Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Panzer_Leader

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday October 28

Personal Information

  • Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
  • Interests
    Ancient and military history, especially manoeuvre warfare. Krav Maga, bootcamp and running.
  • Occupation
    Managing Director, digital media.

Recent Profile Visitors

3,829 profile views
  1. Responsiveness of mortars to pre-plotted fire missions?

    Received, thanks very much Mark.
  2. Responsiveness of mortars to pre-plotted fire missions?

    Thanks Mark, let's say it's a registered target but not FPF and time frame is late 80s to early 90s. I'd assume direct radio or wire comms between a forward FO / mortar controller and battalion / mortar CP. Not looking for sensitive info, just is my one minute assumption "good enough" or another timing "better"?
  3. Responsiveness of mortars to pre-plotted fire missions?

    Thanks for testing @MAJ_Fubar What I'm keen to understand is how this compares to real life. Say, for example, your battalion has organic mortars 2-3 km away and an enemy arrives at a pre-plotted reference point, what's a realistic assumption for the time between the call for fire to be made and rounds to land on target? In a current scenario I'm updating, my assumption is one minute but I'm keen to test that with people who know more than I do!
  4. Hi All Can anyone advise approximate responsiveness of mortars (81/82 mm or 120 mm) to pre-plotted fire missions? I've always assumed 2 minutes 30 seconds for (Soviet) tube artillery but I assume mortars, generally being organic and closer to the unit being supported, may be quicker. My best guess is around 1 minute but I've really got nothing to base that on other than gut. If anyone is able to assist, that would be great. Thanks in advance!
  5. Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

    I'm a big fan of these Wish List items from @dpabrams and @Splash. The addition of all available infantry models in "set look of infantry"... would be a game changer for scenario designers and mixing and matching uniform and small-arms configurations (ideally with customised after-market skins) to achieve new historically accurate combinations, e.g. US 1970 3D infantry model with FN FAL rifle to represent Cold War Canadian infantry. As an aide-memoire, below is my standing Top 10 Wish List
  6. Russian Naval Infantry T-55AM

    Another exceptional skin from Splash, this time representing the unique camouflage of a T-55AM of the late Soviet- or early contemporary Russian-era Baltic Fleet. It's definitely one of the most interesting camouflage patterns available for an OPFOR vehicle.
  7. It won't be wrapped but, yes, I expect to bring something
  8. I'm planning to be there.
  9. Land 400 Phase 2 - and the winner is .....

    Beast! I was hoping the Boxer CRV would win it. There's a handy one-page synopsis of the announcement and acquisition process here: https://gallery.mailchimp.com/ebe687fe800f7d0f2f28fa168/files/d8ef5d77-b761-42d7-8ba7-e2e0de30308b/DTR_Special_Bulletin_Land_400_CRV_winner.pdf
  10. Agreed. I generally set OPFOR Naval Infantry and Airborne as Regular, to represent their higher training level, versus Motorised Rifle, which I normally set to Conscript. I can do that for Mission 1 tonight, while I'm working on it, if you like?
  11. Hi Team I'm stepping out this week, and most likely for the remainder of February, to use my allotted BG ANZAC time for project work on Rolling Thunder 18. I'll keep Mark updated and comment in the relevant week's forum post when I expect to rejoin. Have fun in the meantime!
  12. Will be there tonight.
  13. smithcorpse, is that you?