Steel Beasts and Esim working with DCS

[Hedgehog]

Now, from an historical point of view, this sounds rather familiar. :heu:

Pumas with Milan teams firing out the side door?

:gun:

Anyway back on topic.

I think a DCS module with RW assets only working with SB has some traction.

But Gibsonm argues a good point with regard to the symmetrical warfare argument.

Our tiny patch of dirt is far beneath a FW asset's attention.

DCS maps are thousands if not hundreds of thousands km square.

SB at least from the PE perspective are 484 km2 in size.

An SU-25T using Vhikr is a waste of an asset. (Vhikr = small laser guided AT Missile.)

You need to be point blank to use it in terms of an SU-25T.

Far better to be using a KH-29T. (KH-29T = TV guided Anti Structure/Ship missile.)

[MDF]

The article I mentioned is an argument that doctrine needs to shift to reflect reality, and give up on the idea of an attack helicopter battalion (or larger) performing deep interdiction attacks on its own (which the U.S. Army has attempted only three times in its history and only succeeded once).

I know of one failed deep attack (the one southwest of Baghdad in March '03). What was the other one? And, for that matter, what was the success? The attack on the Iraqi EW radar station to open ODS?

[AlphaOneSix]

I know of one failed deep attack (the one southwest of Baghdad in March '03). What was the other one? And, for that matter, what was the success? The attack on the Iraqi EW radar station to open ODS?

You are correct.

The other one was TF Hawk during Op. Allied Force. I wouldn't categorize it as a failure exactly, but it certainly was no success.

[Tjay]

Pumas with Milan teams firing out the side door?

:gun:

Actually, I was thinking of how the Army first used tanks - handing them out in penny packets to infantry units to be used for close support.

[Ssnake]

DCS maps are thousands if not hundreds of thousands km square.

SB at least from the PE perspective are 484 km2 in size.

If those 484 km² happen to be at the center of the opposing air force's strike mission, or if multiple player groups populated a number of hot spots en route to the engagement area, that might be all the overlap that was needed.

Not suggesting anything, just sayin'...

[Gibsonm]

If those 484 km² happen to be at the center of the opposing air force's strike mission, or if multiple player groups populated a number of hot spots en route to the engagement area, that might be all the overlap that was needed.

Not suggesting anything, just sayin'...

Sure, but that's some overlap.

Firstly I can't believe this is out there (I need to confirm if its been made UNCLAS but assuming it has):

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=JU3kAwAAQBAJ&pg=SA5-PA12&lpg=SA5-PA12&dq=IP+distance+for+bombing&source=bl&ots=OuMs4A1tuI&sig=EhoV-B-nXlKhxN2VIMn8mLcjEBY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RiZdVJmqL-KzmAXIh4LgCQ&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=IP%20distance%20for%20bombing&f=false

Secondly, as I work for a living rather than occupy a hotel suite, I can't remember if the newer ordnance still require these techniques, but let just assume they do.

It mentions from some older aircraft that the distance from IP to PUP is about 14,900' (say 4,500m) then you have the distance for the weapon itself (say 25,000m for a JDAM)

So the aircraft can hit its IP roughly 30Km from the target.

On most SB Pro PE maps that means a fleeting "blip" on a map edge.

[RogueSnake79]

If you go with the current theme as a standard, the B-52, and even the B-2 Spirit are CAS assets. If we had something like the death star right now, it would have been modified for CAS. A planet killer assigned with destroying a mud hut, because a dude and his goat are shooting at us.

[Marko]

If those 484 km² happen to be at the center of the opposing air force's strike mission, or if multiple player groups populated a number of hot spots en route to the engagement area, that might be all the overlap that was needed.

That's the concept behind the digital battlefield you force or mission is just one element

Of a bigger picture, there would be multiple mission for multiple units types

DCS have implement a tactical commanders position/positions so you can have individuals Commanding there particular elements be it air or land.

[Grenny]

If those 484 km² happen to be at the center of the opposing air force's strike mission, or if multiple player groups populated a number of hot spots en route to the engagement area, that might be all the overlap that was needed.

That's the concept behind the digital battlefield you force or mission is just one element

Of a bigger picture, there would be multiple mission for multiple units types

DCS have implement a tactical commanders position/positions so you can have individuals Commanding there particular elements be it air or land.

But in that case, the Ground AOR would divisional or even corps sized.(if you want enought space for the fast air)

Thats a hell of a show to be run by the tactical commander :-)

[Tjay]

But in that case, the Ground AOR would divisional or even corps sized.(if you want enought space for the fast air)

Thats a hell of a show to be run by the tactical commander :-)

And here's me still trying to become a truly competent platoon commander. :heu:

[Marko]

This (see below) with steel beasts level of fidelity for the armour.

