imported_Wildman

Here is one link from Global Security that shows total number of munitions used by US in OIF by 2003. I'm trying to find my OIF lessons learned and determine the classification...that one had it broken down by aircraft types and numbers of munitions dropped....something like 40% of all air munitions were dropped by heavy bombers. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military//library/report/2003/uscentaf_oif_report_30apr2003.pdf

Yes, they did...OIF they launched Day 1 from Fairford, UK for CALCM strikes followed by JDAMs from the wings.

True. In an all out offensive the AF would try to focus on longer range interdiction and battlefield prep. Even fighter aircraft carry multiple JDAMs anymore and would be able to hit multiple targets in one pass...seperated by quite a distance, you could probably hit all four corners of a map with one F-15E.

Speaking of aircraft and larger loadouts. How will CM:SF handle the varied ways to drop munitions. Example 1: Fighter aircraft with Laser Designation drops one bomb...then has to orbit and reapproach to drop a second bomb...several minutes inbetween. Example 2: GPS weapons. JDAMs are designed to be dropped with seperate DMPIs in a single pass...so 4 JDAMs hit four seperate targets on the field...or 12 JDAMs from B-52s and 24 JDAM (2000#) from B-2. Will we be able to do this in-game? I ask this because on the reliance of the US military on rapid deliver of firepower from long range (aircraft or artillery)...in amounts well above what we are used to seeing in WWII. I personnally cannot imagine a CMSF scenario where airpower is NOT involved, day or night. Just a few questions out there in my tiny head.

F-15Es are now carrying 20mm, 2 GBU-38, 2 GBU-12, 4 GBU-39s. Normally you would be right about the use of heavy bombers, however, in the low threat enviroment the bomber is one of the preferred aircraft platforms (from an AF standpoint..the Army always wants A-10s). Its substantial loiter time and high-bomb load, coupled withe the inherent accuracy of GPS munitions make it a great on-call CAS aircraft. I would seriously reconsider the use of Heavy Bombers in game from a realistic standpoint anyway...it could be used in one of two ways. 1. A large one-time pass of munitions 2. A small numbers dropped every 10-15 minutes The only CBUs I see being used are the 97 with its AT assets...if you need info let me know. [ January 04, 2007, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Wildman ]

I want Hammer's Slammers!

Steve, You mentioned Maverick (F-16, A-10, F-18, AV-8), but what about CBUs? Obviously with the Isreali issue when they used CBU-58 (Anti-personnel) and CBU-87s (Combined munitions) there are significant dud issues (on the order of 10% out of the 255 bomblets for 87s). In the game will there be a potential for casualities if you move through the area as there would be UXOs to manhoover around. Also what about CBU-97 (Anti-tank) 10 fully automated topdown penetrators could make for a quick game. Also what about bomber support, Right now B-1s are deployed and when I sent BUFFs they were carrying 12 GBU-31v1s and 27 Mk117 (750lb HE/FRAG). That is a lot of airpower in one frame...now imagine a cell of 3 in a low-threat arena. Will heavy bomber weapons sets be supported and how do you propose to balance that firpower out in the game?

Imperial Grunt it correct and it all depends on threat levels. From a strictly CAS perspective the AF and Army are moving into "Kill boxes". They desigante a kill area and the ATO assigns forces to that area as needed (with the ability to divert to other kill boxes). The kill boxes are color coded at the HQ that determines the level of control needed for weapons employment. Green for Strict Danger Close, Purple for Arty & Air deconflict, or Blue for AF interdiction. Grunts description is much more what we would see in Syria I believe...against actual military forces. In a more insurgent arena (like OIF/OEF) you will see less and less of the full packages. Currently you get a "vul" (vulnerablity) time that you must be in the area for with a variety of weapons. You are then on-call CAS for a specific area. These include "show of force" (imagine a lowish-level high-speed zing over a neighbor hood to impress people), to weapons empolyment. The strafe is becoming important (I guess for it supressive factor and relative accuracy with limited potential for mistakes. As far as I know they are not breaking the 10K altitude barrier, but that out of my area of expertise. I can say that with the advent of the SDB there may be less need for that given its smaller payload and accuracy.

