Rustman
-
Posts
52 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Rustman
-
-
Actually don’t worry (or at least don’t do it on my account).
I just remembered that the QSTAG only requires the rectangle for units (say a Tank Tp), individual weapons systems are represented as you have it now (weapon symbol in a circle).
The only sticky thing might be infantry, where sections / squads do get a rectangle (but with the “.” size indicator) and since you can’t put the indicator on the top of the icon (I’m assuming) then what you currently have is fine.
Happy to change the “feedback post“ if you like?
Actually, what I did was half and half in mine. Individual pieces of equipment, like weapon systems and vehicles I kept as circles similar to this. Squads I changed to rectangles. Command elements I used the rectangular infantry symbol with a staff and put "CMD" under it, as per the FM.
The only issue I have is that nearly all units are considered "infantry" by the program. I can't visually differenciate..or at least haven't been able to yet...between infantry squads and engineer squads. Also, general utility vehicles like HMMWV's also show up as infantry.
I like the color differences...when I get the Brit module, I'm definately going to incorporate that idea.
-
If you've never had the experience of being in an enclosed space (ie indoors) when someone touches off a .308 (especially out of a shorter barrel), it's something. It's like being flash banged, which is not good for the rest of the good guys to be exposed to. Running suppressors would help with that quiet a bit I'll admit, but it'll still be worse then running a 5.56 platform with a suppressor.
-Jenrick
Eh...adrenaline takes a lot off though. You'd be suprised the random things you don't notice when there are actually people shooting back. I was in a room with a 240 and a SAW shooting out one of the windows and I honestly don't remember actually hearing either of them fire. They did...the effects on target and the casings and links littering the floor were kinda a clue...but I have no memory of hearing it. The brain does weird things when it is under high levels of stress.
-
The vast percentage of small arms ammunition just gets sprayed in the general direction of the enemy, and that is for very well trained troops. The hit rate for poorly trained troops must infinitesimal. So there is a real debate to be had on the merits of both sides of weight vs lethality. The Army seems to be trying to put the whole argument off until DARPA or somebody like them comes up with a truly revolutionary "something".
"Sprayed" isn't really an accurate term to use. The military has been back and forth on it. It used to be that accurate fire was the focus...then in Vietnam they decided that massed firepower was more effective than any particular single soldier's ability to put steel on target at range...now things have swung back toward the middle again. I think that where things are right now is probably about as perfect as you are gonna get in terms of firepower vs precision fires balance. The biggest thing is that generally in combat, you aren't shooting at individuals, but positions. It's not like the range where you have this sillouetted pop-up to put a hole in. Identifying where fire is coming from is relatively easy, but identifying an individual target is more problematic. You might see a muzzle flash in a window or dust being kicked up by people shooting from a berm, but that is all you are gonna see. The idea of massed firepower in that you putting a beaten zone on that position. You are going to shoot up that window...or that berm...it isn't just spraying in a general cardinal direction. However, because the opportunities to clearly identify and engage an individual target are rare, it is actually even more vital that when the situation does present itself the soldier can quickly capitalize on the opportunity and reliably drop the target at range. That's why there has been this push with things like the designated marksman program and integrating more precision assets into the regular infantry squad.
-
Special forces 'still use it' because they are good enough to have any use of the rifle. A rank and file soldier who is there to put out fire volume doesn't need a perfectly accurate, powerful, mastercrafted weapon to do his job, and he is a too bad shot to really get the most out of the rifle's attributes.
Special forces however who have much more training with their weapons can have use of the rifle's accuracy and power, and in the right group and at longer ranges accuracy is more important for squad level fire power than fire volume is.
And heck, if you want to see a long time service weapon, check the M2 heavy machine gun. Probably has the world record in longest time in service.
That is a "rank and file" soldier using it. Depending on the unit commanders and the funding they are willing to spend, some squad designated marksmen are issued M14's. During pre deployment trainup, I was picked to be on the team designing and implimenting our company advanced marksmanship program, part of which included how we would go about selecting and outfitting the DM's. I really really really wanted M-14's and we faught that one all the way up until the day we deployed, but ultimately our CO decided that it would be more cost effective to issue M16A4's (which we already had) with ACOG's. I understand his point, but, still, damnit....I really wanted an M14.
