gunner on his vehicle. Anyway, it looks good on paper.
  15. yeah, the figure they told us was 6 figures starting with a one, but i forget the exact number. I'm pretty sure it was higher than 100k though.
  16. I'm up for WW2 west, and Korea. WW2 because that's my fav theater. Korea... because I havn't seen it yet... and I want to see 3000 Chinese assault(more like run past) a company of scouts!
  17. Wanted to add my 2 cents... I was in a Stryker brigade in the cav. I never got to live fire a Javelin, but I've seen it a couple of times and went through simulator training on it. I forget how much one of those missles run, but suffice to say, only a couple guys got to live fire. The thing is insane. It can kill anything, including the Abrams. Its neigh idiot proof. You lock on your target and hit the trigger. It's dead. Completely dead. That's one thing though. We also had LRAS3 (15k thermal & more). In NTC we were spotting ****(vehicles and dismounts) practically through solid objects. Way far away. 15K, straight up. T-72? Call in the big guns. Boom. Don't even need to break out the Javelin. Modern battlefield? Its not even a contest. And its only getting like that more and more. Playing that in a game... would be so boring. Urban ops? That's a whole nother story! Also wanted to add, the Javelin is supposed to be able to kill any armor threat into 2010-2020. [ October 08, 2005, 02:29 AM: Message edited by: mattwagner ]
  18. 3 years, 19D Cavalry Scout Now back to enjoying civilian life. Played CMBO a lot in the months before I left for Fort Knox. Didn't play it much while I was in. Decided to check it out again today... found my manual, can't find my cds... still looking.
  19. mattwagner

    TacOps 4.0

    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.
  20. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Allan Wotherspoon: The Canadian Forces Infantry Journal has published several articles on the LAV III. Check out this link: http://www.brunnet.net/infsch/journal/32/32-lav3-a.htm This article discusses the protection level of the LAV III. Allan<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for the link Allan. In the article, it states that even with the addon armor, the LAV III would still be vulnerable to RPG's. So I guess the IBCT LAV's will be uparmored at the factory with this system and the addon armor they talk about in the press releases is a newer version.
  21. Another thing on the IBCT's... Pentagon officials are claiming that the BCT's are not limited to peace keeping missions, and have sufficent firepower and protection to fight against conventional forces. What I am wondering is why the Reconnaissance version of the LAV does not have any greater anti tank capabilities than a ICV LAV. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/bct/Annex-A-Appendix-3-Recce-31-Jan-00.htm "3) The MAV Reconnaissance vehicle must possess the same armament as the MAV Infantry Carrier (ICV)." with the rationale being: "... With this mission profile, the armament of the platform will be used in a defensive role only, enabling the platform to provide suppressive fires in order to disengage from direct combat..." I can understand this line of thought, as I've read a bit about scouts having a tendency to engage the enemy rather than immediately breaking off(though I was under the belief that in many cases you simply wouldn't have a choice). Yet, this would also seem to imply that the infantry carrier has insufficient offensive capability as well, and when engaged, only has the option of running away! A T-72/80 versus an LRAS3 equipped LAV and 2 or 3 scouts, or a T-72/80 versus a LAV and 9 grunts... doesn't seem like much fun either way.
  22. I once ran into an article from Soldiers about the RPG-7. The author wrote a bit about the Soviets fighting the Mujahadeen. Generally, it said that when faced against rpg attack, dismounting and having the carrier provide overwatch would ensure destruction of the carrier. I believe the article said that the Soviets would drive around the enemy in ever widening circles while firing at them, in order to dodge the rpg's. In the case of an urban environment, that wouldn't be feasible. The Chechens would use snipers and machineguns to pin down the the dismounts while hitting the carrier with a half dozen rpgs. I have been under the impression that vehicles in an urban environment with insufficient dismounts was a big no-no, as per the Iran-Iraq war. The LAV ICV is supposed to have 9 dismounts, but the reconnaissance version will only have 2 or 3. I would imagine that a recon vehicle would have a far greater chance of engaging the enemy, especially in an urban setting. And wouldn't the enhanced information gathering equipment be of less use due to limited range?
  23. I ran into this http://www.strategypage.com/articles/ibct_files/ibct.htm article which is basically all the other articles combined. Some quotes: "Because the LAV is not armored to protect against anything larger than 7.62mm machine gun fire or 152mm artillery bursts at ranges of greater than 50 feet, it relies on its speed and stealth to avoid decisive engagement..." "Do not adopt as the primary combat vehicle of the battalion the LAV-APC armed with a small caliber weapon. The primary combat vehicle of the battalion should carry a 25mm or 30mm cannon in order to provide sufficient support to the dismounted infantry force and kill the enemy’s supporting vehicles before they close to within 1,000 meters." ARGH. I have some personal concerns about the future of the IBCT as I recently enlisted with the MOS of 19D, Cavalry Scout with Fort Lewis as my first duty station. Here are some quotes that make me feel real good: "The recon/counter-recon phases saw the scout platoons stripping off the enemy recon elements though casualties were usually heavy." "The medium Scout Platoon is more lethal than the heavy TF Scout Platoon, but the temptation to use it to fight is much greater, since they are not in HMMWVs." It's not that I wasn't expecting such things in this type of job, but I'm not exactly itching to participate in a real world test. I guess there is still a little over a year before the first IBCT is scheduled to be operational, so maybe some things will change by then. Another interesting thing about the press releases on the LAV III is that add on armor can make it RPG resistant, but I have read that such add on armor does not yet exist. I also ran into some info that even the M113 has the same capability but the US Army hasn't seen fit to bother with it. Anyhow, I sometimes wish the AGS had been chosen instead. It would definitely make me feel more at ease. I hope they outfit the reconnaisance LAV with more than just a peashooter.
  24. Here are the links to the articles: http://www.strategypage.com/tt/lavorags.htm http://www.strategypage.com/tt/WARGAMIN.htm There are some other related articles in the AAR section.
×
×
  • Create New...