Discussion of Scout/Tank integration minus equip nitpicking!

[19D30]

Hmmm..well then. Having sat back and watched that "great bradley debate" thread for a while I guess I'll try a fresh start. I have even created a suitably glib little quote for the occasion:

A sniper with a _______ (fill in the blank with a technologically inferior weapon) is still more dangerous than a conscript with a ________ (fill in the blank with a high tech wonder weapon).

When I first tried to Scout with an M3, I was extremely skeptical about the vehicle (for many reasons already mentioned), and had a very rough go at it. Then I quit my whining and realized that it was my own failure to adapt myself to the capabilities of the system, and I began working on formulating tactics that complimented the positive aspects and minimized the system's shortcomings. I am now positively LETHAL as a M3 scout (as well as a HMMWV Scout and as a Sniper). My wingman and I have personally shaped the outcome of Battalion level operations with our actions alone, not due to our equipment but due to our ability to use it properly.

The point is, that its really not all that critical what particular equipment you are using...The most important piece of equipment-and the only TRUE weapon system is your brain. Everything else is just a tool the true weapon system uses to accomplish the mission. Soooooooo, how bout we quit niggling about who's "main gun" is longer than who's, and get back to talking tactics. I'll start:

One of our Cav Troops most effective formations with M1s and M3s is to use Half Troop (6 M3s 4 M1s) hunter killer teams. Two forward hunter killer sections are each made up of two M3s and one M1 (following an IV line or so behind), and a C3 element in the rear (500-1000m behind the two forward hunter killer sections) consisting of two M3s and two M1s (the Platoon Sgt and Plt Ldr for the tank and scout platoons). It is very flexible and effective; the M3s hunt, the M1s kill (while the M3s occupy SBF positions). and if anyone gets bogged down or outnumbered, the other section can flank and the C3 element can slice off units as needed to reinforce. It is perfect for aggressive Recon in Force manuevers and keeps us 19Ds alive most of the time ;)

Thougts? Personal experience working with Scout/Tank integration in the real world or with SB?

[Mpat120]

Well stated 19D30, I as a former 19K would rather have a hunter killer team than a pure unit, you can have the best of 2 worlds, the brads can scout/take out lighter armor, the tanks can take care of heavy armor/provide support for scouts and the infantry can look in the nooks and cranies the grunts hide in and help out w/local security. It is a proven tactic. Most folks who ever played in against me saw the tactic from time to time.

[Poker]

My gun's bigger ! :)

Damn, wrong thread. :D

[TopKick]

This sounds like something we used to do when I was in Cav platoons in the 14th AC and 11th AC in Europe. Cav platoons at the time consisted of 3 tanks, 5 scout vehicles (M114s), Infantry Squad in an M113, and one 4.2 Mortar track. Generally we were trained to conduct recon missions by discovering enemy positions and intentions. Although Cav platoons are well armed we were taught to use those weapons as a means of self-defense because if we did our jobs correctly we would never have to fire them. Yeah Right. The missions we conducted were, Route, zone, and area, recon, plus flank guard, screens, and security missions. The teams in each platoon were 2 scout sections with 1 tank each forward, and 1 tank, 1 infantry, and the mortar track about 1 click rearward. The scout section leader usually placed his vehicle where he could best control his elements. Of course we were also taught defense, attack, and retrograde movements and passage of lines.

If we had to attack and take objectives the Cav troop would consolidate it's assets and do so with 11 tanks, and 3 infantry squads forcing the issue, and with 15 scouts vehicles on the flanks and 3 mortar crews providing fire support.

These tactics obviously have changed by now. I don't even know how many vehicles are in a Cav platoon.

[Grenny]

19D30...sound like you are "devaluating" your recon-objects by taking them out on your own :wink:

The german armored-recon used to train with a mixture of "Luchs" ARVs and Leopard 1A(X) tanks as "heavy recon teams". I don't know their actual strength, but it sounds a good idea (105mm gives you much more punch then 20mm if you need it)
One of the main reasons was that recon Bn's where planned as delay-forces in front of the Grenadier-Bn's (giving us the time to dig in 8) ).

Now the Leo 1 gets decomissioned and the "Luchs" may follow soon, to be replaced by the "Fennek"...

