HotTom

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

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

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

"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

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

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

The best times I've had in SB were campaigning with ARRC. Very sorry to learn of its demise. HT

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

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)

Yes. Makes it tough to do a Google search when it isn't spelled correctly. And spell checking really is easy. HT

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

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

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.

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

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

Yes, attacking is one option. And in US doctrine, the tanks provide support by fire from defilade positions while the infantry maneuvers on the objective, first in IFVs and then on foot. (I was chatting with Irish on Teamspeak about this -- much more effective than a forum -- and he says the tanks roll right up on the objective with the infantry in UK doctrine). So there are several ways to skin the cat. But there are other solutions when finding the enemy during a movement to contact including bypassing and establishing a defensive postion. The advance guard in a movement to contact has two of the 4-Fs to accomplish: Find the Enemy and Fix the Enemy. Whether the advance guard Fights the Enemy and Finishes the Enemy depends on whether the security force has enough combat power capable of doing so. Remember this is a small mobile force out in front. The important part is once you've found the enemy you have to pin him down (fix him). DO NOT lose contact once it has been achieved. But you may have to wait for help from the main body behind you to actually fight him. Or you may move on (bypass) after handing the enemy force off to a unit coming up behind you. Here's the "school solution" from FM 3-90: "Execute Selected Course of Action "4-48. The security force commander should determine quickly whether to bypass the enemy or attack. The security force attacks (see Chapter 5) if it has sufficient, immediately available combat power to overwhelm the enemy and the attack will not detract from mission accomplishment. Such attacks are usually necessary to overcome enemy attempts to slow the movement of the security force. If this initial attack fails to defeat enemy defenses, the security force commander must consider other options, such as making a more deliberate attack or assuming the defense while continuing to find out as much as possible about the enemy's positions. "4-49. The security force may bypass the enemy if it does not have sufficient combat power or an attack would jeopardize mission accomplishment. It must request permission to bypass an enemy force unless the operations order provides bypass criteria. The security force commander must report bypassed enemy forces to the next higher headquarters, which then assumes responsibility for their destruction or containment. Alternatively, the security force could keep a minimum force in contact with the bypassed enemy so that he cannot move freely around the battlefield. (See Appendix B for a discussion of bypass as a tactical task.) "4-50. If the security force cannot conduct either a hasty attack or a bypass, it attempts to establish a defense (see Chapter 8). In the defense, the security force maintains enemy contact, continues to perform reconnaissance, and prepares to support other forces. When the security force commander decides to defend, responsibility for further action rests with his higher commander. In the event other COAs would lead to decisive engagements or destruction, the security force conducts those activities necessary to assure self-preservation, such as delay or withdrawal (see Chapter 11), but maintains enemy contact unless the higher commander orders otherwise." This is kind of wandering away from the original question -- what do you do with your PCs in an assault? I think the simple answer is if you have 113s they can provide minimal cover fire with their .50. Best to dismount the troops in a covered area and go hide the 113 out of harm's way. Their armor is pretty pathetic. But a Bradley was designed to provide significant covering fire and has enough armor to find a good hull down position and engage targets on the objective. LAVs fall somewhere in the middle. They have the cannon for fire support but lack the armor for protection (I was involved in testing them years ago and thought they were too delicate). I can't speak to the Stryker, but we don't have those anyway In any case, it's not wise to roll the PCs right up on the enemy position because they likely won't get that far with an RPG taking them out far short of the objective. The simple solution for you is to buy SB Pro immediately. The infantry still has some serious limitations. But you do most of this stuff in a doctrinally correct way. Then you can experiment HT

Irish, you lost me with that. My post certainly wasn't intended as a troll and I'm puzzled why you think so. I thought I was answering your question about movement to contact. Sri if you feel otherwise but it was intended as a serious reply. Here's the textbook answer. It says nothing about tanks leading. In fact, in one type of operation it specifies light forces supported by heavy forces: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-90/ch4.htm And it emphasizes that the organization and tactics of a covering force and/or an advance guard in an MTC (what would we do without acronyms?) is dependent on METT-TC (I mentioned METT-T and dated myself; they through in the C for civilians in since I retired ). The trick is to find the enemy with a mobile force working in advance of the main body. I don't think I contradicted that. :cvcsalut: HT

I would say it depends on the terrain. Depends on how much recon knows about the enemy. Depends on what type of enemy force you expect to encounter. And that OCOKA and METT-T stuff. Personally, I am an advocate of recon my fire, so, I suppose that means the artillery actually leads The thing about tanks, as I'm sure you are aware, is they are "bullet magnets." More than providing fire support, they tend to distract the bad guys who will ignore the grunts to get a shot at that big ugly machine In woods or certainly in urban areas, the infantry leads on foot. Open terrain, it's overwatch with IFVs always moving on the most secure route and tanks in overwatch positions. If you're just moving forward blindly, I'd put the IFVs in the back but the foot soldiers out in front looking for RPG and ATGM teams. In any case, the cav (recce to you UK and Commonwealth types) is out front with recon patrols. The theory is they'll flush whatever is hiding out there. The quote in your signature, by the way, is an old artillery saying, not cavalry and it's variously attributed to Napolean and/or Frederick the Great, neither of whom, if memory serves, were British http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Artillery HT