-
I managed to hit an Abrams with an AT-5 launched from a BMP-2 but the tank suffered no damage. Distance was about 100 meters. It was a lateral hit (turret or hull I´m not sure). I have readed that the AT-5 perforates 800mm(!) of armour so... what´s wrong? Anyway, the Abrams is a beast!
First, the 800mm is standard steel armor....the Abrams armor is layered DU, which is considerably more dense. Second, as already been mentioned, the TUSK upgrade includes reactive armor, so chances are, the rocket probably barely scratched the paint on the DU.
-
The only one I use right now is one that I made to replace the floating icons with appropriote NATO symbols.
-
Rustman,
Thanks for the follow ups!
Yup, from the tactical battlefield commander's position there's no practical difference between a tank that has run out of gas and ammo compared to a tank that is scattered all over the battlefield. He's got two tanks that can't perform tasks assigned to them. But, as you say, there are others which are paid to pay attention to these differences between these two situations
Wargamers and military historians are a hybrid between battlefield commander and BDA team. They care about the practical combat results during the battle but ALSO care about what happens to the vehicles after the battle. As a result the wargamers and historians tend to favor the BDA type categorizations than what a battlefield commander in the real world would use.
Good to hear that, usually, the military recognizes wounds received indirectly as a direct result of enemy action. I thought that was the case, however I also understand that theFightingSeabee's point about some falling through the cracks. I'm pretty sure I've seen a couple of those mentioned over the years. No system is perfect
Steve
Well, there is a slight difference in those two scenarios. Ammo and fuel fall under the S-4 (Logistics) section...while the commander and S-3 (Operations)section would be aware of a vehicle being out of action due to simply running out of fuel and ammo....the information flow, as well as the majority of the troubleshooting action, would be going through the Admin & Logistics net to the S-4 officer. In the grand sceme of things, ammo and fuel are simple fixes. Chances are the solution to that problem would already be coordinated between the S-3 and S-4 and enroute to the vehicle before the commander even found out.
Of course then later we'd be chewing that vehicle commander's butt for not giving proper ACE reports until after he was black on everything.
-
There was a convoy operations FM leaked about a year ago though. The one with not just TTPs, but the rationale behind them, diagrams, etc.
FM 4-01.25? It's counterintuitive, I know, but really, it isn't a big deal. All those materials are marked FOUO, but that is not a classification level and it can be transmitted by any means. Legally, a FOUO marking is meaningless. Really, if you want FMs, dig around in a National Guard armory's trash dumpster on an average drill weekend. We've thrown away literally cases of field manuals that we don't need, don't want, and are doing nothing except taking up space. Or even better...you could walk into the armory, point to it, and ask "can I have that?" and chances are pretty good they'll let you walk out with pretty much any manual you want. We don't want or need physical hardcopies of manuals any more. I carry my library of every manual and form I would ever need in the military on a 2Gb flash drive in my pocket when I'm in uniform. Why would I need a bookcase of hardcopies?
-
I for one think that labels are very important and should be maintained according to very strict guidelines. What is done after that should be debated about.
Rustman states that the three types of enemy cased damage are:
1. Mobility kill - can't move, can fight
2. Firepower kill - can't fight, can move
3. Knocked out - can't fight, can't move
A tank that has its gun knocked out during a fight, but subsequently blows its engine returning back to its base, should not be considered "knocked out". It might be, in effect, no different than a tank with both engine and gun damaged by hostile fire, but the two things are not the same.
Now, there are definitely different things to consider beyond this. A "catastrophic kill", in most people's use of the term here, means the tank is not salvageable. There's a big difference between a tank which is "knocked out" because the driver is killed by an IED which also happens to jam the turret vs. a tank which is scattered over 100m2 area after being hit in the ammo bin by a large ATGM. The first tank can probably be put back into action relatively quickly, the second one is never going to see action again. This means nothing during the battle (hence why "knocked out" applies to both), but it usually has big implications to operational and/or strategic levels.