Ergo:The recon force will have no real fighting power(40mm MGW) but much better sensory-equipment.
Recon teams will have to rely on stealth and the use of ground-mounted senors and flying "drones".

If thats the right way,I don't know. I just hope when there is the(very unlikely) time to prove it, it will not kost to much blood :?

[PS-SCUD]

A sniper with a _______ (fill in the blank with a technologically inferior weapon) is still more dangerous than a conscript with a ________ (fill in the blank with a high tech wonder weapon).

How's this: A sniper with a wooden club (fill in the blank with a technologically inferior weapon) is still more dangerous than a conscript with a Modified plasma-railgun (fill in the blank with a high tech wonder weapon). :lol: :lol: :lol:

Improvise. Adapt. Overcome.

[NEpi]

the splinters of the wooden club are nasty!

[Ssnake]

And rusty knives have a +1 Tetanus bonus!

Coming back the recon questions at hand, the switch over from the Luchs to the Fennek is a direct consequence of a different vision of how future operational scenarios will look like. The Luchs was excellent for deep penetrations of week-long duration, up to 150km into the rear of the enemy. Now, the all-out armored slugfest on the plains of northern Germany are unlikely to take place. The question therefore arises whether the Luchs - as well as it was for its perceived role - would suit the needs of future reconnaissance teams better than the Fennek, and the answer is probably No. The primary purpose of reconnaissance teams should be to gather information. Therefore good sensors are highly desirable - at least more desirable than strong fighting power. If you want to reconnoiter an assault axis by force to gather crucial information about a certain key territory, you can still send a tank company. It doesn't have to be Leopard tanks of the armored reconnaissance branches to accomplish that - plain Jane Leopards will do the trick just as well. ;)

[DrDevice]

19D30 -

Well thought points, and thank you for qualifying the thread so that (hopefully) it doesn't degrade.

Other than the strategic implications of cost etc. that make fielding an all-tank force possible, I am not certain what level of lethality the scout troop should have. As Ssnake mentioned, how aggressive is enough, and for which perceived threat?

I would like to see the M3s outfitted with more sensor gear as well. Right now, their only real advantage as far as sensors go, are the well-trained dismounts. That's not to knock their ability, but they have limitations on survivability and keeping with their track. They are excellently stealthy and true "smart" weapons, but also have a limited sensor capability.

I would like to see the M3s fitted with more equipment along the lines of the M7 FIST or the LRAS3. Systems with extraordinary (45x in the case of LRAS3) optics that allow 10 digit arty calls at 10 km (M7) or even farther. (LRAS3) Both received very high marks in lessons learned after OIF as part of the 3ID. That sort of ability is great in open terrain, but I would like to see it tested in more dense terrain.

I'm sure the feasibility and cost might be prohibitive at present, but if we refine and streamline the system, perhaps some advanced sensors could help enhance the scout's value even more.

As far as SB goes:
ProPE will allow us to "try on" the HK idea. I am really looking forward to manned M3s! I want their dismounts to be as playable though. I want to know that their control and concealment will allow them to take advantage of the great new cover and concealment. And that they will be survivable and responsive enough to utilize them as in RL.


M7 FIST http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m7.htm
LRAS3 - http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/reports/1999/990609-asb_gust/sld011.htm

[19D30]

Thanks to everyone for staying (mostly) on topic! BTW, the sniper with the wooden club would wait for the conscript to fall asleep on guard duty, brain him with said club, and steal his plasma weapon.

There are some good points being brought up here. I would like to point out that the hunter killer concept should be limited to specific tactical situations (METT-T) like Movement to Contact and Hasty Attack maneuvers where both red and blue are moving (and where the scouts are usually ignored or just put into static SBFs). These are situations where the perliminary recon has been done already and the main FLOT has caught up with the screen line, or you just happen to stumble on the enemy and deliberate zone recon is moot.

Scouts should still be used in their conventional role leading up to the actual attack, by performing deep zone recon and screening operations (which is not really scout/tank integration and won't be covered by me in this thread).

Here is another scout/tank tactic that worked well for us in a deliberate defense: Instead of being placed in normal BPs and acting as mere "speed bumps", we would use a different approach. The dismounts would naturally be placed in OPs as far forward as METT-T allows or on obstacle overwatch, and would do most of the actual scouting. The M3s however, would be placed in BP hides located in IV "deadspace", either on the reverse slope or in keyhole positions along the flank of the enemy's likely AoA. Once the main body had passed up the dismounted OPs, they would turn into AT teams.