Whoa there, Colonel Custer! The infantry isn't there to "support the panzers." The tanks are there to support the infantry. Boots on ground win battles, not tracks on ground. I agree the tanks and artillery (and the APCs' guns) should suppress enemy fires but if you lead with your tanks, you'll have a lot of dead tanks and a lot of unsupported infantry. In a combined arms (tanks and infantry) assault, the tanks and APCs have specific and separate target priorities. The net effect is that every possible threat location receives fire during the attack. And make max use of artillery. We don't have mortars or close air support in SB, which is a real shame. But (unless you're playing Marine Corps ) pound them before you attack. Drop off your infantry so they have a covered route to the objective. Then get your tanks and APCs in support by fire (SBF) positions on the high ground (key terrain) and let them provide covering fire. Quite often, you'll have to breach obstacles (as in mine fields) in front of a prepared defensive position. So you'll need a security team to protect the breach, a breaching team and an assault team. It's not just a matter of rolling up to the enemy line and dismounting. There is no such term in the manuals as a "charge." About the only time your tanks should lead is in a pursuit, not an attack. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-21-71/index.html and http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/71-1/index.html and http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/71-123/index.html RTFM (especially you Air Force vets ). HT

Wow! Fort McNair! You are indeed one of the fortunate few. And it's a beautiful old post. Been to many meetings there (but never as a student). Well, I retired 13 years ago and I'm a little out of date. The infantrymen do still carry pike poles, don't they? But I do keep up with the papers from the CALL (Center for Army Lessons Learned), where I was attached when they were in high gear right after Desert Storm (I was just a humble reserve officer but all these assigments at Fort Leavenworth got me loads of active duty time and annoyed the hell out of my civilian employer) so I feel I have a bit of a personal investment in CALL This very detailed IRR (Initial Impressions Report) by a CALL team attached to a 2nd ID Stryker brigade in Mosul during OIF was fascinating to read: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/call/iir-mosul-ops_stryker-bde_21dec2004.pdf I'm sure some of this stuff has been addressed but not all of it. And you may already have a copy of it. And many others here may find it worth reading, too. The Executive Summary alone is worth browsing. At least it's a "primary source" I'd also dig around through back issues of Military Review as well. Hope that helps you with some areas to focus on and best of luck to you (getting it down to 10 pages)! HT

Well, the term "graduate school" is a bit broad. Knowing the course title and specific assignment might be helpful in making suggestions to you:) Here's is the best link to resources on military topics I know of: http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/CARL/ Dig around in the archives and you will find everything from papers on COIN to whether Arabian horses or thoroughbred horses are best for cavalry use. I used to teach at Leavenworth and it is all on a post-graduate level. Hardest courses I ever took. Or taught. The prep time was enormous. AirLand Battle is much too large a topic for a 10-page paper. I would narrow it considerably. Or avoid it entirely. I would stay away from the hardware (Bradleys and F-16s) unless you really want to get into the politics behind those decisions. Did you know that at least one component of the B1 bomber is built in every Congressional district in the United States? What Congressman would vote to de-fund it? Those realities have nothing to do with military doctrine. Perhaps something along the lines of what Gary Owen suggests on the evolution of doctrine since 1945 (no, I don't believe the focus on Europe was intended to heal the wounds of Vietnam. In any case it didn't. That finally happened with Desert Storm). You could tie it together with the evolution of the Army Division from Pentomic Division to ROAD to today's post-Cold War swing in emphasis away from the division and toward emphasizing the brigade. All of this is evidence of doctrinal change. That gives you something a bit more concrete for an anchor to tie everything else down. In any case, find a way to keep a focus on the topic; don't let it balloon out of control. Ten pages ain't much. The biggest problem with discussing AirLand Battle is -- no matter how many members of this community love to fixate on it because it was so armor-centric ("The Good Ole Days") -- is that we'll never know whether any of it would work because it was a war that never was fought. So it's all theory without any proof. Frankly, I would avoid AirLand Battle all together.The consensus of those of us actually involved in writing the Cold War doctrine texts was that all that "active defense" stuff never would work. It was mostly eyewash. "Fight Outnumbered and Win" made a great bumper sticker but was a slogan, not a viable doctrine. One idea is to focus your paper on the impact of an individual. Depuy is good, Starry was more influential but the guy I would pick is COL Harry Summers. In the post-Vietnam Era he was considered the JFC Fuller of his time. Everyone read his book "On Strategy" and quoted him as though he were Moses leading us out of the wilderness of Vietnam. Today, his theories are pretty much considered a dead-end trail and a weak rationalization for our failure in Vietnam which was a deeply flawed conflict from Day One. But he was for many years "The Man." http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/SummersObitText.htm One thing I did learn in grad school was to emphasize primary sources. Stay away from Tom Clancy (I can't believe anyone suggested him; he pays other people to write the stuff he then puts his name on) and steer toward the Joint Chiefs and the SecDefs and the Congressional committee chairs and what, as the decision-makers, they had to say about your topics. Again, I don't know what type of class this is for so it's hard to be specific. If I were you and looking for ideas, I would root around that link at Leavenworth for ideas. At a minimum, you'll see the topics of the Command and General Staff College papers are VERY narrow. Well, now that we've all written your paper for you... Good luck! HT

What level of "school" are we talking about here? HT

We had this discussion a couple of weeks ago before Deja (who seems eternally bored) hijacked the thread by asking "what do you want more, challenger 1 / 2 , merkava mk1 / 2 / 3/ 4, or M60A3," which had nothing to do with the topic but, I guess, amused him: http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=11287&highlight=merkava+lebanon Hack is correct. Google Merkava and Lebanon and you will find tons of stuff. The problem wasn't the quality of the tank. It was tactics and lack of training (the tankers had been used so long as foot soldiers they were quite rusty). HT

Happy New Year! HT

LOL! Dammit, Stalin, I hate it when you make me laugh in mid-rant! I just think you guys ought to get your story straight. It's not about an 8 player limit (Sean is almost always there). In fact, there have been many Sundays when you couldn't get 8 of your members to show up. And it's not about time zones. And it's not about commo skill or gunnery skill. What it's really about belongs on PMs only. HT