I agree with the statement that no Abrams have been knocked out by enemy tank fire or even AT rockets or missiles. I am pretty sure that some have been knocked out by massive IEDs.
BTW, I also agree with theFightingSeabee that when a soldier is injured as a directly linked result of an enemy action... it should be classified as a combat injury. There should be a difference between a soldier being injured after crashing a vehicle with a tire shot out by the enemy and a soldier injured 2 hours later behind the lines while repairing the vehicle that had its tire shout out by the enemy. In the first instance the soldier was injured while in the process of dealing with the enemy's actual action (having the tire shot out). The second instance the soldier was injured while dealing with the aftermath of the enemy's action (having the vehicle slip off the jack and crush his arm while repairing the battle damage). I thought the military operated along this logic, but it wouldn't surprise me at all to know that for other reasons this logic wasn't applied evenly.
Steve
True...there is a disconnect between the military use of certian terms and the perception of those terms in the civilian world. Officially, Catastrophic kill is defined as a complete system failure. No more, no less...that could mean still recoverable by a BDAR standard..or it could mean that the hull is a twisted pile of wreckage and the turret is laying 100 feet away. For the most part, the terms exist as they do for operations and intelligence purposes. It's meant to allow a quick and dirty rough sketch of assets on the battlefield as it occurs...friendly assets in operations and enemy assets in intel, obviously...what weapon platforms are still in play, which ones can be writen off, and which ones may still be able to come back into the game in the future. It helps commanders make those snap decisions, like the decision to abandon and destroy a immobile vehicle in order to push the mission forward vs holding in order to push out a recovery operation, by giving them the best possible information we can attain at the present and they don't have the time to go into fine details. That's obviously going to be updated with more information as it comes in from maintenance reports, BDA reports, AAR's, etc. that will allow for a more detailed and less time sensitive analysis, but as things are occuring we keep things very simple, both for the operations staff and for the crews in contact.
Wounds received that incidental to, but still attributable to, being engaged by the enemy are supposed to warrant a Purple Heart. For example, when I was deployed there was a Marine who was maneuvering under fire and fell into cover in a pile of garbage, and as a result, received a vicious puncture wound to his leg from a piece of scrap wire. He received a Purple Heart. Most wounds aren't directly caused by the actual weapon, but are incidental. My roommate in Iraq had his vehicle destroyed by an IED (he was the driver)...he struck his face on the steering wheel during the blast cutting his eye...Purple Heart. The driver of the Bradley I was in when I got blown up broke his ankle trying to stop the vehicle from going into a canal (the IED destroyed the transmission, so the brakes no longer worked..didn't stop him from trying to push the brake pedal through the floor though). Purple Heart.
-
Ok? You know, this is the official Army Training and Doctrine publications website (http://www.army.mil/USAPA/doctrine/Browse_Series_Collection_1.html). It has it (along with tons of other manuals), it's virus free, and constantly updated...so why use a torrent? It's not like anything on there is uber top secret...I mean it has all been freely accessable to the public for years.
But, like tc already pointed out....the Soldiers Manual of Common Tasks isn't really applicable to this game.
*EDIT* Ok, nevermind. I guess you need an AKO login to download now. It used to not be required except for a select few documents. Anyway...get a friend in the army to put the PDF on a flash drive for you if you really want it.
-
My definition of knocked out is if the tank is taken out of action, meaning it can't continue to do battle. If a tank loses it's engine, then it's knocked out. It's nothing more than a big chunk of metal, and no longer a threat.
Now if you want to debate a catastrophic hit that launches the turret 200 ft in the air, then probably not. But I have seen plenty of videos of burning Abrams tanks to know that some have been neutralized.
I'm not sure this one was salvaged...