I never quite understood the approach where we were placed in obvious defensive BPs...we give our positions away killing the light armor, and once the tanks show up we are pretty much toast. Some of my less intelligent commanders though we could do some damage with the TOW from normal BPs, but failed to realize that it takes about 35 seconds to get to it's max range and a MBT could shoot about four of us in that time span.

I agree that light scouts (HMMWV/Striker/etc) should be used strictly for recon/counter recon, as they lack any signifigant offensive direct fire capability. The M3 falls into a grey area though and can help out quite a bit when the knife fighting begins, if used properly. I can't wait for SBPro to illustrate this :) The player controlled Bradley will shake things up for sure.

[stuart666]

And rusty knives have a +1 Tetanus bonus!

Coming back the recon questions at hand, the switch over from the Luchs to the Fennek is a direct consequence of a different vision of how future operational scenarios will look like. The Luchs was excellent for deep penetrations of week-long duration, up to 150km into the rear of the enemy. Now, the all-out armored slugfest on the plains of northern Germany are unlikely to take place. The question therefore arises whether the Luchs - as well as it was for its perceived role - would suit the needs of future reconnaissance teams better than the Fennek, and the answer is probably No. The primary purpose of reconnaissance teams should be to gather information. Therefore good sensors are highly desirable - at least more desirable than strong fighting power. If you want to reconnoiter an assault axis by force to gather crucial information about a certain key territory, you can still send a tank company. It doesn't have to be Leopard tanks of the armored reconnaissance branches to accomplish that - plain Jane Leopards will do the trick just as well. ;)

Interesting points. I suppose it illustrates the differing attitudes towards reconnisance during the cold war. The Americans and Germans generally thought if intelligence was worth having, it would have to be fought for (the same attitude they had in ww2). The British by contrast built machines more suited for hiding and reporting, and only shooting if absolutely necesary. (The scorpion, Scimitar series). I suppose the soviets used a combination of both doctrines, low key for operational or Theatre level, and willing to fight for it at the immediately tactical level. I guess all of them have something to be said for them.

I did like the West German Layout best, something like 30 Leopard1s and luchs all in a battalion strikes me as near ideal for the screening role. Baors layout of 48 scimitars and 16 strikers for the screen role was ok, but it was badly lacking in weight, and would have had to have detached tanks to it in all likelyhood. In fact,a friend of mine told me it was his role to take his lone Chieftain forward and plink the battalion commanders of the soviet Battalions. A pretty exciting, albeit short, war for him I think. :cry:

[DrDevice]

From a Btn/force protection perspective, I am with you: you have to fight for intel, and that means being survivable.

I like the balance of power in a U.S. DIVCAV Troop. The combination of M1s and M3s makes for enough combat power to remain viable in the face of heavy opposition. The kicker is keeping one supplied. Someday we'll get smart and go back to high HP diesels. Or so I hope.

[19D30]

On the lighter side of Scout/Tank integration...as a joke, I once made the following recommendation to my CO on a Cavalry Troop Force Restructurization:

[My sarcastic approach was due to several factors: First off, he was utilizing us (scouts) as AT vehicles a little too often, and I found out first hand that the M1A2's had much better optics than our aging M3a2s, and could "see" farther at higher resolution. Plus, the Tankers generally had much poorer land navigation, situational awareness (even with IVIS), and vehicle ID skills, and relied heavily on scouts anyway. We lacked survivability and sometimes it took too long for the tankers to react to our intell and we would die.]

My "recomended fix" for this, was to replace all M3's with M1a2s, but replace the Tank Commanders with experienced Scout Vehicle commanders (moving the original TC's to the loader position as a back up). The old M3s could be converted into armored/armed tracked "trailers" towed behind each "Scout Tank" to carry the two dismounts (in the turret-which would be powered by an umbilical from the M1) and carry additional fuel for the M1 where the engine used to be and carry additional ammo where the crew compartment was...

The scary part was that instead of laughing (my anticipated response) he actually started thinking about it...heh, officers.

