Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

ozi_digger

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    213

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

 Content Type 

Posts posted by ozi_digger

    US Marines

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by LtCol West:

    I do not read alot of books written by Marines about the Marine Corps. They tend to be too far pro usually, and Jarhead is a book that is con. One of the best books about the USMC is "Making the Corps" by Thomas Ricks, a journalist with the Washington Post (pretty sure).

    I'm no expert on the USMC but I liked Evan Wright's Generation Kill - a portrayal by an embedded journalist who rode with Force Recon during the war in Iraq. A warts'n'all type of book. I especially liked how he wasn't politically correct - if a marine officer was a WOFTAM he didn't mind mind labelling him so. If that's not your cup of tea, then there is always Phil Caputo's A Rumor of War...
    0

    Will concrete bombs be modeled?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    I'd recommend that BFC not bother with modelling concrete bombs for two reasons.

    a) They're not entirely effective as a less-than-lethal alternative; and

    B) They're not in widespread operational use.

    Thus, I'd be interested to see which sources the magazine article got its information from.

    Let me explain each point.

    a) They're not entirely effective as a less-than-lethal alternative. The measure of effectiveness for a concrete bomb is effective miss distance (EMD). This means it's impact point has to be within a certain radius in order to be effective. For this reason their optimum use is against medium sized point targets that just need a penetrative effect. Our typical concrete laser guided bomb (LGB) will probably be a Mk82, 500lb case filled with concrete and a Paveway II guidance kit (lets call it a concrete GBU-12, or CGBU-12). The circular error probable of a CGBU-12 is probably between 10 and 20 feet - say 15 feet. This means that 50% of strikes will fall within 15ft of the aimpoint and 90% will fall within 30ft. The CGBU does not represent a precision attack to take out a small point target such as a sniper. It is much more likely to temporarily neutralise the operations of the sniper -stun him and force him to move rather than killing him. This is not a permanent solution by any means - if my troops were being harassed by a sniper I'd rather see him killed so he didn't come back to fight another day.

    The other problem with the CGBU is ricochet. They have a nasty tendency to hit a target and then fly off into the distance - up to 1000's of metres in some cases. This, in reality does not represent a safe weapon to mitigate civilian casualties. CGBU weapon effects can be unpredictable at best - imagine it - the weapon strikes then ricochets and flies through half the neighbourhood before coming to rest.

    Conversely, the nearest low yield weapon is the GBU-12 itself - 500lb of frag and HE. On the positive side, its weapon effects are easier to predict - it hits and explodes in a predictable pattern. However, it still represents overkill in a situation requiring less-than-lethal effects. This is the reason the US is developing the small diameter bomb (SDB). It promises to be a low yield weapon that will not ricochet (and will self-destruct) and will mitigate collateral damage concerns.

    The weaponeering school of thought is divided on the use of concrete bombs. Some advocate their use and some urge caution because they may not be as effective, nor as safe, as you might think.

    B) The CGBU is not 'experimental' nor is it standard load-out either. HE and frag is a much more popular effect with those who call for CAS support. An aircarft on CAS standby is much more likely to have a couple of GBUs or JDAMs instead of concrete munitions. This is because the utility of concrete bombs is rather limited.

    For these reasons I'd recommend BFC concentrate on their core ideas - stuff that blows up. Concrete bombs are not standard loadout and they are not in widespread use. BFC seems much more interested in combat operations involving infantry and mechanised forces. Likewise, whatever CAS they model will probably have a lethal contribution to events on the ground ( I hope!).

    0

    BFC mentioned in TSJ article

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    I found an article in the Dec2005/Jan2006 Training & Simulation Journal titled 'Artificial intelligence gets real'. It mentions 'Highway to the Reich' and CMAK as games with good AI qualities.

    The article says:

    </font>

    • '..CMAK is a thinking man's wargame.'</font>

    </font>
    • '...superb perspective of being able to examine the battlefield from any angle, backed by an excellent scenario editor that would make this game a useful tactical trainer.'</font>

    but, although a version has been licenced to the Australian DoD

    </font>

    • '...Battlefront says a potential contract with the US Army's Training & Doctrine Command never got of the ground.'</font>

    Interesting to note the article points out that the military agencies are rather stupid when it comes to buying COTS games - if the hard programming work is already done, then it makes sense to buy a licence for a game engine that already exists. I s'pose its just hard to convince them to buy the licence.

    Oh well, better luck with selling CM:SF to the US Army.

    0

    sniper explodes ATGM

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    In a similar vein, here is another account of a sniper rifle being used to good effect.

    It is a press release about an SASR soldier being awarded a bravery medal.

    Relevant part is bolded.

    Included full account because it is interesting.

