Clavicula_Nox Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 From all of us light infantry types, thanks! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 You're welcome Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yardstick Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 [snip] Awesomness!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForceMultiplier Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Sweet!!! Can't wait! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Rummaging around the net... Here's a pict of the real thing to compare against the game: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Any possibility of putting the turrets from the LMTVs on Mk 19 and M2 armed M1114 HMMVWs? Those"pope glassed" type turrets were mounted on most of the M1114s in my MP Battalion in '06-07. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Smack Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 HEY GUYS! SUPER SWEET!!! Yeah MikeyD its like Mad Max out here! Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocalypse 31 Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I thought you 'light' guys didnt need vehicles ;-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clavicula_Nox Posted June 19, 2009 Author Share Posted June 19, 2009 I thought you 'light' guys didnt need vehicles ;-) Lol, we don't need them if they have anything heavier than 10mm salvaged scrap metal welded to the floor and jammed into the doorway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slug88 Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Wonderful! Thanks, BFC. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gpig Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 what changes in kit, TO&E and usage does the IBCT bring to the game? Different weapon load-out? Squad size? Thanks, Gpig 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 The major differences in IBCT is its organization and what it doesn't have rather than what it has which is new. Remember, the reorganization of the Army was intended to achieve two very distinct goals: 1. Specialize forces into Light, Medium, and Heavy with distinctly different doctrinal roles. 2. Standardization as much as possible without violating #1. Now, one can argue how well that has worked for Iraq since even heavier units are acting like light infantry and light infantry is often acting like heavy. But IMHO that just indicates that for some ops more light infantry is needed than is reasonable to keep permanently on hand. To put it into CM terms, the IBCT forces are most similar to Marines in terms of higher level organization, but at the lower level they're not all that different than SBCT and HBCT since that was a major intention of the overhaul. But unlike the Marines they lack integrated armor (Abrams, LAVs, AAVs) and larger squad size. To give you a little preview, here is what an IBCT Rifle Company looks like in its task orientated form: Rifle Company HQ __ FIST __ Sniper Team __ Humvee (yes, ONE Humvee) __ 1 x Assault Platoon (heavy weapons mounted on Humvees or dismounted) __ 3 x Rifle Platoon (1 Javelin Team for each Platoon, otherwise same as SBCT) __ 2 x 60mm Mortar Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 So will the Javelin teams be forced to carry the launchers around regardless of mission? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 So will the Javelin teams be forced to carry... Ohmygod, that line got such a big laugh out of me I started to choke! After two years of constant complaints about needing to 'acquire' Javelins to see a preemptive complaint about not having to acquire was a bit of a surprise! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 This PPT slideshow from geocities: http://www.geocities.com/ibctcliffnotes/sld001.htm mentions the composition of an IBCT company in one of the slides, but indicates that the unit is supplemented with a platoon (3) of MGS. The PPT is dated early '08, so it is fairly recent info. Can anyone verify the 105 strykers in the official TO&E? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 BTW, the pertinent slide there is slide number 9. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrykerPSG Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 This PPT slideshow from geocities: http://www.geocities.com/ibctcliffnotes/sld001.htm mentions the composition of an IBCT company in one of the slides, but indicates that the unit is supplemented with a platoon (3) of MGS. The PPT is dated early '08, so it is fairly recent info. Can anyone verify the 105 strykers in the official TO&E? That slide set was what was used during the early briefs of the IBCT, now known as SBCT's. IBCT was the initial name given to Stryker development and if you note on the bottom of the slides, they re dated 2002, so not a current template, though very close to current SBCT MTOE. The date reads 8 JAN, 2002, not 2008 JAN 02. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Gotcha. I read that as February of 2008, instead of August of 2002. Thanks again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrykerPSG Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 No problem Slap Happy....just thought the slides looked familiar. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Ohmygod, that line got such a big laugh out of me I started to choke! After two years of constant complaints about needing to 'acquire' Javelins to see a preemptive complaint about not having to acquire was a bit of a surprise! Really? I have never made such a complaint. In fact my only issue has been not being able to put the Javelins back if I don't need them or want them saved for anti-armor purposes. I find the behavior of soldiers carrying Javelins unpredictable and difficult to control. I either have to reduce the strength of my squad by 2 or accept that they will probably waste the Javelins on area targets and run into CQB situations carrying the launcher. I know others have made the same complaint. I would have no issue if I could place a "hold" on the Javelin and have the team act as rifleman unless I desire otherwise, but since that won't be implemented in CMSF, the only option is exercising some level of control by acquiring them during the mission. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Yeah, pretty confusing about the IBCT acronym. Initially the medium brigades were called "Interim Brigade Combat Teams" before they had really figured out how to name everything consistently. Stryker Brigades should have been called "Medium Brigade Combat Teams", but for some marketing type of reason they decided to name the Brigade after the vehicle and the vehicle after two distinguished soldiers. As far as I know that is the first time in US Army history that such a thing has been done. Naming vehicles after soldiers... happens all the time, obviously. IIRC the vehicle itself was initially called IAV (Interim Armored Vehicle), or something like that, because they hadn't even selected a platform, not to mention a name for it. AKD, The Javelins are held by a dedicated Javelin Team, not assigned to a specific Squad. So they are no different than Marines or Brits in terms of ability to control. I think that mostly addresses your concerns. However, your larger point about not being able to unAcquire Javelins or be able to explicitly control when it is/isn't used are definitely things we will address sooner rather than later. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Hey Steve Explicit control of anti-armor weapons is, of course, an important topic. But what about TAC AI ability to acquire Javelins and such when being controlled by computer AI? Is this also on the eventual to-do list? Right now the only computer AI soldiers capable of utilizing those weapons are dedicated anti-tank teams that already have the launcher in their possession. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 ... However, your larger point about not being able to unAcquire Javelins or be able to explicitly control when it is/isn't used are definitely things we will address sooner rather than later. Steve Woot! Hmmm "sooner rather than later"? Obviously a BONE!!! Javelins will be UNacquired with the CMUK module/patch! Pass it on! Okay, seriously; glad to hear it's on a list to get done. (It's nice that this game is at the point that only the relatively niggling bits are left to touch up!) Regards, Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Regarding Javelin employment by IBCT teams: I don't know about you guys, but I would keep any Javelin team in an overwatch position 200 to 400 meters back from the fighting line and with a short-range cover arc in place to obviate unwanted Javelin-firing. But that's just me. As far as I know that is the first time in US Army history that such a thing has been done. Naming vehicles after soldiers... happens all the time, obviously. As opposed to naming vehicles after generals (Sherman, Patton, Bradley, Abrams, etc.)? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Smack Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Regarding Javelin employment by IBCT teams: I don't know about you guys, but I would keep any Javelin team in an overwatch position 200 to 400 meters back from the fighting line and with a short-range cover arc in place to obviate unwanted Javelin-firing. But that's just me. quote] This is similar to what I do as well. And you're right, there is nothing more annoying than a Jav Team firing at a BTR when there are tanks on the field!!:mad: Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.