I hope the 25mm APDS will be able to destroy (at least) the optics of threat vehicles in SBPro if you hit the "doghouse". Our MILES gear actually even suppoted 25mm "suppression" of MBTs: if you fired the 25mm MILES laser at a MBT, the target vehicle's MILES would "lock up" and they couldn't return fire. The tanks would then pop them. This tactic was sort taking advantage of a MILES exploit (like when tanks would hide behind MILES-proof bushes and trees that a sabot would laugh at on it's way through the tank), but then the 25MM DU rounds can penetrate a lot of turret side armor out there, so we figured it was a worth while tactic to use when working with tank/scout hunter killer teams. Heck, if you had a good position where you could fire just to distract a enemy MBT and then go into full defilade while a tank drills him from the flank...is it "Autumn" yet?

[DrDevice]

19D30 and I ..dreaming of a Scout Christmas!

Manned M3s, scout HMMVWs with MK 19s quietly sneaking in to enemy territory.

Ack! Antici............................................ ..............................pation!

On that note: Will the squad dismounts in SBProPE vary in size and weapon composition? i.e. 2 scouts to an M3, but a Javelin team + full squad for an M2? More troops in an M113A3? etc. etc.

(will post same ? to the Pro thread.)

[Ssnake]

I hope the 25mm APDS will be able to destroy (at least) the optics of threat vehicles in SBPro if you hit the "doghouse".
You can count on that. :)

[BANDIT7]

IM A CURRENT 19K20 WITH M1A2 SEP QUALIFICATION. IVE BEEN WITH CAV TROOPS (M2 AND M3 BRADLEY). IT WOULD BE PERFECT TO HAVE THE HUNTER KILLER TEAMS. AND TO IMPLEMENT THEM OS SB1 AND SB PRO PERSONAL ED. IT WOULD BE KINDA HARD. SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SB COMMUNITY ARE NOT MILITARY AND REQUIRE TEAMWORK TO MAKE THE HUNTER KILLER TEAMS WORK. SOME OF US IN VU'S WOULD HAVE TO CONSTANTLY WORK OF THIS CONCEPT IN ORDER FOR IT TO WORK.

LIKE I SAID I WAS A FORMER "BUFFALO SOLDIER" (1-10CAV, 4TH ID)

BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS YOU AND GET BIT REAL HARD!
QUOTE THE RAVEN.....NEVER MORE

[Grenny]

On the lighter side of Scout/Tank integration...as a joke, I once made the following recommendation to my CO on a Cavalry Troop Force Restructurization:

[My sarcastic approach was due to several factors: First off, he was utilizing us (scouts) as AT vehicles a little too often, and I found out first hand that the M1A2's had much better optics than our aging M3a2s, and could "see" farther at higher resolution. Plus, the Tankers generally had much poorer land navigation, situational awareness (even with IVIS), and vehicle ID skills, and relied heavily on scouts anyway. We lacked survivability and sometimes it took too long for the tankers to react to our intell and we would die.]

...

The scary part was that instead of laughing (my anticipated response) he actually started thinking about it...heh, officers.

I hope the 25mm APDS will be able to destroy (at least) the optics of threat vehicles in SBPro if you hit the "doghouse". Our MILES gear actually even suppoted 25mm "suppression" of MBTs: if you fired the 25mm MILES laser at a MBT, the target vehicle's MILES would "lock up" and they couldn't return fire. The tanks would then pop them. This tactic was sort taking advantage of a MILES exploit (like when tanks would hide behind MILES-proof bushes and trees that a sabot would laugh at on it's way through the tank), but then the 25MM DU rounds can penetrate a lot of turret side armor out there, so we figured it was a worth while tactic to use when working with tank/scout hunter killer teams. Heck, if you had a good position where you could fire just to distract a enemy MBT and then go into full defilade while a tank drills him from the flank...is it "Autumn" yet?

I had a discussion about that(or similar) topic lately. A friend (armored-recon guy; Luchs-TC) told me, that if he'd stumble into an enemy tank he would open fire , switch to reverse-drive and get the hell out of there.
His idea was to "distract" the crew and maybe even damage something important.
I guess the 25mm DU gives you even a better chance at that.
Anyway its better for a RECON unit to see the tank first(thats their job for godsake!) and avoid it.

