Carter

I'd read "The Dragons of War" before I ever played TacOps. It gave me a lot of insight into how mechanized land wars are fought, since I've never been in the military. It was very helpful to have read it before I played TacOps. It gave me a lot of perspective. It also makes you appreciate a lot of technology in TacOps. With the events in the book taking place during the 80's, Bolger's unit had no GPS, Abrams tanks, Javelins, or Bradleys. Their TOC was kept well concealed, and Bolger talked about how officers would get lost trying to find the TOC at night The book wasn't an easy read for me. I had to learn a lot of terms, and re-read sections to get a real understanding of what happened. I think that's mostly due to the fact that the book was written by someone in the military for someone in the military. The editing could have been better too. I'm glad I read it. The content was what made it worth the read. I've been thinking about re-reading the book now that I've played TacOps. The book would probably be helpful to an officer going to the NTC for the first time. I think the book is available on Amazon's zShops. NOTE: APPLIQUE was not in Bolger's book. I got that info from other, more recent sources.

> Does it help reduce causualities? Digitization is a force multiplier. It helps everyone coordinate better with each other. I read a book written by a Daniel Bolger, a company commander, about when his unit was at the NTC. It was called "Dragons at War Land Battle in the Desert". In it, he observes that the units that fought best were the units in which the commanders gave the most information to their subordinates. For a unit to fight best, everyone had to be on the same page. Digitization will help you do that. "APPLIQUE" is a digital system that coordinates troops and logistics. It was tested at the NTC. As I remember, OPFOR got their butts kicked by the troops with APPILQUE. APPILIQUE is supposed to be a force multiplier of 2 or 3. Sure, digitization won't help you with poor, micromanaging leadership. But the NTC helps create an accurate evaluation of leaders. The good and the bad leaders are identified in the combat-like competition. Bad leadership should be addressed directly, its not the technology's fault.

5.56 mm can be a very effective anti-personnel round. The orginal idea in developing the 5.56 mm was for the small, but high velocity round to tumble on impact. Tumbling caused large tissue wounds. It may not kill the target, but it will do serious damage. The generals prefer to generate enemy wounded rather than enemy dead, because wounded cost the enemy more. Developments to the 5.56 mm have created a round that will basically explode on impact, creating a very nasty wound. Armor piercing variants would pass right through a person, depositing little energy, and most likely doing little damage. I hear the Army's new "green" round also has this problem. The armor piercing variant of the 5.56 can penetrate at least 6 mm RHA. Non-armor piercing variants might only penetrate 1 mm RHA. So if you are an infantryman in a short range, full-auto firefight, against a lightly protected enemy, the 5.56 mm is a good bet. It is light, offers low recoil, high rate of fire, and is generally effective at creating infantry casualites. The 7.62 mm is more effective at long range, penetrates significantly more armor, and hits harder because it is a larger bullet with more energy. minmax already wrote some interesting posts a while back about what he did with a 7.62 mm in combat. So I won't even try to talk about it any further.

> We need to continually make progress in all areas. I agree one-hundred percent.

> Is the combat advantage of digitization > properly modelled in TacOps? Seems to me that TacOps models an exceptional capability for situational awarness. As a commander you have complete knowledge of all your forces: You know where everyone is. You know exactly how much ammo they have on hand. You know what all your units are doing. When one of your units spots the enemy, you know instantly. If anything I think that TacOps gives the player better situational awarness than they might have in real life. Sure, the Army has some very useful digital situational awarenss systems on their vehicles, but the grunts don't have that stuff yet. OPFOR probably wouldn't be have the digital situational awarness systems either. But I don't mind. Compromises have to be made in a simulation, and I want OPFOR to be as tough as possible.