    Trooper x

    MEDAL FOR GALLANTRY

    For acts of gallantry in action in hazardous circumstances in Iraq while on Operation FALCONER.

    Trooper X's patrol was tasked with clearing an Iraqi installation, to prevent it being used for the command and control of Iraqi theatre ballistic missiles. Trooper X was the machine gunner in the exposed .50 Calibre mounting ring in his patrol vehicle. During the action, an enemy special operations force of two vehicles and up to 20 heavily armed personnel engaged the SAS patrol. Whilst in contact with numerically superior enemy forces, Trooper X's actions in destroying the enemy vehicles gave the Australian force the freedom of movement to complete the mission.

    In a hazardous situation and under fire, Trooper X immediately engaged and destroyed the first enemy vehicle with his Javelin missile system. Having limited the enemy's ability to manoeuvre, the patrol assaulted forward and Trooper X engaged a further Iraqi position located to the south with his machine gun. Trooper X re-engaged the enemy with his machine gun, demonstrating great composure.

    Trooper X then re-engaged and destroyed the second enemy vehicle with the Javelin, dispersing nearby enemy soldiers who were setting up a mortar position. Subsequently, as the patrol closed on the enemy position, Trooper X engaged a mortar tube with his sniper rifle, hitting the tube with his first round and causing the weapon to explode. At this stage individual enemy started to surrender, creating a situation where surrendering soldiers were intermingled with other enemy who were still engaging the SAS patrol. Trooper X then judiciously placed well aimed shots within close proximity of the enemy that were still engaging from concealed positions, forcing them to surrender.

    Throughout this engagement, Trooper X demonstrated skills and composure of the highest standard. He acted with very little direction and his decisions and subsequent actions had significant impacts on the outcome of the engagement. His actions in destroying the enemy vehicles gave the Australian assaulting forces freedom of movement and put the Iraqi forces under immediate pressure. Fort he entire engagement, Trooper X was subject to enemy fire passing close overhead. He readily accepted the personal danger and disregarded his own safety while acquiring the enemy vehicles with the Javelin. His conduct whilst in a hazardous situation in contact with numerically superior enemy forces was most gallant and led to the success of the action.

    Trooper X's acts of gallantry played a crucial role in gaining the initiative for his patrol and defeating an aggressive enemy force. His actions contributed significantly to the Coalition's strategic success in denying Iraq the use of their theatre ballistic missiles. His performance brings great credit to the SAS Regiment, the Australian Army and the Australian Defence Force.

    It is likely that other awards will be presented to members of the ADF for their contribution to Operation Falconer at a later date

    Reads like a game of BF2 doesn't it? Start on MG, go to Javelin, MG, Javelin, Sniper Rifle.... Guess sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.
    0

    UAVs?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    There are a couple of issues with UAVs that point to them being good on paper but operational realities are often different. I think a big problem is that we see the footage of a Predator strike and think as a commander, we can get coverage of anything at any time. Let me just play devil's advocate here.

    1. Abstract Recon. BFC (IIRC Steve in particular) mentioned that an abstract method of revealing opposing troops on set-up will be modelled. This will represent recon elements spotting troops. Probably includes aerial recon too. Although abstract, I think this may be the best system of simulating UAV spotting.

    2. Bandwidth Issues. Already identified as a number one problem of a networked force of the future. BFC (Steve) also mentioned the problems that vehicles have in staying networked while they're on the move. To me this presents a problem for all tha high-bandwidth UAV data streaming to your mobile forces.

    3. Connectivity and Timeliness. Timeliness is another major factor of a highly mobile networked force. If you are playing tip of the spear in CMSF, how old is that info by the time it gets to you? What format is it in? My guess is that the info will be anywhere from 1 minute to hours, depending on the tactical level of the resource. If its tactical and under the control of a COY commander then it would be minutes. Can still be old news in a highly mobile engagement. Tactical UAVs tend to have low res sensors compared to their strategic counterparts. So will that analyst at the end of the UAV have spotted the enemy at all? If he does, will that picture blob be correctly identified? Which brings me back to format. What end result do you (the COY commander) get the report in? An annotated graphic? A word picture? A radio message?

    4. Recon and Surveillance. This is the bottom line of my devils advocate rant. UAVs at the tactical level are intended for recon and surveillance. Recon before an engagement and surveillance of deployments. This to me is not the tip of the spear and a UAV would only feed me information that was not instantaneous. This is not to distract from their utility on the battlefield, but I think we need to be realistic as to what we're actucally getting. Abstracted snippets during sutup suits me fine. Maybe I get a message when my opponent's reinforcements arrive, where they arrived, their basic nature and when. Super-accurate, real-time information? Its possible in limited circumstances, but a healthy dose of operational realities needs to be injected IMHO.

