tiny_tanker
-
Posts
195 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by tiny_tanker
-
-
-
There was a discussion on this a month back or so and I think it was 18 rounds or something close to that anyhow. Theres also a picture floating around somewhere showing a case being ejected out the back of the gun after firing. I'll try and hunt it down.Originally posted by OG_Gleep:How many rounds are RL MGS issued?
I find this irritating, when you want a hole blow through a wall, and the MGS misses its shot. You then have to wait 1 minute, 55 seconds to try again.
However, when they do succeed, they seem to magically figure out how to reload, and spend 55 seconds wasting ammo at the new hole.
-
Well you have new more capable suspensions, central tire inflation systems with run flat tires, the ability to use 8 wheel drive. Improvements in tire tech would probably make a difference as well.
-
You are correct they are made available to the unit by a request made up there chain of command through the division they are in and then this is approved by the ISR air traffic controller. But they are still available to them if requested (purchased if you will as this game goes) before going on a mission.Originally posted by gibsonm:Tiny_tanker,
They are only available if allocated to your formation (i.e. a formation asset). They are certainly not available to every squad throughout the theatre as you post implies.
Again I think you will find that to simplify matters their feeds are incorporated into the briefings e.g. "ISR assets had identified a squad in building X" (otherwise we tend to get bogged down in matters of airspace management).
To do this properly you'd end up with having to de-conflict the UAVs with the helos, the air and the arty so your fire mission doesn't "splash" the UAV while en route to whatever the UAV has detected.
Airspace shouldn't be the issue you make it either, as you have to stack the airspace anyway to have helo's and attack aircraft in the same area, just stack a predator in there too. And if artillery is called in all aircraft would have to clear the area (they are called keypads actually, one keypad should be about the size of these battle fields) until the fire mission is over and then back they could go. "Real Life" isn't that hard to simulate, and the majority of the pieces should already be in place with the current off map support.
-
You guys have this UAV thing all wrong, the Predator , warrior Alpha, and Reaper would be perfect additions as they are the only UAV's that are armed, and have sensors capable of spotting troop movement from off screen. They are also available for use by any group from a squad on up and they are dynamically tasked all the time to support troops in contact. I don't see why you couldn't create some sort of recon command where they search a specific area or street and you get a rough idea on the map where the enemy is, no need for video or anything like that.
The Global Hawk would be fairly useless in this game as its a strategic asset and the battle will be long over before the pictures are ready to assist anyone.
-
Only 18 rounds?? Not that I don't love the MGS idea, that just seems like way to small of a load to be helpful in any type of combat support. Its not like you can run back for a reload in the middle of a battle field.
-
Wow..... just wow..... If I say anymore I know I'll regret it... so pass me some popcorn and I'll stay quiet.
-
I would imagine that this can be done very quickly as its a much lower level asset then say close air support. I would say 10's of minutes instead of 30's or more. Trust me thats pretty darn fast.Originally posted by Pete Wenman:I'm old enough to remember the Copperhead guided artillery round, which required a laser designator to paint the target. Seems this is the updated version.
Both systems share the same failing, which is the targets location needs to be known. I'd be interested to know how quickly a ground unit that detects a target can get a round on to it.
No point having pinpoint accuracy if the target has moved. For static targets this is not a problem but the US has enough systems that can take out a known target, although I guess this system must be at the cheaper end of the scale.
-
Most of the issue is your only seeing one squad not the whole platoon. There should be 5 or 7 other squads in the area (Strykers don't leave home alone, ever) and after the IED Bradley thing they would all be raiding houses in the vicinity. We only see two of those houses. I'm sure they raided 4 or 5 houses at least. Of course detaining people and making an old lady cry makes good dramatic tv.Originally posted by konstantine:I see. Thanks for the added info guys. I am aware it's a warzone, my questions are wholly out of curiosity mixed with ignorance. I'm not implying any criticism.