During my time in the Bn recon/liaison-platoon I would have been totaly fucked up if I'd run into tanks or even APCs as my car was a Wolf-jeep with mounted MG3.
Our credo was not to fight but:"spannen, petzen und verpissen"
(means something like :"to peak, to tell about it and to bug out")

talking about "MILES exploits":
I onces had 2 paratroopers in my scope (H&K G3/ZF) at 400m.
I sent 5 laser-pulses their way to no effect. Then I had to run, because a MG-gunner had found my position.
We later found out that these SOBs had covered their receivers whit shoe-shine and where therefor "immortal"

[19D30]

Thanks for confirming the good news in reference to SBPro 25mm performance SSnake!!

Bandit7: Mmmmmmmm....Sep! I wish I had the zoom capability of the SEP on my Bradley Thermals!! What does it go up to...50X? Those things are like having heat sensitive spotting scopes!

As far as H/K teams being difficult for civillians to implement, I don't think it will be that big of an issue. Its a pretty simple concept that just sounds difficult once you put it in writing (like most concepts the millitary gets involved with). As long as everyone is on TeamSpeak it should be easy enough.

Grenny: yeah...MILES is pretty easy to exploit. I remember not too long ago before the Army started enforcing no-contact rules, I would carry around a permanent red marker with me. When I found a sentry asleep on guard during a peremiter probe I would give him a nice smile below the chin...sometimes they wouldn't even wake up. Pretty hard to explain the next morning, I imagine.

Keep up the good posts guys!

[NEpi]

what's that "no contact" rules?

50x mag? is that optical??

[DrDevice]

"No physical contact." While training in your MILES environment, it's advisable not to let your troops physically attack one another as a form of training. They save that for more controlled conditions. In other words: now you can't pretend to knife someone. 19D30 was having fun with sleeping sentries; giving them a "Columbian Necktie."

50x? Lordy. This is SEP only, not first run M1A2, correct? Sure helps extend your detection envelope far beyond your engagement zone, if you can get that kind of LOS. The 45x on the LRAS3 allows 10km ID and arty calls with 10m accuracy. Cooooool. :twisted:

[NEpi]

i wouldn't call using a marker "physical contact"...
making a mess out of disfunctional sentries is always welcome.

[19D30]

50x mag? is that optical??


50x? Lordy. This is SEP only, not first run M1A2, correct?


Here is a link to the proof:
http://www.knox.army.mil/center/tsmabrams/conference_update/tsld016.htm

The first time I found out about the No-Contact rule was my first stateside field problem after returning from Germany. I was in a hide position (sniper/OP) on a deliberate defense, and close to the end of the battle an OPFOR FIST-V stopped about 75m from my hide with its flank to me. after about 10 minutes the crew opened the rear door of the 113. I was granted permission to deploy a "satchel charge" (MRE bag filled with dirt with a chem-light taped to it). My spotter covered me while I rushed out, and "Murphy" must have seen me, because the door started to close as I got closer. The TC's hatch was open, so I threw it up there, and the TC came up right after I threw and caught the bag with his head. He just drove off, and he must have bitched about it to some one, as I recieved an ass-chewing for making contact when I got back.

But then I've always had more ass than anyone has teeth.

Back to topic, Scout/Tank integration will probably be vital in another area of SBPro: MOUT (urban warfare). Dismounts and vehicles capable of superelevating their weapons (M2/M3) are neccesary to cover MBT deadspace. Just ask the Russian veterans of the Chechen conflict. The rebels were using dismounted AT/Sniper hunter killer teams to devestating effect, untill the Russians started using Shilkas to root them out.

[Trekker]

The SEP is using some sort of computerized mag, compeared to the normal glas, from what i understand.
The image is transferd to a screen, so it's not the gunners sight but the TC screen that has x50...

But bandit can correct me i guess? :)

[TankHunter]

"No physical contact." While training in your MILES environment, it's advisable not to let your troops physically attack one another as a form of training. They save that for more controlled conditions. In other words: now you can't pretend to knife someone. 19D30 was having fun with sleeping sentries; giving them a "Columbian Necktie."

50x? Lordy. This is SEP only, not first run M1A2, correct? Sure helps extend your detection envelope far beyond your engagement zone, if you can get that kind of LOS. The 45x on the LRAS3 allows 10km ID and arty calls with 10m accuracy. Cooooool. :twisted:

A Columbian Necktie? What is that?