    0

    ’73 Arab Israelis War module?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

    Now, some people would be ashamed to say they can not be bribed, but I am not one of those people. If a package arrives on my doorstep containing current issue ... Desert and Temperate camouflage uniforms I'll put my vote (which carries a tiny bit of weight smile.gif ) for putting ... into the first Module.

    [snip]

    Actually, in all seriousness... we need to get a hold of actual uniforms to do the modeling textures in the best way possible.

    Steve

    Following this logic, if I were to put some current, Australian-issue desert cams in a box and post it to you, we might see the Aussies in the first module?

    I'd imagine the LAV wouldn't be hard to model... and we are acquiring the M1 tank... so thats our force contribution covered.

    So whats yer postal address? :D

    0

    CMBO-From out of the Dust

    in Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord

    Posted

    Originally posted by Bert Hamoen:

    By the way, I thought and heard most australians preferred Victoria Bitter instead of Castlemaine Only those who live in Queensland, prefer Castlemaine. smile.gif

    Ahh, you are a true Dutchman! ;) You know your beer markets around the world.

    True, VB is the most popular beer. Mostly because it is cheap like the US Miller brand. Doesn't say much for the taste. Apologies I don't have a Dutch label to compare it to because all Dutch beer over here is expensive and everything from the Nederlands I've tasted so far has been pretty good. IIRC your wheat beers are superb. Tooheys is popular in NSW. XXXX Gold label is a mid strength beer and popular outside Queensland. I don't drink much commercial beer nowadays because I've got the home-brew going. My favourite is a lager, which is good in the ACT because it gets cold in winter and lager yeast works at low temps.

    Back on topic - I've sent my setups to the Major and Walker but I had e-mail server problems last night. Please let me know if you didn't receive them.

    0

    General discussion about CM:SF

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by John D Salt:

    Rest assured, my delicate little flower,...

    So who's projecting now? Or are you coming on to me?

    Originally posted by John D Salt:

    ...that when I start name-calling and deliberately trying to be offensive, you will be able to tell.

    No thanks, I'm not here to see who can p1ss furthest up the wall.

    Originally posted by John D Salt:

    Don't you think that ostentatiously ignoring the reasons I've posted for disagreeing with your opinion, trying to pretend I never posted them, is a pretty offensive way to behave? Can you see no rudeness in your failure to answer any of the questions I put to you?

    Excuse me? Did you say something? Sorry, must have been ignoring you. Must apologise if I was responding to your "You are a/an...[insert insult here]" posts at the time.

    Originally posted by John D Salt:

    Sure, you can define "weapon accuracy" so that the delivery of extremely large amounts of explosive ordnance on things that were not their intended targets has nothing to do with "weapon accuracy".

    That's right. Op Allied Force was a celebration of weapon accuracy. Target intelligence, on the other hand, was faulty.

    Originally posted by John D Salt:

    That, however, was not the point I was seeking to make; it was rather than the adoption of any particular technique by the USAF does not give any guaranty of its accuracy.

    True, but more accurate than getting your information from Janes, or any number of websites these days that claim to have information that is simply not accurate... or attempting to create a model that is based an flawed logic. For example, Janes may tell you that the footprint for a given cluster munition is X by Y feet. They do not take into account delivery altitude, fuzing or whatver. In my opinion, I'd rather have a derived formula, rather than what I referred to earlier as guestimation or fuzzy logic. I can see how fuzzy logic worked for BFC with CMx1. However, when simulating modern technology, you may want a copy of the modern handbook that discusses some of these formulas. Take it or leave it.

    Originally posted by John D Salt:

    Adding additional authorities to an argument from authority doesn't do anything to strengthen it.

    I don't entirely agree, especially given the nay-sayers - some 'army-ophiles' dismiss anything that is perceived to be written from an air power perspective. Driels has not written his book solely for the air force masters program. The models offered for AFV compartment damage, artillery, and small arms fire versus infantry may have some imperfections. BUT those imperfections are recognisable. That is, you don't read it, say to yourself 'oh this saved me from writing the code' and adopt it. Its a reference - how the Army weaponeers do it - ok, thats given me ideas - this is how I'm going to do it.

    Originally posted by John D Salt:

    So the Army has fly-boys too!

    ^

    |

    Right there. HTH. HAND.

    I think I can see the humour in that. But I honestly don't understand the acronyms.
    0

    ...lets dance!!

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by (fgm) falco:

    To the Battlefront forum old boys network...do yerselves and everyone else a favour and come over to where free speech is valued and true wargamers are honored - The Blitz.