Also Mikoyan, to clarify: in the video there are two separate incidents. The first involves the Bradley, the second involves the ambush of Iraqi troops. The soldiers following the Stryker on patrol occurs after the Bradley gets wasted. Both houses are breached on that occasion. Then, the old lady's house is entered again, on the second occasion, to treat the wounded Iraqi (who lives or dies, who knows).
My conclusion is that while the video is interesting the narration is complete crap. There is no context, just a series of disconnected vignettes with interviews of some understandably shaken up soldiers.
-
Yeah... just like giving everyone the black beret made everyone special. Just because he's a bit of a nutter doesn't mean we should follow suit. Now lets get back to the cool M-14 pictures!Originally posted by Splinty:It's a General Shinseki (the Black Beret guy) thing. He thought capitalizing the word would make it seem special or something. It lasted about as long as he did.
-
This is true, it was deigned as a barracks utility uniform only. Because of that it wasn't going to have digital camo or have colors that blend into anything. As it stands now its a digital tiger stripe that should blend well with concrete (an Airmans natural habitat) and is made of the same material as the desert MARPAT pants. The entire ABU was cut from the same type of cloth to save money, so whereas the Marines have heavier pants and a lighter weight top, the Air Force doesn't.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Tiny_tanker,
Interesting! When the uniform was first announced (several years ago) they said it was to be base use only. Which begged the question "why bother?". Typical DoD idiocy. They make something for one thing and then, after they have adopted it but before they've issued it, they change the "mission statement". The uniform is not well suited for an arid environment, which isn't surprising since it wasn't designed for one.
Steve
I hope to get mine by next year, but it will be interesting to see how they evolve after the first combat use though.
-
If I am not mistaken they wear ACUs, just like Navy Corpsmen wear MARPAT instead of 3 Color DCUs. A rule of thumb in the field is to not look special. An enemy sniper seeing a guy with a headset and a totally different uniform would likely be a target vs. anybody else in his field of vision.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:tiny_tanker,
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Also are they modeled as army in ACU's or in the new ABU's as they should be?
Plus, the new Air Force uniform aren't meant to be worn in the field (especially an Arid one). 3 Color DCUs are still intended to be standad issue for Air Force personnel in the field even after the new uniform is issued.
Steve </font>
-
What the hell does the liberal media have to do with body armor! This would be reactionist media if anything and besides the point either way.
The real question is: do the JTACs in the game have paraclete armor? Also are they modeled as army in ACU's or in the new ABU's as they should be?
-
Awwwwww.... This makes me sadOriginally posted by H.W. Guderian:On 04/07/2007, at 8:59 AM, Madmatt wrote:
This is something which we still do not know yet. Sorry, but for now, we are still focussed on the Windows version.
Matt
All these years of great Mac war gaming may be coming to an end. Where's the love??
-
I think the Syrians are playing the game all wrong, they should invest in the SU-33 MKK like India did, now that is a slick plane. Its almost as nice as ours.
Also, bout time steve!
-
Based off of his grammar and inability to stick to a single thought even for one single sentence I would vote either A or C. Most likely C since a 10 yr old russian kid would want to show off his ability to speak english, but the american kid wouldn't give a crap how idiotic he sounded or how little sense he made. I miss the days when idiots like this got banned.
-
Ah yes, you are correct, had to have been a Mig-23, its been a while since I heard the story and I've slept a few times in between.Originally posted by flamingknives:A MiG 25 making a gun-run? Scarcely credible, as it doesn't have a gun or the agility to use one. Making a high-speed pass, perhaps.
It will be interesting to see how long the Mig-31's last in Syrian hands. They'll have fun with their new toys for a while until they break. I must admit I'd rather fly around in a brand new Mig-31 than in an old Mig-25 or Mig-29 that hardly fly's anymore. Maybe they intend to use them as a mini AWACS. They might live slightly longer in a conflict in that role.
