scowlmovement

No Sir, we were poorer than the poor cousins. Marine tankers were fighting in M60A1 RISE Passive up until we purchased the M1A1.

Hola, Furia! Como estas? I knew there were some Spaniards lurking on these forums who could help answer these burning questions. So, Centauro appears to be tasked in the traditional cavalry role (reconnaissance and security missions)? I realized that you may not be able to reveal much, but is this a safe assumption?

Yes, now that you've put that in perspective, that it is quite impressive. I guess I just wasn't aware of that "restriction." That is a LOT of real estate to play with. That's nice to know, actually.

Yes Sir, I remember reading about a similar incident in the book "Thunder Run." The turret of the M1A1 spun so much that the crew was disoriented with motion sickness.

22km per side? Does that mean the largest map for any given scenario can only be as large as 22km x 22km?

Interesting. Maybe it could be the "hunter" in a hunter/killer team? It certainly could be effective in killing off the OPFOR recon, with that 105mm gun.:diable:

I suspect that the Centauro might be used in the same manner that the US Army uses the Mobile Gun System-not necessarily in the anti-armor role, but maybe in a manner more associated with supporting infantry in close terrain (i.e., blowing holes in walls, eliminating sniper nests, etc), where a tank may not fit.

Uh...aiming for the frontal arc is never a good idea these days. I've seen the Challenger hit and KILL T-80 and T-72 @ 1000m in SB with a flank shot.

Wow, brings back some memories there. I had forgotten about those shadows!

I believe the post was in reference to his TANK gunnery score. How do you get a 98% with TOW? Did you mean a score of 98? I would think it would be hard to miss with TOW shots.

How about the battalion scout platoon, battalion mortars, and battalion commander? Any fixed call signs for them? I remember our battalion's call sign being a holdover from the Gulf War (Task Force Ripper). Charlie Company, 1st Tank Battalion was "Buzzsaw," 3rd LAR was "Wolfpack." I'm not keen on the US Army stuff, though.

Do tell. When you talk about having more control, do you mean micro-management to some degree? As a company commander, I suppose it would be nice to jump into the TC's position on all of your tanks. Sadly, reality says otherwise. Perhaps you, as the commanding officer, could locate your tank with one of your platoons, and influence THAT platoon. Perhaps your "orders" for the other elements under your command could be tied to triggers you've set for specific actions or battle plays? Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?

AND the infantry rode in M113s! I may to revisit this great scenario...

I remember the original scenario (for Steel Beasts) not even having pre-plotted routes, thus allowing you the freedom to plot your own. I'm not sure who decided to "update" the scenario. You also have to remember the idea behind the scenario is correctly identifying the enemy element you are facing, capturing as many of the eastern bridges as you can, then worrying about whether you have enough combat power to defeat or destroy the enemy. Pretty intense, and James Sterrett is an old pro at it IMHO.

Ah, thank you for clearing that up for me, sir.

"Constructive sim?" What does that mean, Colonel?

Uh, yeah that one.

Seriously?

Will this be before or after the crewable M1A1SA or M1A1SEP?

I thought that was why we "default" skinners thrash about in the 1st Battalion, 37th Armor tanks. Nice work on the models, too! We actually get a NATO woodland pattern. Anybody remember the M1A1s in SB 1?

True, initiative can be defined in so many ways. I would choose to define it in the sense of battle command. How would small units operate in the absence of orders from higher up? It's starting to look as though the Soviet system was a bit more sophisticated, and misunderstood, than I originally thought. This is all very interesting, though. All of the insight is going a long way to develop a better understanding of how the Soviets intended to fight.

Fascinating. It would make sense to save these formations for the more difficult missions. Leave the scrub commanders to be frittered away, and maybe create opportunities for the more capable commands to hit harder with a greater impact. Was this encouraged at sub-unit (battalion and below) commands? Would a battalion commander cultivate a culture of creativity and initiative in his captains?

Side-bar: Bacevich wrote an excellent article in Military Review back in the 80s. It detailed the use of the armored cavalry regiment to gain the initiative in the covering force battle, in the event of a Soviet attack.

I once scored a 99 rating in SB Gold with the M1A1. Haven't scored anything better than 93 rating in SB Pro PE.

Aren't the bumper numbers on the M1A1 model from 1-37 Armor?