Welcome to Steelbeasts.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

HotTom

Members
  • Content count

    560
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About HotTom

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    Phoenix, AZ USA
  1. I know this flies in the face of all advice to run your monitor and your sim at the same resolution. But here's what worked for me after I bought a new screen and found the AA had lots of jagged lines in two sims (Falcon 4.0 being the other) with my Radeon 1950 Pro and AA and AF set at max: I run the screen in its native, max resolution of 1680x1050x32. I run the sims one notch lower: 1440x900x32. Result: Very smooth lines and very good frame rates. I'm no geek and I can't explain it but it worked for me. If you try it and it isn't an improvement, you can always switch it back. HT
  2. I never would argue that point. Both the best and worst bosses I've had were in the Army. But I have a little trouble believing a company commander in an elite unit (and Marine Recon certainly qualifies) in a combat zone would be quite as awful as this guy is portrayed. Those types of commands are highly coveted, the competition for them is very stiff and, if the battalion commander is concerned about his own career (he says his greatest fear is disappointing the First Marine Division CG), he would get rid of his duds very quickly. Most (not all) company commanders I knew had their stuff very much together (and hopefully my troops felt that way about me when I commanded a company). If they didn't, they were quickly relieved and replaced. Being popular with the troops, by the way, is not a test of a good commander. Being competent (technical and tactical proficiency is the term) is. On another front, in 28 years hanging around the Army I never heard the term "actual" used on the radio. It must have crept in after I retired (13 years ago). If you called a unit commander on the radio and his RTO answered, he would say, "This is Dragon Six Niner." Niner was the suffix we used for RTOs. The only one who would identify himself as "Dragon Six" would be the CO (the actual CO ). I also agree terms such as "copy" are not in the list of official prowords but were commonly used in my experience. The "official way" to say "Prepare to copy" is to say "message follows." But we generally said "prepare to copy," emphasizing the importance of writing it down. The uses change with units and locations. HT
  3. In the U.S. Army, it's called The Soldier's Medal (the other US services have similar awards) and it the highest non-combat award, given exclusively for valor in a non-combat situation, usually involving saving the lives of others. That pretty much sounds like what this fellow did and he certainly deserves it. http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/sm.shtml He would not qualify for a Medal of Honor but I guarantee the Soldier's Medal is viewed with just as much respect and (in my case at least) awe. I recommended several of my MPs who were seriously injured doing extraordinarily dangerous things -- we're talking leaping into flaming vehicles and aircraft here -- in non-combat situations to save others and they didn't receive them. It's not an award granted lightly or frequently. It ranks one notch below the MOH and is considered the equivalent of the Distinguished Service Cross, Navy Cross or Distinguished Flying Cross. I've almost certainly seen more blue MOH ribbons than Soldier's Medals. They don't come cheap and I gather the British version, the George Cross, is the same. HT
  4. "How Copy?" means "how did you hear me and were you able to write it down?" It usually is the end of a message that begins "Prepare to copy," which alerts the receiver important stuff follows and he or she should take notes. The proper response is "Good copy" or "Lima Charlie" (loud and clear) or, if you didn't get it, "Say again." As Tacbat notes, it probably isn't needed but it is required that every transmission (unless it ends in "Out" in which case no response is wanted or needed) receive a response, even if it is just "Roger. Out." Instead of "How Copy?" it also is correct to use the term "acknowledge" to remind the recipient at least a "roger" is expected. If the sender doesn't receive a response, he may ask: "Do you roger my last?" http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:iKr0o9HWstsJ:featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/files/gen_kill_glossary.doc+Marine+Corps+jargon+Oscar+Mike&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&client=firefox-a There's a "Generation Kill" cheat sheet I stumbled over. There are some terms unique to the Marine Corps. "Oscar Mike" means on the move, a term I never heard in the Army (maybe it snuck in after I retired) but one you hear a lot on this show. Marines also use the term "actual" to mean commander. If a company's net call sign is Dragon, they would call "Dragon Actual" if they want the CO. In the Army, it would be "Dragon Six" because six always is the numeric suffix for a commander at any level. HT