Personally I like the way TacOps is, so I have to weigh in against adding morale rules. New Line-Of-Sight Tool: I like the current line-of-sight tool, but I wouldn't mind seeing a second line-of-sight tool similar to the one in BCT. It would display a given unit's entire line-of-sight at once, maybe using a "fan" of sight lines. This tool might make it easier to plan a defense. You could easily see where your unit's don't have observation. (I think Dead space is the term).

> I don't think either is used anywhere > outside of TacOps. I was just thinking you changed the name between TFO and FOT sometime in the last few years. > I used TFO in the game engine so that this > tank's name would appear near the other > OPFOR "T" models in various dialog lists of > names. I very much appreciate this feature. I'd be upset if you changed it. So I guess the proper TacOps name is FOT, but it also goes by TFO for convenience.

In response to Chimera: >Also, to Carter: > >> T-90 > > I believe this is the FOT (Future Opfor > Tank) which used to be called the TFO >(Tank, Future Opfor). Check your User Guide. The T-90 and TFO/FOT are different. MajorH has said that the TFO is basically a Abrams painted red. The difference seems to be that the TFO gun is a little better. The T-90 is a very advanced T-72. It has a 125 mm gun, unlike the 135 mm on the TFO. The T-90 has advanced reactive armor, Shotora-1 countermeasures, and a gun launched ATGM. The TFO looks closer to a Black Eagle. A real Black Eagle would have countermeasures and/or an active protection system. I would also expect the Black Eagle to have a gun launched ATGM. Question for MajorH . . . Which is the correct current name? TFO or FOT? TacOps 3.05 list the tank as TFO, but my user guide says FOT? Not that it really matters. Its all the same in battle

I found some other interesting info on STAFF from Armada International: "A cost and operational effectiveness analysis carried out by the US Army Armor Center at Fort Knox claims that the combat effectiveness of an M1A2 could be increased by 219 per cent by adding four Staff rounds to the stowed ammunition load. As part of the Direct Fire Lethality programme that is developing improved 120 mm rounds and gun stabilisation systems for the Abrams, the US Army is also working on an improved warhead for the Staff. In Fiscal Year 1998 it intends to statically demonstrate the technology for a dual-liner EFP warhead able to form an ultra-long EFP, and by Fiscal Year 2000 wants to test a new warhead with at least 33 per cent greater armour penetration than the current design. The X-rod is a manoeuvrable long rod penetrator that is fitted like a sabot round, then boosted to high speed by a rocket motor. It carries a fire-and-forget millimetric wave seeker and is steered by rocket thrusters. Impact velocity is around 1600 metres per second. Once fire-and-forget rounds with autonomous guidance are in service, their effect on tactics will be dramatic. Instead of waiting until the range has fallen to two kilometres or less, defenders will be able to inflict long range attrition even on an enemy which is making good use of the terrain features to deny the defenders an effective line of sight. Despite the likely cost of smart rounds, they may still prove a cost-effective method of conducting reconnaissance by fire. If the presence of enemy forces behind a terrain feature such as a ridge is suspected, and no drone is available to check the area, a fire-and-forget round could be despatched as a near-instant alternative." Being a top attack weapon STAFF would be very useful at engaging targets in defilade. Since STAFF is self-guided I'm sure it would be effective at engaging evasively maneuvering targets even while the shooter is on the move... although 95% accuracy sounds pretty optimistic to me. You might not be quite sure which target you're going to hit with STAFF. I guess that's okay firing into a group of the enemy, but it could be a vary bad thing to fire it into a mixed group of friendlies/enemies.

Thanks for everyone's input! I have begun using some of these techniques. Games have become considerably more challenging.

