Bonecrusher-17

Without having access to my IBCT's MTOE I'd say that the C troops 'section' designation sounds right. CAV SQDRNs (Don't call them RSTA BNs or you'll get a silver spur in the head from these former tankers) are different from Armor/INF. FA was the same, we didn't have squads we had sections, and basically they were 7-9 men depending on weapon system the manned. But when deployed to OIF II as everything but FA, our sections easily morphed in MP Sqds and teams. Funny.....almost like it was planned or something....hmmm....

Yup. Awesome. Thanks

I seem to remember a post not to long ago on how to use G-E to make maps, a tutorial using KMLs or overlays? Any idea where that is-been searching here in forums and no luck. This is the closest I get. Thanks

Korea as a campaign? Not so much IMHO. If we ever go to blows with the DPK in all likely hood any conventional blows would be short lived, if at all. The DPK doesn't have the logistical muscles to sustain a conventional fight, so they'd probably strike Nuke/Chem first or shortly there after. I know it seems to some that IRAQ/AFGHAN/IRAN was covered by CMSF already, but I think a more extensive exploration of low instensity side of war on terror would be more realistic and more interesting to build off of CMSF for a campaign.

A few things I'd like to see: LMTV/FMTV (Uparmored) models for U.S. Army support vehicles to replicate convoys moving materials and Soldiers Some sort of Quick Reaction Force interface via ether: - Player can designate through a drag/drop feature, parts of his forces already available on the map, and assign them to a QRF Role and assign them a pre-determined route if wanted. - Or a QRF designated by mission designers as player controled 'reinforcement' button to add forces on to the battlefield if his existing forces get blown up, ambushed, or in a tough spot. Could even be Helicopter based. QRFs are a pretty common TTP for BN and above US forces in OIF/OEF.

I don't think these are 155 rounds, sounds more/looks more like, 120mm mortars effects. Hard to tell. As A 13F whos 'eaten' 155 rounds in training because FDO/Gunline was FUBAR (once even a 203mm @ 400m, ouch!) the effects looked to small to be 155. Possibly M119 (105mm). If they had been 155mm I don't think we'd have this video, the concusive wave @ 150m would have screwed this camera up considerably. My question is if this US-vs-Insurgents in CB, was it Q-36/37 generated or was there PID from an manned OP?

That would cool. Especially the TTP of rapidly moving the tubes via 'technicals' which has been used in Low Intensity Conflicts from Somalia to Iraq and Afghanistan. Even cooler- Tubes 'remotely' firing rounds by freezing the round in a bucket of water, then placing the round into the tube in the hot sun, laying the piece and waiting for the ice to melt and 'hang the round'. Wildy inaccurate, but because there were no crews 'manning the pieces' no positive ID to go pumel the crap out of anyone.

Artillery/Mortar Smoke 101: Smoke is delivered in one of two projectiles: Burster and base ejecting. Smoke is further classified as Quick (WP) or High Concentrate (HC) which is non WP All U.S. Mortars now fire only WP smoke. The old 4.2in system did have a HC Smoke round. To the best of my knowledge that round wasn't inlcuded in the new M120 (Need an 11C to tell me if I'm wrong) 155mm (M109, M198, M777) can deliver WP Smoke as both bursting rounds and base ejecting. WPs advantages are its quick time to build, hence the term 'quick' smoke. The M825 'tall boy' WP Smoke uses WP soaked waffers to combine both quick build time and long duration. M825s are base ejecting The HC Smoke is base ejecting, its slower to build but like M825 smoke it lasts longer than the bursting M118 WP smokes. Lots of 'useless' info to win bets at the bar with.

Harriers are part of the MEU, so in theory the FCT wouldn't have to be there. FCTs focus more on the F/A-18 fast movers, regardless of Navy or Marine designation, partly because they are controlled by a Navy chain of command on the carrier. Correct. Again though FCTs would focus more fast movers from off shore. Not necessarily. I can't speak with 100% Fidelity on how Marines handle planning/controlling choppers, but I would assume that like the Army its more about leveraging risk/benefit interms of accomplishing mission objectives. Does it make sense to dedicate an expensive/vulnerable AH-6/64 against an a few ATGM teams? Depends. If those ATGMS are threatening a vital supply route? Yeah maybe. Are they just hanging out and make life difficult for Company Team of Strykers? Well then, Captain, 'use thine mortars first' and suck it up! Having FOs or 'qualified' air controllers with choppers seems to be less of a consideration for use of attack helos. You can see helicopters dedicated to Army truck companies with no dedicated 'trained' observers on high value convoy runs. In Iraq and Afghanistan you may have some limited number of emergency CAS missions available from loitering choppers, also. Having not played this scenario I can't say if it makes sense or not. Again its more mission dependent than anything else.

But whats the fun in that? Essentially they are another Command and Control asset with a sweet sensor suite (yes pun was intended). Without citing chapter and verse/paragraph in the manual the developers seemed to pick-up on this idea of the 1131/M7A3 being a sophisticated set of eyeballs. Because the have updated sensors and commo tools. I have noticed that the FSVs have a slightly quicker response time for effects on target, and if you use the 'target' command to establish LOS you have less adjusting rounds and a faster/more accurate Fire For Effect phase. I'd agree with the TTP (Tactics Techniques Procedures) you both use. There only one acronym. "inadvertent counter point"= Isn't that a 'song' by J.S. Bach?, Dur.....