    :confused: Where do I join this old boys network? How come I haven't been invited?
    0

    General discussion about CM:SF

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Well I asked for a civil debate but niceties in personal interaction seem to evade you JDS.

    Statements like:

    I am disagreeing with you because I think you are wrong. Sorry if that offends you, but there's no help for it.
    or

    Maybe you're one of those people whose ego gets terribly bruised when others have the temerity not to agree with their unsupported opinions; but that is, to borrow your own charming phrase, not my problem.
    or

    you have a brass neck
    When do you let off on the name calling to try and get a point across? Makes me think you're deliberately trying to be offensive. There is no "I disagree with your opinion because of [fact]" in your lexicon. Only allusions that I may have thin skin. To me it smacks of bait and flame.... Maybe I'm copping a whole load of sarcasm from you because I tried to defend my position? And you're not used to it? Used to steamrolling people with swagger and jive and they back down?

    Then we get on to:

    I really wouldn't repeat the word "accurate" too many times in reference to USAF bomb damage estimates, which have had a pretty dismal record ever since the Strategic Bombing Survey was puiblished. Can you remember how many orders of magnitude wrong the assessments were of bombing damage against the Serbs? Not a great advert for the USAF's methods being "accurate", I think.
    Who mentioned BDA or combat assessment? I think you need to look at the real reasons behind inaccurate BDA reports and I think you might find it has nothing to do with weapon accuracy. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the US Army uses Driels for weaponeering too. Where are the 'fly-boy' comments now, hmm?

    I actually see the point you're making. My argument is not that the book offers software that will save BFC from writing code, nor that it offers classified data. My point is that it has methodologies and models. As a sim developer you are in no way compelled to adopt them. I'd even be swayed by your argument that it is probably not a 'must have'. However, it is my opinion that it would still be a useful reference for weaponeering modern weapons.

    0

    "We're tired of WWII..."

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by WineCape:

    EDIT: One of BFC's future releases might well be the bush war, Angola vs South West Africa/Namibia. ;)

    Sincerely,

    Charl Theron

    That's one of my hopes for a future release too - something like a "Bush Wars" game that might include modules for the Sinai campaign, South Africa in Angola, maybe Rhodesia, an Indo-Paki war, etc.

    Too small of a potential audience though, I worry. </font>

    0

    ...wot the hell?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Welcome falco.

    Can I suggest before you post:

    You do a search to see if the topic has been argued to death before you rocked up.

    You get the name of the company right.

    You capitalise so your sentences grammatically make sense. I tried reading it putting the emphasis or shouting on WILL, PBEM and SUCKS but it was kinda odd.

    0

    General discussion about CM:SF

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by John D Salt:

    Thank you, but your reiteration is entirely unecessary. I understood you perfectly well the first time. I am not disagreeing with you because I didn't read or understand your point, I am disagreeing with you because I think you are wrong. Sorry if that offends you, but there's no help for it.

    [sNIP blah and rant]

    All the best,

    John.

    I always get amused when 'army-ophiles' see something with air power content and write it off straight away. I reckon you've taken my initial post waaay out of context, but anyway, who cares? Civility is free JDS, please refrain from the sarcastic remarks and state a few facts.

    Here are a few things in the text that IMHO a land warfare sim developer may find useful:

    1. Target Representation for damage to AFV compartments and components;

    2. Target acquisition models;

    3. Vulnerability assessments; and

    4. The theory behind their direct fire against personnel targets model.

    No suggestion that you have to adopt their methodologies whatsoever - it might be a useful reference - something you get ideas from.

    Can we put it to bed now?

    0

    How will it not be a "Turkey shoot"

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by GSX:

    Well since Kosovo has been mentioned. There was no ground war, airpower solved the equation. The Serbs withdrew as far as I know?

    SO why not think anything diffrent would happen in Syria? If the premise happens, there arent going to be many Syrian regular units left to fight.

    So its an insirgency war.

    Oh boy, you're just asking me to come out of the woodwork with a statement like that aren't you? ;)

    First, airpower does not win wars on its own. It didn't during Op Allied Force, Desert Storm, etc etc. Kosovo is usually a huge debate about about the inefficiency of air power. However, when taken in context of Russian diplomacy, US politics and NATO ground force mobilisation, air power was effective as an enabler for all this stuff to happen.

    Second, many other posters have pointed out - I'm gonna wait to see the actual scenario. A UN operation. Probably multinational. Possibly a psuedo civil war situation. US committment to the op may actually be quite limited and you're just playing the part of a US coy commander in a not-so-huge US task force. Same sorta situation with Kosovo - it took mass graves on CNN for the US to respond. That is, CMSF may not be in the same scale as OIF. I actually don't know so for me in the meantime its a softly-slowly-catchee-monkey approach.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...