TheForwardObserver

A humvee howitzer debuted at the same show. http://defence-blog.com/army/am-general-display-new-hawkeye-lightweight-105-mm-howitzer-at-ausa-2016.html

We ask for cushions, cup holders, quiet, and comfort and they give us increased survivability against the last war's weapon of choice. "...allows for significantly increased underbelly protection, improved force protection for mounted troops..."

This cosh temple of idolatry; teeming with bedswervers and blashy drink, stewarded by knights indistinguishable from jesters. What place is this? You amuse me. I shall return to pay homage to your king in a fortnight when the flora of Mendota hath gently laid itself to rest upon the divine floor of my homeland which the Dakota calls cloudy water.

@sypox I'd equip FISTs and FOs differently, just as BFCs done, but both would have Laser Rangefinders rather than Binoculars. I'd go with the TRIGR LRF which has a FLIR that's good up to 900m at night. It's 5 pounds and has the same magnification as binos. The Company FIST manages the Laser Designation equipment in a mech infantry unit, so they'd be provided with the 35 lbs LLDR which has a thermal module for all weather/day/night target identification. No idea whether it's workable on BFCs end, so as a substitute I have a modded version of the game, where I've edited the Javelin skin to look roughly like a laser designator (missile/tube alpha channeled out, CLU left intact), changed it's icon to the LLDR icon (changed LLDR icon to a manpack radio icon) and I equip my FISTs with these. For my platoon FOs I try to grab M4s with TWSs from casualties.

For anyone interested in learning more about the equipment FISTERs use here are some videos. I can answer any questions they might inspire.

Every election is awful and divisive but this one has been particularly nasty. Really hope that whoever wins focuses their firepower on healing some rifts.

Thank you kindly for the update good sir!

@Sublime As far as the game goes that may be the case. In reality I can't imagine a situation where I'd advise direct lay employment of mortars either offensively or defensively in a HIC besides in an emergency. I say that but I recognize that the circumstances behind every situation is different, and I'm open to creative solutions regardless of whether they conflict with dogma. Some of our allies have retained platoon organic relationships with light mortars and emphasis on direct lay, as a throwback to a time when those nations' communications capabilities suffered from quality, quantity, and security at the maneuver level, and even our own use of direct lay (in all mortar sizes) has sky increased dramatically in the LIC environment of Afghanistan where a zero percent chance of threats like accurate counter-battery, awkward engagement ranges, and both exposure to our allies' SOPs and the need to teach these capabilities to a host nation that suffers those same communications drawbacks prevails.

Seems to me like mortars will, whether used in direct lay or indirectly, track moving targets to the extent possible until declaring FFE or ending mission. But-- I'm curious to know though whether the moving target is tracked solely as a function of the mortar/FO's LOS to target or if sound or updated position reports from other units factor in as well in the event that the mortar or FO loses and never regains LOS to target. I'll test it but I reckoned someone might have the answer already

@kinophile You got it.

There are moments-- when I'm not dreaming of my FOs being able to see, that I imagine my infantry rolling around with Charlie Gs lobbing what-for and it's glorious.

Bog Voyny! Would be interested to see MLRS as well.

If ya'll had the power to make tweaks/upgrades/fixes/additions, what would they be?

@antaress73 Excellent information.

I've made a few scenarios with this map and just wanted to say thanks, and very nice job.

In hunting for that bit in the manual I've come across the statement "Slow vehicle movement makes the vehicle less likely to appear as a sound contact to the enemy" which is great to hear.

Now that is very intriguing. Didn't know that mechanisms like this existed in-game. @IanL Thanks. That info gives me enough of a lead to green-light some tests. I don't usually bring humvees, but depending on how much quieter they are than BFISTs that could change.

@kinophile Do you factor in the noise of the vehicle when deciding a) how far away from your intended OP (and the enemy front) you dismount your FO team? and b)how far away you park the vehicle? I ask because I've been having a lot of success lately targeting enemy dismounted troop positions based solely on their vehicles' sound giving away their relative positions. It's made me re-think my own use of vehicles to ferry troops to locations I'd prefer remain obscure. I'm at the point where I'm reluctant to get my bradleys involved near the front at all until the enemy armor has been wiped out because I've got such a good idea of the enemy's forward line of troops based just upon sound. I could implement a ghost drop scheme but that might be a little tedious and little guarantee that it's fooling the enemy.

@kinophile's post about BFISTs on another thread as well as a PBEM game I currently have going have inspired in me a few questions that could affect how I position and move my Observers (as well as others). 1) Sound Contacts; does each vehicle have a unique sound signature and if so what kind of scale are we working with? And how much does that sound signature diminish (if it diminishes) when the Hide command is used? How much does it diminish (if it diminishes) when the crew is dismounted but the vehicle is not destroyed. 2) Visual signature; Same concept. With a given level of concealment and cover are humvees and tanks spotted at the same rate? Or do they have unique characteristics that determine how quickly they're spotted. And what role, if any, does the Hide command play regarding visual spotting. Makes a big difference regarding which vehicles I choose to send forward to covert OPs and whether those vehicles will stick around near to the OP.