[DrDevice]

The link that 19D30 offered states that the FLIR upgrade is for both GPSE and CITV, so both gunner and TC should have the ability to go thrugh 5 mag levels: 3x, 6x, 13, 25x, an 50x. Now some of those may be"pixel magnification" as you mentioned, but still offer a better view than is possible for even a sharp-eyed TC.

TH: a Columbian Necktie is where you slit someone's throat and pull their tongue out through the hole... :shock: Could be urban legend, I dunno...it just sounds rude!

[NEpi]

pixel mag might ruin the picture more than help. it's harder to interpret the figure when it's pixelized that badly.

[DrDevice]

Imagine it at high resolution. Check out the link that 19D30 provided. Here is the mag issue for gunner:
http://www.knox.army.mil/center/tsmabrams/conference_update/sld020.htm

and for TC:
http://www.knox.army.mil/center/tsmabrams/conference_update/sld021.htm

I doubt the "pixelized image" is a problem, or it would not be implemented.

[NEpi]

this resolution is damn pricy! every vehicle got this 50x mag?

the advantage becomes substantial only on long ranges. i'm not sure the ammo can penetrate that far away.

what is this presentation anyway? there's HUDs for tankers in that presentation, although iirc, i've read there are many problems with this technology yet (i'm out of the real loop for a while, so it might have changed). iirc, it isn't rigid enough to survive combat conditions.

[19D30]

BeepBoopBoopBeeeeepBoop...
DANGER WILL ROBINSON: NITPICK ALERT!!!
SUGGESTED COURSE OF ACTION: BEGIN SEPARATE THREAD ON M1A2(SEP)
CALCULATED PROBOBILITY OF SUCCESS: .1377777%
SHALL I INITIATE THREAD SELF DESTRUCTION SEQUENCE?
AUTHENTICATE:

No thank you, trusty forum-thread-defender-robot.
*sigh*....well I guess I was the one who brought up equipment specs...(slams own head in door)

As a Scout who's Bradley was shot at by an M1A2 (coax thank god) while returning on a range road after table VII Night Fire, I can say that I am perfectly fine with giving them all 50X optics. The M1 was doing table VI on the range next to us and apparantly mistook our moving M3 (seen from the flank from their perspective) for a stationary plywoood rectangle. Range was only 1200 meters.

Anyway, this does bring up a Scout/Tank integration related (cough, cough, wink, wink, nudge, nudge) question: Vehicle Identification (friend/Foe). With SBPro, we will start seeing player controlled APCs running around in front of tanks...We had numerous problems with fratracide using our CCTT simulators (networked half-troop manuever and gunnery simulators). Without bumper numbers and vis panels that we used in real life it was hard to figure out who was who. Hopefully SBPro will have some measures to help with this. User definable numbering, thermal ID panels and such would be nice...

[NEpi]

19D, that tank gunner was blind. he could have had 100x for that matter and still shoot at you.
IDing Friend/Foe with thermals is a matter of practice. people that are good at this can know who are you from a smudged blury spot.
i guess some of us will have to reduce that problem by training more (although the same is true on M1 and Leo thermal image from a good distance, hence the frats).

[DrDevice]

IFF is a big issue for SBPro IMO. Right now we have perfect AI TC IFF. It needs to get "softer" so we can practice the techniques you are talking about.

In SB1, for instance, you could put IR recognition panels on the TIS view of tanks easily enough: just mod the skin. Same goes for vehicle numbers. It's just a resolution issue really.
In SBPro, it should be a bit more complicated. Visual ID markers could easily be part of the designs/skins as well, let's just hope they are more secure.

So long as the AI is too good, though, its a moot point.

Let's hope we can see more "real" issues with figuring out just who is on the other end of the barrel.

[BANDIT7]