I'm looking for new ways to make scenarios more difficult. I already configure my preferences so that OPFOR tanks and ATGMs have thermal imagers, OPFOR ATGMs are improved, there are no enemy OOB reports, and firing units are not always spotted. I usually add all the standard optional red units. I also upgrade OPFOR units. I change T-80s to TFOs, BMPs to BMP3s, ZSUs to 2S6s, and 122mm artillery to 152mm. I don't usually rush the edge of the board (against the AI at least ). I read in the Gazette that I could keep further from the OPFOR side to increase difficulty. I could remove friendly units, but a lot of times I don't use all my units anyway. I could delay resupply like it was suggested in the Gazette, but what is a realistic way to do this? Imaginary Supply dumps? Just wait a few minutes and resupply units in place? Maybe I should just give OPFOR more off-map artillery and ICM? [This message has been edited by Carter (edited 03-08-2001).]

Sloping is designed to do 2 things: 1) Increase the thickness of armor versus a certain direction. 2) Increase the chance of a ricochet. I'm not an expert at modern anti-armor rounds versus sloping, but I can speculate. HEAT round _could_ be made to rotate, using the precurser probe, to a more favorable angle on sloped armor. The rear charge would then have a more direct shot through armor. I've never heard of this being done, but I think its possible. Kinetic-energy rounds might constructed so that they are more likely to dig into armor instead of just bouncing off. But I don't see kinetic-energy rounds changing direction much to increase penetration. You have to remember that these weapons rely heavily on velocity. If their direction is changed, they should lose velocity and therefore lose penetration. Elasticity might allow them to change direction a little bit. But SABOT rounds, which are very long and thin, can easily snap. If they snap, their penetration goes down considerably.

I finally tracked down some info on that projectile jaja mentioned. It is called XM943 or STAFF (Smart Target Activated Fire and Forget). It is a 120mm smart missile fired from the cannon of an Abrams. The fire-and-forget STAFF functions much like a conventional round. But while in-flight, it activates an onboard millimeter wave radar. This radar seeks out a target, with some capability to disreguard decoys. Once it finds a target, STAFF flies over it and attacks it from the top with an explosively formed penetrator. STAFF is primarily an anti-armor weapon, but can also attack helicopters. Sounds like STAFF is capable of functioning while the Abrams tank is on the move, and beyond the tank's line-of-sight. The STAFF is said to require no change to the tank turret and no unique actions by the tank crew other than setting a single range zone switch. Storage would be the same as the other 120mm ammo. Successful tests of STAFF were done in 1997. It was developed by Alliant Techsystems.

I just read about a very interesting new protection system Boeing developed for the US Army. Its called SLID (Small, Low-cost Interceptor Device). It is desgined to intercept ATGMs, HEAT rounds, mortar rounds, and artillery shells at a range of about 250 meters. It does this by firing a guided missile at the incoming round. Apparently it destroys the target with kinetic energy. Boeing finished testing in 1999 and handed it over to the Army. If it really works, this thing would be a major force multiplier. The Russians already have ATGM interceptors like Arena and Drozd-2. But SLID looks like its more versitile.

In a battlefield environment with jamming, a fire control radar will probably have a difficult time tracking the Comanche. You may get intermittent detection, but that's not nearly as good as a solid track. A solid track would enable precise fire from anti-aircraft artillery. An intermittent track gives you only a general area to shoot at. The Comanche's sensors, computers, and software are supposed to enable the aircraft to track and recognize adversaries long before they are aware of the Comanche's presence. Apparently the idea is to hit the enemy first, before they have a chance to react.

I thought I would continue discussing the Comanche in a new thread. . . The Comanche is not a replacement for the Apache. It is the first helicopter designed specifically for armed reconnaissance. The Comanche was created to replace the AH-1 Cobra, OH-6A Cayuse, and the OH-58A/OH-58C Kiowa light observation helicopters, and to supplement the Apache. Its frontal radar signature is more than six hundred times smaller that the Apache's, 32 times smaller that the OH-58D's ***mast-mounted sight***! Missiles can be carried internally, the gun is stowed when not in use, and the landing gear are fully-retractable. Radar stealthiness is not only provided by the shape of the helicopter. Radar absorbing materials also reduce its signature. The helicopter blades may even be invisible to radar (like a radome in the nose of a jet fighter, solid but transparent to radar). This means the Comanche will be able to approach five times to a radar than an Apache without being detected. In the attack role, carrying external weapons, the Comanche would be much less stealthy, but the Comanche would remain stealthy with up to 6 Hellfires carried internally. The Comanche is quieter that current helicopters. It makes half the rotor noise, and can sneak 40% closer than an Apache without being detected. The Comanche's side IR signature is only about 36% of the Apache's. Its engines radiate only one quarter the heat of current helicopters. An SA-16 may still be able to shoot one down. The Comanche still has a significant IR signature, and the SA-16 uses both IR and UV. But the Comanche's stealth should reduce lock-on range and probability of hit.

