Jump to content

Big Nose Zero-Three

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Big Nose Zero-Three

  • Birthday 01/05/1963

Personal Information

  • Location
    Somewhere where tanks are important

Big Nose Zero-Three's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. Ssnake, - if there is a better way, please let me know. I am trying to formulate some system for having differing OOBs fight each other without having to re-build the scenario each time. Essentially I need to have 8-9 OOBs which I can swap between scenarios.
  2. Apologies if this is dumbest question ever, but I am pretty sure that in the past, it was possible to transfer an OOB from one scenario to the other. EG: You have a force in one scenario, and you can transfer it to another... somehow. I may have imagined this, expcet I found a file which I had constructed for just that purpose, but in SB3, I cannot find how to do it. Do I need to keep up on my meds, or am I basically sane? :eek2:
  3. There are several 120mm GPS and Laser guided munitions, built by the Israeli and ATK in the US. Only good for static targets.
  4. Based on some of the work I have done recently, I think bailed out crews need to be accounted for/simulated, especially with regard to how most NATO and NATO like armies consider casualties as a whole. Right now there is some serious discussion about grouping APCs with sub-units for crew recovery, and right now, SB couldn't simulate that. Just a thought.
  5. I'm going to be fascinated to see how the AI handles the Spike capability, plus having done quite a lot work on the tactical doctrine for handling Spike at the Battle Group level, I am extremely interested to see how it pans out in the game. If the model for Spike is the LR (4,000m+) then will ER be modelled at some time soon as well?
  6. Well as of 1973, IDF tank gunners trained to hit enemy armour at 4,000m. Yes- 4,000m. The expected hit rate at that range was 33%. Couple of things. a.) It was only possible using the 105mm L7 gun, and very well characterised ammunition batches, types and natures. b.) It was done from prepared firing ramps using very well prepared range cards. c.) IDF tank gunners consumed about 3-7 times as much ammunition in training compared to NATO. .... so basically an SB gunner, with none of those constraints (and all the assistance) should be able to be just as good. :biggrin:
  7. Hedgehogs are all good. Be a hedgehog, not a fox! - May strap hang on the radio traffic for this at the least, workload permitting. BN03
  8. Luckily most doctrine writers are not that stupid - though some are! All simulation tools have to be used wisely, and the example you cite would be an excellent example of showing how not to do it, and exactly the sort of thing force developers and doctrine writers would ignore. What good simulation does really well (and is proven to do) is showing the limitations or the potential of an idea, before people wander off and spend millions in live trials.
  9. Concur, but you'd be amazed at the academic and military journals now that cite Wikipedia!! .... and as I constantly have to remind folks, citation is not verification!! As I said, it isn't used to determine anything. It is used as an unclassified data set on which to base discussion and experimentation on wider force development and doctrine issues. Plus I know for a fact that what SB does do in terms of weapon/armour performance has really surprised some OR scientist types. .... and, if the weapon/armour performance in SB isn't a useful approximation, then it has no training value. IMO, indeed a great simulation, and SB simply has no competition in this regard.
  10. As I am sure Esim is well aware, various editions of SB have been used by some pretty well respected military organisations to examine weapons performance or when they can't access the classified armour performance data. "Fit for purpose" were the words used to me.
  11. Whilst roaming way off topic, do not confuse: 1. ROE - Rules of Engagement. 2. Relevant laws of armed conflict. 3. Weapons control measures. They are all separate items, and vary from nation to nation and even within NATO, and almost all the issues are far less clear cut than many suppose.
  12. If you want someone who sounds like a British Cavalry Officer, I don't have to stretch my linguistic talents too far.
  13. Trying to work out how the Brits intended to fight at the formation level is actually no simple task. I talk to a good deal of senior British officers with BAOR experience on a very regular basis and the diversity of ideas and opinions is amazing. Amongst the more skilled and reflective there seems to have been a strong consensus that what was in the manuals and what was taught at the Schools didn't really work, and that Field Training Exercises were actually the only real basis for trying to find out what worked and what didn't. .....and one reason I muck about with SB is because a lot of what the "tactics experts" teach, is actually rubbish. :eek2:
  • Create New...