For the concept to work in MP, I believe a Armour VU would have to allied with one of the Many DCS fighter groups. Not quite The digital battlefield in its full functionality but a good Start.

Introduction

DCS: Combined Arms gives you control of ground forces during the battle. Use the strategic Command Map to move ground forces, set artillery fire missions, and control the ground battle. Assume the role of a Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) and designate targets for close air support aircraft, or directly control an armor vehicle or air defense weapons and engage enemy forces.

Play DCS: Combined Arms as a real time strategy game, a first person armor warfare simulation, or direct the ground battle from the cockpit of a DCS aircraft like the A-10C Warthog, Ka-50 Black Shark, or P-51D Mustang.

DCS: Combined Arms supports both single player and multiplayer gameplay. When in multiplayer, different players can take on different roles such as artillery commanders, tank commanders, pilots, JTACS, etc. DCS: Combined Arms allows you full control of the battle. All roles can be changed dynamically during the battle.

Command Roles

A new function that Combined Arms introduces is the ability to set ground command roles and the number of players that can take each role (for multiplayer). Roles include:

• Ground Commanders that control all types of friendly ground forces.

• JTACs that provide unique features to designate ground targets for close air support.

• Game Masters that see and control all units from both sides.

• Observers that can view all of the action, but not direct any units.

Mission designers can choose which of these roles to include in a mission and how many multiplayer slots for each one.

In addition to the ground command roles, players can also direct ground forces from the cockpit of their DCS aircraft.

Command Map

The Command Map is the strategic interface that allows you to move ground forces, set formations and Rules of Engagement (ROE), plan indirect fire missions (artillery and rocket launchers), and view all friendly forces and detected hostile forces.

The Command Map uses Fog of War and will only display hostile units that are first detected by friendly forces. This makes reconnaissance essential in Combined Arms.

When routing ground forces, you can either set multiple waypoints to reach an end destination, or command units to follow roads.

The Command Map allows Combined Arms to be played as a Real Time Strategy (RTS) title.

1st Person Unit Command

For those that want to participate in the ground battles from a 1st person point of view, players can select most friendly ground units (most armor and visually guided air defense systems) from the Command Map, press the Command Unit button, and occupy that unit in the 3D world. Tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers, anti-aircraft artillery, and short-range SAMs can all be controlled. Many vehicles have multiple types of weapons like machine guns, main tank guns, and anti-tank guided missiles; all of which can be controlled.

When in a 1st person command view, the player can also order the other ground units in their group to specific locations.

JTAC

The Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) is an important role on the multiplayer battlefield, allowing JTAC players to designate targets for players in DCS aircraft. Using the binocular view, JTACs can use night vision goggles, thermal viewers, laser range finders, laser designators with programmable laser codes, IR pointer, and colored smoke to mark targets. The JTAC can be a true force multiplier.

Single Player and Multiplayer

Combined Arms can be played in both single player and multiplayer modes. In single player mode, players can choose to play missions solely from the ground command point of view, or they can choose to fight the battle from the cockpit and direct ground forces as needed. No more do you need to rely on the AI ground forces to make the right choices.

When in multiplayer, Combined Arms really shines. Both cooperative and head-to-head missions can be played with at least 32 players occupying various ground command and aircraft command roles. The true digital battlefield realized.

[Gibsonm]

Well good luck with your DCS CA project.

I know of one SB military customer that has no interest/need for it though.

[Apocalypse 31]

I'd rather see advancements made with infantry/armor.

In SB's current state, infantry support is quite difficult.

[Marko]

Well good luck with your DCS CA project.

I know of one SB military customer that has no interest/need for it though.

I though I had stated this in my earlier posts.

This is all purely hypothetical.

I was simply demonstrating it is possible.

[dejawolf]

I though I had stated this in my earlier posts.

This is all purely hypothetical.

I was simply demonstrating it is possible.

it is possible, but not feasible, at least not with the limited resources available to esim and the DCS developers.

the bohemians have been throwing money at it for years, and what they have for vehicles and planes can be described at best as sim-lite.

[Marko]

it is possible, but not feasible, at least not with the limited resources available to esim and the DCS developers.

the bohemians have been throwing money at it for years, and what they have for vehicles and planes can be described at best as sim-lite.

Agreed.

The cost of such an enterprise would be prohibitive for one developer alone.

The ED concept of using third party developers IMO is the only way such a project

Could materialise.

.