> There are a lot of hot spots where the > armor threat is minimal to non-existent. Everybody seems to have RPGs. Light armor is extremely vulnerable to them. > Think of Somalia, Panama, Grenada - no > real need for heavy armor. I have to disagree about Somalia and Grenada. One of the biggest problems in Somalia was that the Special forces didn't have much in the way of backup. When everything went to hell, they didn't have anyone capable of extracting them. The situation was too hot for helicopters to pick them up. The other US forces in Mogadishu had only trucks. They tried and failed to enter the city, because they had no armor. The only people in Mogadishu with armor were UN forces. It was only after hours of negotiation that an armored relief column was assembled. Even with armor, they had a tough time entering the city. They lost a lot of vehicles getting in. So many that by the time they got to the Special forces, there was only room for the wounded to ride on the vehicles. The remaining special forces troops had to move out on foot. We really needed armor in that situation. In Grenada, Rangers parachuted onto the airport runway. They were immediately pinned down. They remained pinned down, at the end of the runway, for a very long time. If they had armor, they should have been able to break out quickly. Instead they stayed pinned down while the Marines took most of the island. Armor doesn't just to exist to fight other armor. Its useful for supporting infantry as well.

The idea switching from lead to tungsten is not to increase pentration. Official press releases say "the 5.56 mm bullets are identical in performance and effectiveness." The point is just to create "green ammunition". The green ammo is copper jacketed with a tungsten-tin or tungsten-nylon core instead of a lead core. They started first with 5.56mm. Then they want to move on to 7.62mm, 9mm, and .50 cal. Lead bullets have been used for 200 years with out any really big issue. I know that lead buckshot was changed to steel because people would eat the lead in the animals they hunted. Lead is soft enough that you can bite it without knowing, but you know when you bite down on steel. (Trust me, you know!) Older people I know ate lead buckshot most of their lives and don't seem worse off for it. But I think it was probably a good idea to change to steel buckshot. I just don't see the issue with using lead in military rounds. They already have armor piercing ammunition. The 5.56mm M995 AP round will penetrate 6mm RHA. These are some websites I've read on the subject (the first 2 are pro, the last con): http://aec.army.mil/prod/usaec/op/update/fall99/fall9901.htm http://www.firearmsid.com/Feature%20Articles/GreenBullets/GreenBullets.htm http://www.findarticles.com/m1571/19_16/62349852/p1/article.jhtml

From what I understand, this is Clinton era craziness. First we will have a rely on China for tungsten as they are the major supplier. The tungsten bullets are also more expensive than lead bullets. But the _biggest_ thing is that tungsten bullets are only useful for target practice. Lead is a much better material for bullets. Tungsten tends to pass right thru a target, depositing little energy, and doing little damage unless something vital is hit. Special forces in Somalia found this out the hard way in the early nineties. I believe the quote went something like "I had to shoot [the enemy] 5 or 6 times just to get his attention!" It appears that no one listened to the combat veterans or ballistic experts.