-
Had to have been a Mig-25, since no one but Mother Russia had the 31 at the time. There was a story of a Mig-25 trying to make a gun run on a predator UAV very early in the war, but it just happened to be a test bed for carrying stinger AAM's facing rearwards to defeat such a threat. I can only imagine that the pilot **** himself when he saw those missiles streaking back his way, they both missed unfortunately but the Mig broke contact and ran.Originally posted by AdamL:Remember that in the Iraq war a single Mig-31 (Mig-25?) made it to Saudi Arabia and back on one very high speed mission. The goal I think was to demo their ability to deliver NBC materials. So, keep that in mind. The flight was a success, btw, but they had no ordinance.
-
i agree mostly... we all need to disarm at once before its too late, but theres too much hypocrisy and $ involved - also i dont recall RF selling banned weaponry to countries, like US does to Israel, i think RF has special regulations they abide still, unlike others... but again i might be terribly wrong ofcourse... </font>Originally posted by unsobill:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Peter Cairns:
Unnsobill,
and where did you ggetthe idea that Russia doesnnn't sell people cluster bombs.
I am no great fan of the US policy on the middle east and this adminnistrationn in particular but there use of cluster bombes has been overwhelming on military targets and farmore discrinnminnating than Isreals in the Lebanon.
Other than Israel who I think have pursued a fairly disasterous military and foreign policy for decades just who is itthathas used USclusterbombs against civilians.
Oh and if you look at Chetnia Russia doesn't need to export clusterbombs and other thinnggs to kill innocent people it can do itwithout them evennn leaving the country.
Steve,
It could be a way to send a signal to Beirut as they seem to have been recieving a lot of hardware quickly from the US.
Either to say we're still big brother or to finness them in to putinng scares resources in to an airforce or air defence and not facing down Hezbullah.
Peter.
-
That looked to be a very accurate portrayal of how the iraqi insurgents operate. Everyone should go through that training before they head over.
-
Most IED's are either in the road ie buried under the asphalt, in trenches, under manholes, or directly on the edge of the road. You wouldn't get much effect out of them otherwise. So the design will still give the desired results.
-
I suppose the reason most people are quick to confront you is because you blatantly troll threads like this by posting harassing things with no value. Then make wild assertions with no information to back it up, no facts if you will. Then fly off into a rant calling people names, providing zero rational thought to your posts and being a general nuisance. You have provided no value with any of your posts and have brought only insults and degradation. You also assume that the people replying to you are dullards with no knowledge on the subject at hand, when the vast majority of the members are very well studied in a non biased way, they just get there information from multiple factual sources, not www.illbelieveanythingontheinternet.com.
I think everyone here would like it if you'd just step off your soap box and act like a rational adult. Not to much to ask is it?
-
Wow, not a very good UAV for a quick changing theater. I'd hate to be on the recovery team too haha.
-
The big problem is that all of them look suspicious! There were probably little knots of people at many other side roads they passed, you can't single out each group and make them disperse as you drive by, you'd never get anywhere.
All these years of great Mac war gaming may be coming to an end. Where's the love??
Stryker mobility
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
The M113A3 looks good on paper, but as the article states it doesn't have as much armor protection in its standard form, so add the appliqué armor package and birdcage and you get the weight up near the Strykers, this also increases the cost.
Next add the remote gun turret so the commander has some safety (the article says its not included in the A3 upgrade unlike what you state). So add more weight and hight and cost.
As for air mobility how do you think your going to fit 4 of these in a Herc?? Add in all the extras I just mentioned and its coming into the same issues the Styker has now, then throw the cage on it... this seems familiar for some reason.
Now the tracks will give you more manuverability in some areas as has been mentioned, but they also leave you vulnerable in the roles that the Stryker is being used (Route security, convoy security, moving in ied infested areas). If you loose a track in an ambush that vehicle and everyone in it will die. Also what is its protection against ied's and mines? For some reason I have images of Vietnam all over again with people huddled on top of the M113's so the mines don't kill them.
So in the end we'll have a vehicle that costs the same if not more than a Stryker, still has trouble being air transported, and it more vulnerable to the main killer ied's, not to mention the lack of being self recoverable. The Stryker just makes sense in comparison.