DemonWhite2

Not too much longer, I only have 3 years till retirement! It's gone by quick.

I miss this game so much, but have zero time to play. Hoping that will change this summer. I used to play a bunch, then I deployed to Iraq, got sent to drill sergeant school, spent two years on the trail, now I'm in M1A2 SEP Master Gunner school. These past few years have been an absolute whirlwind. Hopefully if I graduate MG school I'll finally get some time to play (hopefully I graduate at all lol). On the plus side, they paying me to learn about tanks. That's probably as good as it gets....

True, but they are doing it because there's going to be an expansion in the number of tanks in the ABCT as well. I know they are planning to add a 3rd CAB to the ABCT structure, in addition to going back to 36 Soldier scout platoons. They are bringing back the 6 vehicle platoon for the recon elements in the ABCT (6 Brads), and the SBCT (6 RVs). The Armor School CSM said they are still working on what the IBCT will look like. Apparently 11 series is currently slotted in most recon positions in units like 82nd and the Infantry branch doesn't want to agree to replace those slots with deltas. I can't say I'm surprised.

I think it will give the 19Ds a chance too move around some and diversify. One you finish leading a section, move over to MGSs and get some mobile protected firepower going. It'll be good experience I think.

They teach the R4 Stryker course across the street from where I work, but I haven't taken it yet. I'm an A2 SEP guy with a K4 identifier. We had a meeting with the Armor School CSM last Thursday and he told us that all tankers were going to taken off the MGS. He claimed that the MGS is being misused and tankers being used to augment infantry or HQ sections in the infantry units. The new proposal is for all MGS platoons in an SBCT to be consolidated along with all anti armor Strykers in a single heavy weapons company which will be organized under the Cav squadron. This would make the MGS and AT strykers more of an asset to the BDE commander, and give greater firepower and flexibility to conduct reconnaissance in force to the Cav squadron commander. The current proposal is for the MGS to be manned by scouts.

Oh you should see how much they get now. They get time in the CCTT, AGTS, and each private gets 4 sabot and 2 heat on the range. This past gunnery we also incorporated coax engagements for them, and EIA candidates are doing offensive coax engagements. In other news, Echo and Fox 1/81 are coming back as tank OSUT units in October. All of 1/81 is being restructured. A co, and B Co will stay 19K OSUT, C co will now be combined tank/brad mechanic training, D co will once again be USMC, and E co and F co will be stood up and staffed for 19K OSUT as needed. Currently only A co and B Co are training tankers. Our world was already small and it seems like it's getting smaller. People are already starting to ask if we need tanks again. Reminds me of the 90s. I thought we were done with those questions after Iraq, but here we go again. Oh, and 82nd Airborne is now asking questions about procuring a light tank that can be air droppable to reform the old Sheridan type units. Deja vu all over again, lol.

Well, it's been tough trying to find the time to get back into gaming, and be a drill sergeant at the same time. I'm beginning to think I might just have to wait till I'm off the trail. As for my commander trying to push the brigade to purchase the game.... He got relieved for a bunch of illegal and unethical stuff, so I guess I lost that angle. He was pretty shady.

You are correct. They are not exposed to mounted maneuvers like attacking to destroy an inferior force, hasty defense, support by fire or things like that. It's more focused on the technical aspects. They do some dismounted lanes such as squad attack, break contact, react to IDF, react to ambush and things like that, but not on the vehicles. The only thing they do with the tanks at the platoon level is some cross country formation driving. We have been given leeway to try and incorporate tanks more, and this week we are using tanks in conjunction with dismounted lanes for the first time. The majority of what they learn will be during training at their first duty station.

When training tankers we do everything from start to finish. We get them brand new from reception and spend the first 9 weeks training them on basic soldier skills, rifle marksmanship, machine guns, grenades and all that. Then we transition to tank training and spend 6 weeks training them on the tank, vehicle ID, the tank weapons, M9 pistol and all that. It culminates in a 5 day gunnery, then a 5 day field training exercise. If the trainees get orders to a unit that has strykers instead of tanks then they stay for an additional 2 week course to train on strykers. By the time they leave we are wanting proficient loaders and drivers with a familiarization of the gunner's station.