That's hilarious and one of my favorite things you've written.

John- Apologies if I sounded sharp in my response. The boxes out front on the howitzers are mentioned here; http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_vehicles_system_artillery_uk/2s35_koalitsiya-sv_152mm_tracked_self-propelled_howitzer_technical_data_sheet_specifications_intelligence_pictures_video.html "A rectangular box is mounted on each side of the main armament, which can be monitors able to provide combat mission information." There are other sites with the same nondescript description nearly verbatim. I feel like I came across the line originally in a Sputnik article. When I said electronic target acquisition housings, I was using generic language to describe literal housings for theoretical electronic target acquisition equipment. Radar is not the only method of electronically acquiring targets, which is why at that point I chose to avoid using the word radar. When I brought up my anecdote about my experience racing against a radar I was attempting, although perhaps unsuccessfully, to re-enforce the concept which I'd explored aloud above about the benefits of layered target acquisition. My point was electronic acquisition can be faster than the guy, in this case me, observing the target 500 meters from the point of origin. If there are technical reasons why target acquisition equipment of any sort could never be mounted to howitzers, than on that I will gladly defer to the experts, engineers, and operators. RSA is regional security area. A regional security area is an area of operations where no single unit has complete responsibility for daily security, and the connotation is that you will be entering the wild west. AIF is Anti-Iraqi Forces. When I said COF I meant Clearance of Fires, rather than Conduct of Fires. @SeinfeldRules Will be disappointed if you're not a past/present Redleg.

John, I didn't hypothesize at all about what I think the boxes are. I read that sensors can be housed on both sides of the main weapon so that is what I said. Of the nature of the boxes I clearly said that I don't know. I then went on to suggest that localized electronic target acquisition would be stellar and that miniature systems exist. I provided zero technical analysis of how this could be done, nor did I use the word radar at this point. Now regarding radar and the tracking of simple objects; A radar need not track an object during it's full flight to determine with confidence the path of an object with a basic trajectory. That means a shell can be briefly tracked during flight, well above the horizon and the system can then determine with confidence where that object originated and where it will land. We call this Point of Origin and Point of Impact. Counter battery specifically relies heavily on radars of this nature.

@cbennett88 HA "Cannon Cockers", pull string, get cookie. Music to my ears. I like to say "Gun Bunnies" for 13Bs, but 'Cannon Cockers' has always been a close second. I looked into those boxes and from what I gather they're for 'sensors' though of what nature I'm not sure. Possibly relating to the metrics of the individual gun's performance as has been suggested, but Electronic Target Acquisition housings for individual howitzers is kind of a stellar idea and miniature systems exist. Localizing this capability would probably enhance your edge in the counter-battery fight if you're networked effectively enough to capitalize on the speed of acquisition advantage, or are operating under permissive clearance of fires conditions and don't have to worry about lengthy clearance ie shooting into an FFA. Also good for cross referencing submitted grids with actual POOs. Our stuff is good enough, as is, where we probably won't pursue that route in the near future, as we are fast enough with centralized radars and small teams and it is only clearance that holds us back. I can recall one example in early 2007 where we were cordoning off some villages in an RSA in Zaidon and we had contact from an AIF mortar team that set-up and launched remarkably near us. The counter-battery radar acquired the POO and POI and G Battery 2/11 Marines were spinning their wheel of death ready to fire, but our close proximity meant COF was delayed long enough where I was able to send my own grid before they let 'em buck. The GT line was probably 15 km and the radar target line was probably 16 or 17km so even at that distance a gun operating with its own target acquisition radar (and permissive clearance of fires enviroment) could do it's job faster than relying on an observer for targeting. Had we not been there near the POO, the guns could have fired in response before the enemy's rounds even landed, such is the power of our radars, and speed of our networks. As for automation of reloading-- it's the trend in modern SPHs. I like simplicity, and reliability. I never send a mission digitally that I can send with voice, and never use an LRF if I can use a pair of binos. That being said, results can sway me, so it'll be interesting to see which direction we end up going. I personally like the Swedish archer system, which incorporates a considerable amount of automation. John- I have a tough time tracking developments on multiple threads so I mostly keep my comments relegated to a couple topics. I do of course try to read everything about modern artillery that comes across the board. Feel free to ping me or post anything and everything related to fire support (cannons, rockets, missiles, cas, cca etc) on the FOs Conduct of Fires Net topic. It is a warm, welcoming thread.

Hope you didn't have any big plans to stalk my remfzone for Apache bait with your Raven!

And I believe the Intel was cooked, as part of a massive PR campaign to rally support behind an illegal invasion.