Not true...as a mech, there are three official statuses to combat damaged vehicles. First is a mobility kill, which means the vehicle is no longer able to maneuver, but it's weapon systems still function. The second is a firepower kill, which means the the vehicle can no longer effectively engage the enemy, but it can still move....neither of those are considered "knocked out". Knocked out is a catastophic kill. A catastrophic kill is defined as a complete system failure. No conventional enemy force has ever successfully scored a catastrophic kill on an Abrams. The referenced Abrams with the engine fire was not a catastrophic kill. It was a mobility kill and that fire isn't what destroyed it. They decided to abandon it in order to continue mission instead of wasting the time on recovery, so the vehicle was intentionally destroyed. They used thermite grenades on the crew compartments, hit it with DU from another Abrams...and then later it was still deemed to not have been acceptably destroyed enough, so they dropped a JDAM on it. The deliberate destruction of a vehicle does not count.
Now, unconventional warfare is another thing all together. An EFP or a large enough IED can take out pretty much anything, including an Abrams.
-
My 'favorite' American accent is Upper Midwestern (Wisconsin, Minnesota, Dakotas). The movie "Fargo" is a showcase for that dialect...
We hate that movie because we don't actually talk like that.
-
Nevermind...got it. Now I wish I could take a screen shot...but it pastes black. Oh wells.
-
Yes. SAPI's are "ICW", "In Conjunction With" underlying soft armour.
Correct. The whole thing is essentially soft kevlar. Obviously it's been improved...design is better and all...but it really isn't all that much different from the old flak vests. It's just that on the front and the back there are large pouches to hold the SAPI plates. Another improvement is because it's a MOLLE setup the armor is modular. In the case of the video, what actually took the hit was his side SAPI...it's like an addon soft armor and pouch for a smaller SAPI that attaches to the flanks under the arm pits...the base vest doesn't actually have protection there. It really is good stuff. Our sister company had a dude step on a pressure plate IED...He lost his leg, unfortunately, but he survived it with otherwise little permanent damage. His body armor was just shredded from crotch right up to the throat...it held up though and nothing got through to take out anything vital.
-
The sun rise/set thing resets when you start the game i.e. hit the red button the sun syncs to the meteo time.
Not sure how this could be used as a cheat as it only occurs during the set-up?
Yea...in my mind...and correct me if I'm wrong...but the pretty sunrise/sunset graphics are independent of the actual time in game. If it is supposed to be night time, then the units are going to think and act like it is night time, regardless.
-
I have seen footage (admittedly much of it 're-enactions') of Brit and US inf clearing buildings occupied by terrified civilians.
It's true that any civilians that haven't fled are likely to be hunkered down indoors, but you still have the problem of occupying/clearing that building without inflicting needless casualties on non-combatants - plus the possibility of enemy combatants placing themselves deliberately in the same location.
Then there's the issue of calling in an airstrike in support of infantry where enemy combatants are believed to be hidden, only to later discover (as I'm sure we've all seen on the news from time to time) that you've bombed a wedding party or family gathering.
There's also some excellent but shocking examples in Generation Kill of villages being observed by the Marines recce force and confirmed as a non-threat, only to be bombed out of existence by some incompetent higher up. I would guess that that kind of thing happens more often than we get to know about in our armchairs back home.
To be honest, you'd be suprised how bold civilians on the battlefield can actually be. I've seen a dude ride a pedal bike right through the middle of one of our fire fights. Literally within seconds of the last round being fired I've seen civilians flood out into the battlefield to see what is going on. It's a pain in the arse constantly having to check-fire your mortars because the civilians won't stay inside their house where they'd be safe (well...safer, anyway) and they wander right into the area you are trying to blow up.
-
I changed the INF icon to represent a generic "rifle/automatic weapon" symbol in order to better represent the FBCB2. I also noticed that the circle with the x in it is actually a marker for a "coordination point", according to FM 1-07 Operational Terms and Symbols. The original INF X symbols are still in the mad folder, you would just have to rename them. I probably should have put all of this in a "read me" lol.
I'm actually looking at doing something similar...I just finished nearly 2 years as an S-3 NCO, so I've got operational terms & graphics on the brain.