Lol, you might be joking but I showed the game to my company commander yesterday as a way to familiarize the trainees with gunnery, GAS sight, engagement techniques, etc and he's going to talk to the 194th BDE Commander about it. He wants to try and free up some unit funds to get it. Seemed pretty excited about it, but who knows what the brigade commander will think.

Awesome to see you still here delta! I'm training the next generation of tankers down here at the relocated armor school in GA. I miss the old tank stuff at Knox, but it's ok here. The current armor school leadership is wanting more and more hands on tank training with the privates now. We are shooting gunnery this week. 4 sabot and 2 heat per trainee, with offensive coax engagements for the EIA guys. It's pretty cool.

Well, I used to play SB years ago, but when I deployed to my last Iraq tour I just never got back into it. I recently decided to check it out again (and my company XO got it too) and I'm really surprised. The new vehicles are amazing and the M1A2 functionality is perfect! I'm an A2 SEP V2 tanker and I love it. It's tough to find time to play because now I'm a drill sergeant training 19K OSUT, but I'm looking forward to familiarizing with all the new stuff.

Yeah, I understand what you are trying to say. Like I said, I don't know people's level of combat experience, but here's my take on it. On the M1, the extra penetration of the .50 AP rounds is a desireable trait. For the vast majority of engagements (almost all of them in fact) in a COIN fight, you will just use the coax. The M240 has inflicted more enemy casualties during OIF than any other weapon the armored force has at it's disposal. For those few occasions where the M240 is not sufficent to break through the cover of the enemy, you want the .50 AP rounds. If you can't kill the target with .50, then all you have left is main gun. Usually in the COIN fight, that is an absolute last resort and could have some serious reprecussions if that's the route you take. So, is the .50 AP round a little overpowered? Yes it is. It's the last thing you get to try out before you go with 120mm though, so that's a good thing. The only reason I'm commenting on this stuff is because you put it in a COIN perspective. I have 39 months of combat in Iraq (most of which was in 1st Squadron, 7th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cav Division). I am well versed in the challenges faced by armored forces in urban combat. If you need clarification on anything, don't hesitate to ask. One last note, since the .50 cal ammo box only holds 100 rounds, I personally wouldn't use it to create a loophole or a breech like you mentioned. Small arms aren't well suited to that task. MPAT-OR is. If you are really interested in that, the Center for Army Lessons Learned newsletter number 03-32 (Weapon Effects in Urban Operations) delves into that subject in depth. Here's what it says about breeching with the 7.62mm: "Analysis indicates that the use of the M60/M240 series medium machine gun as a standoff breaching capability should be a last resort. The systems have limited capability to produce near doctrinal-sized loopholes in exterior walls and based on Table 7-5 above, the amount of ammunition required to create larger more useable breaches would be prohibitive." If you have access to the CALL website, I highly recommend you read this publication, as it will clear up some questions you may have. My point is this: the 7.62mm regardless of firing AP or not, does NOT have the same penetration/obstacle reducing ability of the M2 .50 cal regardless of what ammo you choose to shoot with the M2. It just doesn't.

Well, the CROWS has a few things going for it. It will give you 360 degree range of motion, and it can elevate to almost straight up. This overcomes a huge tactical disadvantage in an urban environment over previous A2 configurations. I obviously don't know the extent of everyone on this forums combat experience, but if you've never been in open protected with rounds coming at you from the top of a building that your gun systems cannot elevate to, it's an eye opening experience. Additionally, the LRF on the CROWS will be helpful in selecting battlesight ranges, or in choking range to target so that your gunner can get on target faster with the GAS in the event of GPS failure. Finally, the CROWS is a combat proven and effective platform that soldiers really love. The fact that it can employ multiple systems is also a plus. Can you imagine an M1A2 with a CROWS Mk 19 on it? It's very versatile. Personally I am rather excited about it.

Well, if they are transitioning to CROWS anyway, then the .50 will be stabilized and on the A2 you have a super limited range with the loader's 240 anyway, so that would be kind of pointless.