Ah, you never know. There's probably someone out there who knows more than you and I both. I just know what I know based on what I did. My luck: there is a Program Manager from FT Sill on this forum, who desgined the M7 and Knight vehicle, who will tell me I'm smoking rocks of green-plant deriviative. They would use thier sensor suite in this manner if they were lasing. I would also if were conducting operations which involved having to get that close with any vehicle. But I wouldn't use my FSV in that situation unless it was my only option to get accurate effects. I'd use my FOs or Manuver Shooters first because they typically will have the fire-power in thier PLT/CO to keep an AFV/Tank supprssed while the fire support assets are in the process of being delievered. I assume thats my my FSNCO made me carry a GPS, SINCGARS, and MELIOS as an FO along with 50lbs of other 'stuff' in my ruck. Or he just wanted to make me suffer. Ether way hauling 2/3rds of my body wieght on my back wasn't fun.

Without talking to the programmers and any technical advisor's to the CMSF team I'd say these are all pretty close to why a Marine FCT might have better comms with choppers vs Army FISTers. I'll add my two cents as a 13series (13B/F) based on my experience with Fire Support planning: -Marine FCTs and USAF TCPs usually aren't tasked down in the fight much below BN/SQDRN level unless involved in battle in which Fixed Winged CAS is involved and the Navy/AF unit tasked with CAS wants a dedicated CAS controller. This is so the O-5 has control through his S-3/Air over what targets are engaged during the fight due to collateral damage/fratricide concerns and the HVT dynamic of using a $$$$$ plane and pilot. -Marines are sent in as MEUs (Marine Expeditionary Units) or MAGTFs (Marine Air Ground Task Force). The O-6 in charge of these units have full control over the Air assets (fixed and rotary) in these formations both in combat and typically during training prior to. So the relationship is habitual between Marines on the ground and Marines in the air. Also Marine pilots mindset is CAS first, which is a result of their training as pilots. -as 13F (Army Fire Support SPC/NCO)the only time I saw TACP personnel from the AF was when our O-6 made CAS support vital to my COLT/BRT teams mission. Typically in 'deep fight' setting or when CAS was vital to getting High Value TGTs (HVTs) killed/destroyed quickly. We couldn't use CAS except in emergency situations because we weren't certified CAS observers, not matter what type of training we went through, unless that AF SQDRN/WING commander trusted us to do it. -Rotary Wing was an easier proposition for us, but still it involved a lot of coordination through the BN FSE/FECC who had to talk to the Liaison officer or S-3 Air before we could get choppers on station to the PLT/CO in the fight. Though once released that PLT FO or maneuver shooter had full control until released by them, or the pilots had to egress on their call. -DOD wants a concept of a universal JTAC/JFO program so that in theory any observer can call any type of CAS or tube FS asset. The Air Force seems to be the biggest roadblock to this happening, although they do staff alto of the courses that Fort Sill is running, it seems that the Wing/SQDRN commanders in the field still are slow to embrace it. They still have the ability to kill any CAS release to any non AF/SOF forces they do not trust.

Not necessarily, Although FSV designers have always envisioned a vehicle (M981, M7BFIST, currently revised Knight Platform) that could 'square off' with a Tank/IFV and bring FS to bear quickly, its never come to fruition. As a former FISTer I would also argue that it shouldn't. Maneuver shooters, especially now with LRAS3, combined with FOs working with maneuver PLTs are the way to go. FSVs are typically used as C3 assets for maneuver shooters/FO at the CO/BN level as means for a CDR to control FS assets. Their mix of commo and digital FS systems allow the personnel in that platform to plan and execute fires for the commander. Occasionally with BRT/COLTs you'll see these vehicles perform C4ISR or RSTA duties, but typically in a defensive role or in a deliberate attack or raid. Thats because the commander can employ a solid observer plan with dedicated security for that high value asset. The BFIST is the closest that the Army has come to a vehicle that can 'square off',but without a TOW system the BFIST still can't take on armor or even a hornets nest of RPG-7s for long. Just because you're hull down with LOS doesn't mean you feel secure, esepecially if you don't have the biggest gun in the fight. As a 13F I always felt more secure about 500m away from my M981 on a dismounted OP rather than sitting in a big metal box easily seen by thermal sights attatched to smothbore cannon or ATGM launcher.

JO:IC was organized as two Campagin Armies against each other (rather creative forces too like Australians (NATO) vs Tonganeese (Rebel forces). Both Armies in turn were broken down into multi 'divisions' or 'regiments' for simplicity sake with specialized BOS (Battlefield Operation System) functions: rotary wing aviation, SF, Armor, infantry etc... Armies and Divisions withtin them basically recieved a Map and WARNO foe the follow Sunday's battle with objectives, and starting positions. They then had to develop their campaign plans and reherase actions down to the squad level. Honestly that process was more fun than the battles sometimes. JO:IC, much like the BF series, was a FPS that focused on combined arms ops in multiplayer. Two big issues: Communication once the game started from higher echelon elements to lower elements in the game. And, as mentioned earlier, if a division (essentialy a 'clan') was short on members or leaders during the battle it rapidly made them combat ineffective. One of the reasons for this was the length of battles (1100-1900 EDT) and the world wide audience that played it. It made it fun too. I'd love to see this game go Multi, I think it would be tremendous fun.

I'd agree with Other Means from my experience playing Joint OPS IC. CMSF would lend itself to players becoming speciality branch players on a side beautifully. I.e. CAV, STRYKER, ARMOR, FISTers, etc... JO:IC was played like that and when you start relying on a mass of people across the globe to fill unit specifc roles,or just 'command' in general it gets messy. That said though, I'd love to see it happen. It would be slicker than snot.