TheForwardObserver

Token screengrab of my FIST with Javelin (the house rules I use don't allow Javelins with missiles, but the launchers may be carried for spotting benefits) FIST2.bmp

One of my favorite games

Update to the record; -I'd mentioned the lack of personal weapon ammo supplies in American Fire Support Vehicles- I've noticed that the Stryker Fire Support Vehicle carries 1000 rounds of 5.56 and an AT-4, I think that amount is just right, would be great to see that in a BFIST

The suspisciously well read gentlemen before me have rightly condemned VT as an organism of that omnipresent Russian agitprop infrastructure which survives and thrives so well beyond Russian borders-- in nations where the liberty to speak freely and sometimes lie are ripe for the abusing. There are twitter accounts which post photos and details of every Russian flagged vessel that transits the Bosphorus from Crimea to Tartus and back again. This process has continued uninterrupted despite at least one kinetic flare up between Russia and Turkey and despite seemingly contrary strategic visions for the region. As far as OSINT goes, the normality or sudden lack there of in this relationship might be considered by 'educated sorts of swine' to be a valuable 'canary in the coal mine' for assertaining or at least ballparking near future Government of Turkey shifts in posture. Or I could be wrong man

Wish I'd titled this thread differently. Maybe something like... "Some... Forward Observations" -My initial point about providing improved spotting gear to FIST personnel seemed to get reinforced over the last few games against my battle buddy. Playing in the rain, both of us found our infantry (split squads as well as whole) far superior at spotting than their assigned company FO/FIST personnel. I can only assume this is due to the presence of Acogs/DM rifle/M25 (and thermals of various stripes). This has the unfortunate side effect of making Forward Observers unable to observe much of anything, a rather ironic state of affairs for the group of lads (soon to be lads and ladies) that goes by "the eyes of death." -Now obviously I am biased in favor of FOs, but it is fairly typical for Observers to have access to Acogs/thermals etc as they are expected to have the capacity and equiment to work 'independently' of their maneuver component at all levels-- at the platoon level, an infantry PL with his head on straight will trust his FO to position himself where he has optimal view of the battlefield. COLTs, as a brigade level asset will have even better access to kit. -Now long story short *everyone* wants to be able to see better-- my baseline point is that FOs should see better. There appear to be a few routes to achieving this within the realm of real world possibilities and 'for he today that agrees with me shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile.' -Lastly I do concede Combat Mission is the best war game out there and will remain so even without my input

Well let's not rule out that the doctrine could be re-evaluated! These obscure doctrinal nuances are intentionally placed to provide FISTers with the opportunity to interject in the presence of our maneuver brethren. This is an important self-validation and rapport building ritual to us. We *need* this. But to paraphrase something Clausewitz never said; End of the day the battlefield is your blank canvas, the doctrine and tangibles your palette, and those colors can be mixed how you wish

It seems counter intuitive, but in real life you employ HE/Delay in treelines in the absence of ICM. That is, if a target description of 'personnel in treeline' is submitted to an FDC and standard targetting practices are being employed the mission will be fired with delayed fuzes which burst .05 seconds after being triggered. If the Observer chooses, he can specify an alternative be used in the method of engagement portion of the call for fire. There is an expectation with foliage that HE/quick and HE/VT will not achieve adequate penetration, and HE/Delay will ricochet causing low airbursts. Additional information can be found in chapter 4 of FM-6-30. I haven't done any proper testing of the differences between the two in game but as a general rule I mindlessly pick personnel for pretty much any personnel targets and general for vehicles.

I feel like drones offer an unfair degree of persistent ISR against vehicles. And I'll admit I'm uncomfortable with drones taking away jobs from hard working pixel troops.

Indeed. I have noticed in the past that units calling for fire from some vehicles receive a mission processing time boost, and of course the crew calling for fire in a COLT vehicle have the lowest times available-- but what I've found, unless I'm mistaken, is that a unit that calls the mission from outside the vehicle can run into to an unexposed vehicle while waiting for splash and still benefit from the time boost. Of course you still have to run them back to the OP for eyes on during the adjustment phase. If this saves you a minute without having to expose the vehicle-- that could be worth using. Now if the developers were to approach me and say "TFO, today is your lucky day, we would love to hear your thoughts about this relatively benign aspect of our game." I would suggest that the speed of mission boost wielded by a FIST/COLT vehicle, which possibly exists to simulate the advantages in self location, distant targeting, deconflicting, and clearing Fires that an FSE/COLT/FIST can leverage over a dismounted FO party (operating under the oppressive regime of an FSO demanding centralized control over his FOs) be shared by FIST personnel within the vehicles' formation and within lets say close visual or audio range. Now the skeptic may say, "TFO, why?" and to the skeptic I would say that it boils down to lasers and target engagement range. Without the presence of laser guided munitions that require ground based terminal guidance, and without the need to acquire targets at very long range there is little good reason to expose a FIST/COLT vehicle long enough to call for and adjust an effective mission. It is because of this and my 'personal refusal to use drones for target acquisition' I'd suggest enhancing the vehicle's ability to speed up the calls for fire from the line FOs or dismounted COLTs they support.