How do you mod the symbols like that? -
It did exactly what it was supposed to do. The flexible kevlar is actually designed exactly for that...stopping shrapnal...so I'm not really suprised all that much, except to say that must have hurt like hell....like getting a shot to the kidney with a bat. The SAPI plates are specifically for bullets....up to 7.62mm AP actually.
-
"christmas tree lights" and "anal bead" ? care to explain what that means? (certain ways of trigger IEDs I understand, but exactly how?)
Essentially it's just a segment of insulated wire...double strand, like the power cable from the outlet to your desk lamp. The insultation is stripped from small segments and the exposed wires are kept apart usually by attaching them to something like the inside of a segment of plastic tube..it kinda looks like a bead on a string...and this is done in series all the way down the wire...thus, it looks like a string of anal beads. Rolling across it crushes the tube making the wires touch...circuit is closed and bomb goes boom.
-
It should only be working for cell phone IED's. IRL IED jammer will "block" certain radio frequencies (example cell phone network's frequence 850 MHz and 1800 MHz). This way cell phone IED can't be detonated by trigger guy - the trigger call/message will arrive only after IED jammer signal is gone.
If the bad guys cant use cell phones to trigger IEDs they need to use wire. Wired IEDs are easier to spotter and trigger guy is much more vulnerable.
April 18, 2007: The United States has developed a new generation jammer for roadside bombs. In the next year, 10,000 CREW (counter radio-controlled IED electronic warfare) jammers will be delivered to the troops. EDO Communications, the manufacturer, has been providing such equipment since 2003. EDO first developed the Warlock electronic jammer, to prevent the enemy from setting off IEDs. Warlock is currently the most common jammer in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Warlock has gone through many revisions, to add more frequencies and better software.
Rolling along in a convoy, with one or more jammers broadcasting, the troops have an electronic "bubble" that made them safe from an IED they had not spotted.
The CREW jammer has lots of new features, most of which are secret. Terrorist groups have tried to find ways around the jammer, but have been unsuccessful. Most roadside bombs are now set off via a wire connection between the detonator and a nearby guy pressing a button. This has caused more terrorist casualties, and generally made it more difficult for the bombers. The big improvement in CREW is that it is easier to add new frequencies, and the jammer interferes less with other military communications and sensors.
Whats that dome? IED jammer?
Source: http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htecm/20070418.aspx
IED's are bad...
Yes..that is a jammer. Unfortunately, as much as I would love to talk at length about that particular system as I've personally used it, I'm going to avoid the wrath of the EW Officer above and simply state that it works awesome.
Almost too well, as the bad guys went back to the tried and true methods since none of their remote devices worked any more. In my AO there were a few hard wire command detonated IEDs, but mostly it was pressure detonated ones that we found...."christmas tree lights" and "anal bead" configurations and the like. After I got blown up we found the christmas tree lights wrapped around one of the road wheels on the brad..I was gonna keep it as a souvenier, but unfortunately lost it somewhere before we redeployed back home.
-
Hey I agree with that.
Yest there were no catastrophic kill as direct effect of perforation of armor but, secondary effect's like engine and later whole vehicle fire, vandalism from Iraqi hands etc. ended with many tanks completely destroyed.
+
And this is completely true, in fact both ODS and OIF when conventional war was still rolling there were max 5 to 10 tanks destroyed, problems started in OIF when asymetrical warfare starts, very big IED's, side hit's from more modern RPG's and secondary effects of this hit's. The true is M1's were not ready for such combat in time when stabilisation operations starts.
And it's shame that T.U.S.K. was send to Iraq so late, think how many M1's can surviv attacks only lightly damaged in, i.e. 2005 or 2006if T.U.S.K. was fielded earlier, i.e. in 2003 or 2004.
I agree...like I said, the whole game changed once the invasion was over. IED are the real killer. RPG's....meh...so-so effective, depending on what it hits. But..I've seen deep buried IED toss vehicles like they were toys. We had to bring in a casevac once from a Marine Abrams that took an IED hit, destroyed the vehicle, and burned up the crew real bad. Yea..I'd place my money on an Abrams any day in a shooting fight...but in an unconventional war like in Iraq, all bets are off.
-
Oh wait.