Steve, Actually right now in OIF/OEF ground strafe is a HUGE factor. The F-15Es I'm launching to an undisclosed location had to be trained up on nighttime 30 degree strafe profiles. Here is a list of AF munitions being used from that effects will need to be modeled as they are the ones currently being dropped....(I'll have to get to CENTAFs email to verify it however) GBU-12 GBU-38 30mm 20mm GBU-10 Mk-82 GBU-39 (Small diameter Bomb...this is a BIG one for CENTCOM right now) GBU-31v1 and v2 (AF and Navy/MC versions) For Syria the GBU-31v3 (penetrators would be used too) But bottom line effects they are 2000# HE/FRAG 500# HE/FRAG 250# HE/FRAG 30mm 20mm I can help with loadouts if you need it from the Dash-1s.

Oh it makes sense and if the period (or alternate history scenario) doesn't give you a woody then I fully support your decision. Of course, the internet gives me the right to bitch and complain anyway.

Absolutly, This is one area that really hasn't seen alot of work in the gaming department. True test of Quantity vs quality.

I was curious how he was awarded a degree in Electrical Engineering from Maine in 1944 if he was in combat at the same time?

Help! Help! I'm being repressed....see the violence inherent in the system!

GAWD! The Air Force developing an infantry ground weapon...what is the world coming to?

Not bad, I'm not deploying this time around and I didn't get pulled for the crash investigation of the F-16 that was down in Iraq. I'm annoyed at the pilots, but that is nothing new...much like my annoyment at Joe a constant and everpresent thorn in my side.

Where did you get a piture of my new Durango...I know its mine since it has Idaho plates. Although I would never claim that piece of ****e Chevy in the background.

In addition, the prevelence of 2000lb bombs makes for a much bigger bang. Combined that with the more accurate delivery method. Even if that is the case, you blow off the roof and floors you have reduced the buildings effectiveness. Remember today's planners don't try and eliminate targets, they plan for battlefield effects.

Yup, that's exactly the mentality the Russians used when they sent their men to the meat grinder on the Eastern Front. They won the front didn't they? So it cost the lives of a few million men? So what? There can't be anything wrong with the military doctrine so long as you win? Sure, maybe someone could have come up with a doctrine that didn't results in so many losses, but any doctrine is better than no doctrine after all. So maybe a few thousand Allied lives could have been saved by a handful of key design changes to the medium tank of the day. We won, didn't we? And the tanks were nice and cheap too. Go Bills Go! </font>

If anything the most expediant thing to do would have been to product just the upgunned 76mm turret and ship them seperately to the ETO. Let the Maintenance guys swap turrets and you in essense made the upgrade even easier. That said...we won, is large part to the armored force which carried its weight in a combined arms war. How can we call the Sherman inadequate when it was good enough to get the job done. Sure there may have been better out there, but you don't need the best you just need the right amount at the right time, just look at the German mentality of continuously "searching" for that magic tank to fix all of their problems. I will quote..no I will sum up. "Any tank/solution at the critical time is better than none." You can't argue with a win, folks.

I see we have a Sherman Apologist in the room. Their "primary mission" as you put it was based on faulty doctrine which was revealed to be faulty in 1942 or so. What excuse, then, was there in 1944 for fielding a tank in a role for which it was not suited? Why the scramble to upgun and ap-armour Shermans both at the factory (Firefly, Jumbo) and in the field (spare track, sandbags, applique armour)? </font>

Its called field testing. This is the first time the weapeon has been used in actual operations and therefore will be under more scrutiny to ensure it is working as advertised. As for cost. I'll let you all grab an AK-47 and meet them on equal terms. I'll provide you the body bag.

Despite the "Grog Talk" Shermans were not that bad at all. Early Shermans were designed to fight infantry but field experience proved they were more than capable of taking on PzIII and PzIVE (their timeline contemporaris and designed advisaries) quite well. They started to fail in the anti-tank role (not their primary mission) when faced with the new tank designs being driven by the East Front. That said, it was more than likely a Sherman was going to run into a PzIV or Stug, both of which they could defeat. The Easy 8 could and did match well with later tank models when the gun vs armor war was well in favor of the gun.

And so the next great debate begins. The one to rival the Bren Tripods, "The direction of the .50 cal M2 casing ejection." Let me grab my popcorn.

Heck for that matter you can send files on ICQ, MSM Messenger, Yahoo messenger, etc.

All hail the Saint of the MBT has returned! All Hail, bauhaus full of space. Protect and destroy our enemies, piss off Peng. Bring back an emergence of the Damsels of the Pool. May his humour and innate bitterness shine up us all. Amen