THE M1A2 SEP TANK HAS A NEW FEATURE THAT THE STANDARD A2 DOES NOT HAVE...... THE BIOC FEATURE. IF YOU REMEMBER THE MOVIE "COURAGE UNDER FIRE" WHEN THE GUNNER WAS LOOKING AT A GREEN SCREEN - THATS THE SAME THING THE SEP HAS. WHAT YOU LOOK IN THE GPS IS THE SAME THING THAT THE BIOC LOOKS AT. THAT WAY THE GUNNER DOESNT HAVE TO LOOK AT THE GPS ALL THE TIME. FOR THE SIGHTS. ITS GOT THE 2ND GENERATION FLIR SYSTEM THAT THE BRADLEY M3 HAS. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT WE CAN SEE FURTHER THAN THE BRAD. WE HAVE 3X, 6X, 10X, 13X, 25X AND 50X. WHEN WE WENT TO GUNNERY FOR THE FIRST TIME WITH THESE TANKS. I WAS AUGMENTEED TO 3/66 AR @ FORT HOOD. WE ALL FOUND THAT FIRING IN 13X WAS THE BEST. @ NTC WE SPOTTED THE DECOY FSE @ 15 KILOMETERS OUT AND USED THE FBCB2 (FORCE XXI BATTLE COMMAND BRIGADE AND BELOW) TO LASE AT THE TARGET, GET A TEN DIGIT GRID AND SEND A FIRE MISSION DIGITALLY WITHOUT USING THE RADIO. HOPEFULLY THE REMAINING ARMOR FORCES IN THE ARMY WILL GET THE SEP TANKS AND THE M3 BRADLEY. 1ST CAV DIVISION AND 4TH INFANTRY (DIGITIZED) ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT HAVE M3 BRADLEY AND M1A2 SEP ABRAMS TANKS.


BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS YOU AND GET BIT REAL HARD!
QOUTE THE RAVEN.....NEVER MORE!

[19D30]

So how about some suggestions on frat reduction (real world and SB).

The investigation of the incident revealed that the major contributing factors were a combination of inexperience on the gunner's part, and iexperience/lack of SA on the TCs part. The gunner had never fired at actual gunnery targets before, and when he was briefed that the targets were heated to look like real vehicles (an exageration at best) he took it a little too litterally. The TC (also inexperienced) gave a fire command without actually looking at what the gunner was doing (or what the TPI was reading) as he was too busy using the CITV to scan for the second target so he could shave a few seconds off his engagement time. The crew was de-certified and the TC was relieved of his position.

When SBPro comes out I plan on using screen shots to make a comprehensive Vehicle Recognition Guide. All vehicles from multiple angles, GPS, Thermals, range etc.

[BANDIT7]

IS THIS IN REFERENCE TO THE TANKERS THAT ENGAGED A BRADLEY @ FORT CARSON OR @ FORT HOOD. IF IT WAS AT CARSON, THE TANK CREW WAS LOOKING IN AT THE WRONG TANK RANGE. RANGES 109 (TANK) AND 111 (BRADLEY) ARE TOGETHER THEY ARE NOT SEPARATED. THE TANK WAS LOOKING INTO THE BRADLEY RANGE AND THE DISMOUNT TEAM WAS OUT DOING A JOINT FIRE EXERCISE WITH THE BRADLEY AND THE GUNNER THOUGHT THAT IT WAS A TARGET AND BEGAN TO ENGAGE BOTH THE BRADLEY AND THE TANK. THAT CREW WAS RELIEVED DUE TO THE FACT OF RANGE SAFETY AND LACK OF SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. WE, THE TANKERS NEED TO TAKE VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION CLASSES AND IDENTIFY THE PROPER TARGETS. AND YES YOU CAN TELL IF THE TARGET IS WOOD OR ACTUAL TARGETS THROUGH THE GPS. IF YOU CANT DISTINGUISH THE 2 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN REAL AND WOOD.....THEN THE INDIVUAL DOES NOT NEED TO TANK.

[19D30]

To set the record straight (I was there after all): The incident I am talking about was on Ft. Carson, and yes the ranges are right next to each other. They have separate range fans (left and right limits) and separate Range Control Towers, however. Additionaly, tanks and brads use both ranges during different tables.

I don't know where you are getting the info about the dismounts though ??? and was a tank supposed to be with us too ??? We (the LT and I with crews) were all mounted on Brads and returning on the range road to the clearing pit after completing the night fire engagements and there were no joint fire operations going on with dismounts (that kind of stuff is done on advanced Tables anyway, not XII or XIII) The tank that fired on us had his turret oriented at 9 o'clock, and after that incident we had to put chem lights on the back of each turret during night fire, and an additional range safety vehicle followed each firing vehicle to ensure no one was looking the wrong way.