  5. Having now read the book and watched the first couple of episodes on HBO, I agree the series so far follows the book quite faithfully...but that doesn't mean it is without faults. The good stuff: The dialog is very realistic. The jargon used by the troops is dead on (if anything, it's not colorful enough; soldiers have a unique way of expressing themselves that is not totally captured here), the military acronyms (which never are explained, poor civilians) are accurate, the RTP (radio-telephone procedure) is highly accurate (on-line SB players could take some serious lessons on how to talk on a military radio net; if nothing else, listen carefully to the radio transmissions played over the credits at the end of each episode). The weapons, the vehicles, the tactics, the procedures all ring true (although the part showing the Marines buying their own NVG batteries at the PX while complaining the Army comes fully equipped is an inaccurate perception -- my soldiers spent a lot of money out of pocket to buy what the Army should have provided). Not good: The officers and senior NCOs are cardboard and stereotypes. The platoon leader and especially the platoon sergeant come across as realistic but the company commanders are portrayed as borderline dangerous idiots. Granted, the story is an enlisted man's view of the world and I was an Army officer, not a Marine officer. But even during Vietnam, which was my war, you had to be highly competent to be given a company to command, especially in an elite unit. Same with the sergeant major. The good ones are VERY professional. This guy is portrayed as a clown. I seriously doubt that was true. This is a common problem with "embedded" reporters without a military background. They have no base line for judging what they hear. I suspect the Marines with whom he was riding (especially the platoon sergeant) are accurately portrayed, the platoon leader's portrait probably is pretty close but as we move away from that vehicle and that platoon, the credibility of the author's views and descriptions suffers. All in all, I would give the TV series, so far, a definite thumbs up: Flawed in places but generally way above Hollywood's usual treatment of the military (this was put together by the same crew who did "The Wire" on HBO, which I also found to be quite realistic -- and highly entertaining). HT
  6. TB: Why would you even compare the two? This isn't an MBT...it's an infantry support vehicle. And what good are Leo 2s if you never take them outside the wire? HT
  7. The best times I've had in SB were campaigning with ARRC. Very sorry to learn of its demise. HT
  8. If you read the links in my first post, Trophy is strictly an Israeli system. It is being mounted on Merkavas and will be mounted on the Strykers Israel is buying. Israel offered the Trophy to the United States Army and we turned it down in favor of a similar product being developed -- but not nearly ready to field -- by Raytheon. Boomerang has nothing to do with either. It's an acoustic system to pinpoint the source of sniper fire (the Israelis have a similar device that also is man-portable). Trophy is designed to destroy incoming ordnance. From what I have read about slat armor, it will defeat RPGs but their fragments still can fly inside the "cage" and hit exposed crew members. HT
  9. Mog, let's not hijack this thread Actually, I did a search for boomerange thinking maybe that really was the name of the system, a combination of boomerang and range. It wasn't. HT USA (Ret)
  10. Yes. Makes it tough to do a Google search when it isn't spelled correctly. And spell checking really is easy. HT
  11. First, it's Boomerang, not boomerange (ain't the US public school system grand?). Second...sorry Deja...Boomerang is acoustic, not radar: http://www.defense-update.com/products/b/Boomerang.htm Third, the Trophy system is an Israeli-made product. Raytheon is an American defense contractor with lots of retired US military on its payroll and lots of plants creating jobs in lots of Congressional districts. Do the math http://www.defense-update.com/products/t/trophy.htm HT
  12. It's an excellent book even if it was first published 15 years ago and there are many more current examples. Everything in this book is Gulf War I or earlier... It takes aim at two targets: The procurement of weapons that don't work terribly well and AirLand Battle, which was less successful in Desert Storm than CNN told you. Whether it was any better in OIF would make an interesting sequel. Anyone who has spent any time at all around what is called the T&E (testing and evaluation) community is acutely aware of how cozy the military officers assigned to manage the development of new weapons systems are with the contractors who build the toys. Usually, those same officers go to work (at very lucrative salaries) for the contractors when they retire. That gives of the military program directors plenty of incentive (while they still are in uniform) to look the other way when stuff doesn't work. All the former commanders of the Army and Navy testing facilties with which I am familiar are now on the payroll of some of the country's biggest defense contractors. And when you have guys like Cheney, former CEO of Haliburton, becoming vice president, guess who gets the no-bid contracts? This is a good read, if a bit dated. HT
  13. You need to load Windows into it and a program called Boot Camp. If your OS is Leopard, it comes with Bootcamp installed. If not, get it here: http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/bootcamp.html Then your Mac will run PC programs like SB Pro.
  14. You do NOT want to hear my opinion of the 1stVUSCAV...at least not in a public forum..... Glad you are enjoying it though.... HT
  15. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/7-7j/index.html http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-21-71/index.html These two FMs have the same title and both deal with the Bradley platoon and squad. One is much newer than the other but I'm not sure whether it superceded the earlier one because there is a difference in the topics they cover. In any case: RTFM(s) HT