further observations/comments/questions to toss into the ether for the hive mind: -American Fire Support Vehicles only carry ammo for their on-board weapons. Maybe this was done to discourage getting FIST/COLT teams into contact? Thats fine. Regardless-- should be noted FIST vehicles do have space for an extra box of 5.56 and I do believe at least 1 of the russian artillery observation vehicles already carries extra small arms ammo. - All of the 'individually' purchaseable US Fire Support personnel are FISTs and carry LLDRs rather than there being any purchaseable non laser equipped FO teams like in line platoon formations. No big deal- but if you want Fire Support personnel that will not trip enemy armor laser warnings you must source them from the line platoons or alter your targeting tactics (lase adjacent point etc) -In some of my testing it appeared that teams that had called in a fire mission could process the mission faster if they retreated to the safety of a Fire Support vehicle while waiting for the firing battery to commence firing. The bonus appeared to be limited to troops who'd mounted the vehicle--though if this is the case it might be nice to provide this bonus to dismounts within a certain radius or level of contact from the FIST vehicle -The triple 7 howitzers are more expensive, but take longer to fire than the Paladins (I assume this is done to reflect the time needed to establish and set up/tear down in an enviroment with a persistent counter battery presence). It might also seem that despite being equipped with the same ammo 777s achieve better effects against the Abrams 'even when using EXCAL.' In game both have little trouble immobilizing the Abrams but knockouts are murkier. I can't comment on the effectiveness of 155mm howitzers against the Abrams specifically in real life but most Fisters can confirm that at least on the range 155mm direct hits can send the turrets of other lesser tanks asunder. -Lastly there should be a smoke round available for use in games where the maneuver commander is concerned about the enviromental effects and legal consequences of White Phosphorus munitions. On this point- I am of course just kidding.

I've learned through further testing that the LLDR does trip vehicle laser warnings.

After testing I do not believe the javelin or LLDRs are tripping the Abrams laser warning, and my opponent was likely receiving laser warnings due to the presence of one of my Bradleys. (not determined in test, whether FS/COLT vehicle lasers trip laser warnings, as one of those had been present also)

UPDATE: After playing a few H2H real time matches, I've identified a possible problem with my 'super javelin vision' FIST teams. In short, the javelin equipped FIST teams seems to be triggering my opponent's APS Abrams' laser warning, providing the Abrams tanks with notification when to go mobile to avoid an incoming arty mission. Now if had some Copperhead munitions this wouldn't be an issue, but the in game lack of Copperheads rests squarely on the Pentagon not CM. Anyways; Going to test it-- I need to identify whether i'm incorrect, as I guess it could be that the LLDRs are setting off the Abrams' alarm bells. (?)

If you haven't encountered it before, you might have fun diving into the FM 6-30, the basic Forward Observer bible, for the bottom up view. From there the 6-20 series of FMs fleshes out the bigger picture top down stuff. Those manuals can really familiarize the reader with the nuanced language of the redleg used in the 3-09 (always affectionately called the JFIRE manual, and issued in pocket sized form). The JFIRE does superbly as a quick reference for updated tables, data, and basic coordination measures but is best served on top of a FM 6-30

'Low intensity conflict' acquisitions were all the rage for a while back then, I think we can blame the Knight on that! The humvee variant was coincidentally also called a Knight. We trained on them just long enough to realize they were too heavy standalone to be efficiently up-armored.

When within direct fire engagement ranges the BFIST is pretty worthless both in real life and in game. Probably why the developers chose to emphasize the fire support coordination role rather than target acquisition-- although, the time bonus is a bit lost on the vehicle itself unless used in tandem with a UAV for instance. Might be worth looking at providing the support time bonus to FIST personnel in a formation where a BFIST is present.

The optimal number of dismounts with gear in a Bradley is 4. The maximum number of dismounts in a Bradley is limited only by the spacial creativity of the platoon involved, and can exceed 9. This clown-car capacity is achieved primarily by depriving dismounts of elbow room but also involves the clever sourcing of additional cargo space from locations deep within these graceful chariots. For example there is a narrow escape corridor between the driver and the troop carrying compartment referred to as the "hell hole." Cheeky infantry platoons will use this compartment to store attachments such as Forward Observers and Medics.

In theory any LLDR with the right range of PRFs should be able to support the Krasnopol family of munitions, which are designed by and compliant with other KBP systems such as the malakhit and other more modern fire control systems-- however i'm not having much luck tracking down the model numbers of KBPs more modern equipment, or data on their proliferation under recent russian modernization projects. between ukraine and syria though, there's plenty of footage to evaluate for clues, so i'll keep my eyes open.

you know i was going to jump to the conclusion that the 1D22 probably takes an attachable night sight, similar in concept to the an/tas-4 30lbs IR night sight we used to mount on the G/VLLD, however, browsing the more modern KBP russian kit-- like the malakhit fire control system and it mentions a thermal capability for the laser designator with 16 lbs load difference between day and night.

I've taken to equipping my FIST/FO teams with a javelin launcher because the javelin sight provides significant spotting improvements over both the binoculars and laser designator rangefinder. Infantry units moving in the open are easily spotted at distances of over 2,000 meters with javelin equipped. To test this collocate two FIST teams at the same OP, one with javelin, one with standard binos/lldr and compare spotting. CM should consider implementing an in game model for the laser designator rangefinder, with a tripod and a set up time, and the enhanced spotting characteristics of the javelin launcher. The perks of better target location (spotting) would be offset slightly by the time consumed when establishing and relocating from a proper Observation Post.

Realized the error inherent within my follow up question. I think I'm sorted on this one. Thanks.

Thanks for the reply-- is this because individual skeletal files can't be manipulated? i've noticed they can be replaced, but don't respond well to touch.

cheers, thanks for the welcome.

Good Afternoon, evening, morning- Is there any way to modify the locations of individual gear pouches on soldiers? I can replace pouches with other pouches by renaming their .mdr files, but i've not had any luck modifying soldier skeletal files so as to place them exactly where i'd like them to be. for example, i can change the british pistol ammo pouch, and compass pouch to the standard large pouches, as the standard soldiers have, but because of the positioning of those original pistol ammo and compass pouches, the finished outcome are pouches that sit a wee bit above where i'd like them to be. Lastly this is my first post- have been adjusting fire alone on this issue for ages and i finally seek access to the hive mind.