My vehicle L 1-2 (Lightning Troop 3/3 ACR Red-2) was hit seven times (1 round came within an inch of my driver's vision block, the rest were spaced out along the left side armor) and the L 1-1 (platoon leader's) Brad was hit four times, most around the left front sprocket. The M1 that shot us was from Ironhawk Troop 3/3 Acr.

I think it was around 2200, and we start firing pretty damn early in the morning ,so maybe fatigue was a factor as well. I don't know how many times I have had minor halucinations on a screen line while scanning in thermals:

Red One this is Red Two, Contact Troops North, out!
Gunner Coax Troops 600!
...Uh...cannot...identify?
RIGHT THERE DAMMITT!!
What, those bushes there?
Those arent !@^#& bushes! I saw them move!
Nope, those are bushes Sarge.
mumble mumble saw them move mumble mumble...
Red Two, this is Red One, SITREP over.

Sound familiar anyone?

[NEpi]

the best way to reduce frats is...if in doubt, don't fire! take a few more secs before firing.
it is a good advice, because when it is hard to identify the target, it means it's quite far away, and you have the innitiative even if you wait.

[Chaplain]

The best way to reduce frats is to use proper formations and unit-to-unit coordination. That has been the rule since the beginning of mobile warfare. While many of the newer electronic gadgets have reduced the possibility of frats when units have maneuvered too freely, they still have a long way to go.

One of the old rules is, if scouts are to your front, you don't fire to your front. Unless, of course, the scouts themselves contact you, tell you where they are and where the enemy is, and want you to fire toward that enemy. Otherwise, you only engage to your front if you are fired upon, and then only after using proper vehicle ID techniques.

[DrDevice]

Bandit....Caps lock is your friend. Your posts are very hard to read with all caps, man.

As far as fratricide in SB goes, a gamey-factor goes a long way here. As mentioned, the crew guilty of a blue-on-blue event was washed out. Imagine how the game would change if any fratricide resulted in forfeit of score? Not fun for most, but a relatively effective measure to make players think twice. Right now, there is zero penalty. So players figure, "why not pull the trigger?" Scenario designers can change that, if given the tools. (I don't believe it is possible for SB1)

If the ID AI gets more fuzzy, IFF will become a much more important part of SB. It will be a better training tool, and a more realistic sim. And More Real = More Fun for those of us who like to play at TC for a few hours.

[Ssnake]

It's, uh - you guessed it.

[richard]

Try "The village in the hills" scenario. All you have to do is man one tank in the village shoot hostiles and wait for reinforcements. If you use thermals you just might "Accidentally" kill some of your own people. Correction "YOU" will kill some of your own people.

[Viper-3]

The ability to lase a target and recieve a 10 digit grid and relay that to the FDC or a Plt Ldr's track and have him approve and send higher has been around for ages. :mrgreen: Ever since the Army got smart and scrapped the Vulcan, Air Defense crews have had the latest and greatest Bradley on the market. Last statement of my Task Force Op order briefing was Company Commanders use your Duckhunters for digital relay of 10 digit grids to place effective fires on the enemy.

The IFF issue is also one that I am greately familiar with. The incorporation of the IFF portion of the BCIS came from the Air Defense community. Lase a thermal image and recieve a audible beep notifying if Friend or Foe. Also, see a blue or red icon appear on your HUD (BCIS) if not previously illuminated. The Army and Marine corps have yet to fully implement the systems on all track vehicles.
Assuming every gunner would lase first this system could eliminate a great number of frats. The equipment is already in the inventory and cost next to nothing to fit to all track vehicle and armored hummers. Best I can remember, 1997 Bright Star our second squad lased another Linebacker about 2800+ meters away and got a possitive friend response. Havent seen the system since then. I think they scrapped it.

Viper

[19D30]

I haven't seen any operational BCIS systems in any of the units I've been with so far...I heard a lot of anecdotal evidence that the system was not close to 100% reliable, and was scraped in favor of FBCB2/IVIS which uses GPS and lase data for situational awareness.

I think it was a wise decision; good situational awareness is probably more reliable than a laser triggered IFF system. I assume (from references to the BCIS in FMs and such) that it used a sensor on the friendly vehicle that was supposed to recognize friendly laser pulse codes, and send a signal to the lasing vehicle that he had a freindly in his sights. Seems like it would have a lot of room for error...the sensor on either vehicle could fail to see the signal, the system could be spoofed, jammed or "highjacked" by the enemy, etc.