In 1991 some M1's were disabled by shot's from T-72M/M1's. In OIF many were disabled by RPG and some destroyed by secondary effect, engine fire, this is because PMCS procedures were not in mind of many crews, now situation is better so there are no engine fires after IED or RPG hit.
This M1A2SEP with perforated side turret was hit by captured M136, side turret armor have 500mm protection level vs. CE at 0 deegres, in this time in are were tank operted there were no RPG's with such warheads, and many people that interested in this attack have get infos that these was effect of attack by M136 with 500mm warhead penetration level.
Side rear hull that is only protected by non balistic skirt is vurnabale to RPG's even with 300mm RHA penetration level, side hull protected by heavy balistic skirts are over turret section probably protected against 250-300mm penetration level warheads and over driver compartment are protected against 900mm penetration level warheads or even more.
Side hull is protected against up to 40mm modern APFSDS rounds on it's full lenght and probably more over driver compartment.
IED's are different story, if bigger IED then worser situation for tank and it's crew, there were 4 to 5 M1's that ran over overkill IED's and were completely destroyed, but some crew members survived.
Hence, even with T.U.S.K. kit M1's are not fully protected agains IED's with insane amount of TNT!
I didn't say that vehicles weren't damaged, but there has never been a reported case of a catastrophic kill of an Abrams by enemy fire in either Desert Storm or the Iraq invasion. A few mobility kills...even a firepower kill or two...but never a complete system failure. Every catastrophic kill of an Abrams we have on record has been from DU penetrations in either friendly fire incidents or deliberate destruction to avoid capture (3 vehicles in Desert Storm were deliberately destroyed..two were stuck in mud and one was a mobility loss from enemy fire).
-
I think those M1200 "knights" are brand-spanking new. As in just starting to take delivery.
There's some irony here. The M1117 AC was basically stomped on by the Pentagon when it first came out. They did not forseen any future use for them! Only a fraction of the original order was funded and these vehicles languished until they were needed in Bosnia. Iraq eventually revived their reputation. The reference to them being "RPG-proof" is the first I've heard of that.
They are designed with crew survivability in-mind when it comes to an RPG attack...but that is not the same thing as being "RPG-proof". An RPG can still catastrophically kill an ASV...it's just the design features ensure that the crew has the best chance possible of surviving the hit.
-
I would say you guys were the exception not the standard. Though I see your point on the MTOE, the MRAP certainly isn't on it thought we had them coming out of our ears. I think the bigger issue with the ASV is, neither it nor the MRAP are going to be seeing front line duty in an invasion. The ASV is an Armored Security Vehicle after all.
Well yea, obviously...It's kind of been a concern I've had for a while...the military has invested billion upon billions building up this pool of theater specific vehicles that don't belong on any MTOE and have no real stated purpose once our current wars are done. It's kind of up in the air I think...I mean, noone has really answered the question of what we are going to actually do with all this equipment in our inventory when we've closed up shop in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think it's an interesting question to pursue...could they be integrated into our current MTOE? Could they have a place in a conventional war scenario? I could see the MRAP or ASV taking the place of certian HMMWV roles. You could easily replace the HMMWV's in a light battalion's AT platoon with either of the vehicles for example.
Floating Icons
in CMSF Scenario and Mod Design Forum
Posted
sure...unfortunately I haven't been able to take a screen shot. Something about windows 7 isn't letting me. Anyway, it doesn't look bad...they were pretty quick and dirty rough designs, and my GIMP skills need a little work anyway, but the rectangular unit symbols integrated with the circular equipment symbols work really well. For the command elements I took my infantry symbol and shrunk it a little so the staff and command tag would have room. It all needs to be cleaned up a bit, but it isn't bad I don't think.
Yea, being able to put in the engineer symbols would really be helpful. With the HMMWV's, I'm not so sure about...I guess I can kind of understand where they were coming from, but at the same time, a lot of the missions, the vehicles are manned by a vehicle crew unit just like any other vehicle in the game anyway. Personally I think I would prefer the vehicle to just have its own symbol all the time ala the armored vehicles.