> It is possible that TacOps overstates the > capabilities of this ATGM round. Agreed that TacOps may overstate the current Russian ATGM round (especially with improved OPFOR ATGMs selected). I've seen the current AT-11 (Refleks-M) ATGM listed as having a tandem warhead with 700-750 mm penetration. But a new ATGM round with a top-attack mode or triple-warhead should be able to take out an MBT. I was just attempting to make the point that an MBT with an advanced-ATGM would be a real threat. I should have clarified that.

I asked my good friend Vladimir, and he gave a figure of approximately 600 mm thickness for the forward turret. (Sorry, had to tease a little bit) The question is . . . How much RHAe does that composite armor thickness give? There are several estimates on the tanknet.org link listed above. (Look for VanDerBob's giant post) BTW I'd like to thank Mike Robel for writing his article about TacOps and BCT on strategypage.com. His article really got me interested in playing TacOps. I just hope he's not regretting it now.

> I will say this though, I was riding down a > trail and a Cobra did a popup not > seventyfive meters in front of me. I was so > suprised I fell out of the jeep and broke > my arm, the pilots were laughing so hard > the Cobra was bouncing all around. I almost fell out of my chair reading this! Sorry about the arm, hope its all healed now. > Mounting an ATGM defeats the purpose of an > M1 tank. I don't think so. On the defense, in a hull down position, is a great time to use an ATGM. I've heard of TOWs hitting targets at 4000 meters. The wire is supposed to make a distinctive sound as it breaks. I'd rather have a 90% chance of hitting a target at 3750 meters with and ATGM than a (estimated) 5% chance of hitting a target at 3750 meters with a cannon round. Top attack weapons like TOW IIB's might increase Pk. New ATGMs might have more range. Have you played against OPFOR T80U-ATGM tanks? I've used them. They're way better than the regular T80Us! (In my humble opinion ) > Still I wonder why the M1 don't have TOW mounts? I think that accompanying vehicles like the Bradley and jeep have made up for the Abrams not having an ATGM. [This message has been edited by Carter (edited 02-06-2001).]

I think the Apaches proved themselves in the open terrain during Desert Storm, destroying over a thousand targets with only one shoot down. Surprise, by flying in low and fast, appears to have been effective. But I agree that tanks are powerful in the desert, open terrain is not ideal for gunships, and that it is preferable to have a good mix of forces. > Also, why are we building the Comanche? Steath is vital. If they can't see you, its very difficult to shoot you. By reducing radar, IR, and acoustic signature, the Comanche will be harder to detect and track. If the Comanche can't be tracked by fire control/guidance systems, ZSUs and SAMs are going to have a tough time hitting it. It might be time to break out the good ol' fifty cal! > Why don't tanks like the M1 mount ATGMs? I think the ATGM would be an excellent weapon for the Abrams. ATGMs offer high accuracy at long range. With a top attack mode the missile could defeat any tank. Drawbacks would be that ATGMs are expensive, long-range shots are supposed to be rare opportunities on the battlefield, and the Army got burned with the unreliable Sheridan ATGM system. [This message has been edited by Carter (edited 02-05-2001).]

Thanks for pointing out the 2 axis slope, I hadn't thought of it, it should have been obvious to me. However . . . A 40 degree pitch in two directions does not equal a single 80 degree slope. 40 degree double slope = 1.305 x 1.305 = 1.703 Which is still a lot less that the 5.759 multiplier for 80 degrees I believe tanknet.org shows a similar calculation for the Abrams double slope using a more conservative 35 degrees by 40 degrees. Note that this double slope value is only valid for a front turret centerline "head on" shot. [This message has been edited by Carter (edited 02-05-2001).] [This message has been edited by Carter (edited 02-05-2001).]

80 degrees is near horizontal. Almost flat. The glacis and underside of the turret are sloped close to 80 degrees, but the front facing appears to be more like 30 to 40 degrees. Sloping multipliers are: 30 degrees = 1.155 40 degrees = 1.305 80 degrees = 5.759 A little bit of armor goes a long way at 80 degrees, but the turret armor needs to be much thicker.