Big Nose Zero-Three

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.

Grenny, you are a star Sir. Many thanks.

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:

There are several 120mm GPS and Laser guided munitions, built by the Israeli and ATK in the US. Only good for static targets.

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.

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?

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:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

If you want someone who sounds like a British Cavalry Officer, I don't have to stretch my linguistic talents too far.

:biggrin:

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:

Not the question I asked. Why not put CV-90 and some of "those" up against an AT-14 strike and see which one has the least internal dead and wounded? The question I asked - and relevant to SB experience alone - referred to the effectiveness of IFV as a method of moving and preserving infantry. Seems to me, that giving a vehicle a turret and gun, risk its employment in the direct fire battle, and not concentrating on manoeuvring and sustaining the infantry.

I said you should not hold tanks forward, as in you should not seek a positional defence on or with the OP line. ("detection zone") I fully concur that the situation will drive the decisions, but that does not exclude generally correct guidance that would advise against using tanks as a line of mobile bunkers. Disagree. That's giving them two incompatible tasks. Time and space wise, I cannot see how I can keep eyes on lead armour sub-units and be off destroying enemy recce that went past me 45 mins to 7 hours ago. Killing enemy recce behind your OP line, should not tell the enemy anything about what you are up to, if skilfully done. Yes, an IFV type vehicle, able to dismount 6-8 would seem to have merit in the Recce role, but my concerns speak to a means of correctly employing infantry sub-units, not recce. OK, but that is two different things. An HMMVW with TOW can pack a punch. If my job is to run around wacking recce, why have I got 6-8 bods in the back? IFV have got to be available to move your infantry. That is their primary role. Infantry can kill with ATGMs. Why risk the vehicles? Time zones are an issue on that, and I play online with a guy who is capable of helping me answer these questions - SOME of which cannot be resolved purely in the game, as they relate cost, maintenance and training. .... but, when the new SB PCs can dismount ATGM teams, I'd more prone to accept your offer, but I'd probably need to get a few folks onside first. :biggrin:

Does this mean you think the idea is silly? OK, but... 1.) Achzarit 2.) Namer 3.) CV-90 Armadillo

Tanks SHOULD, never hold ground forward. Sometimes they do, but not if you know what you are doing. They are cued onto the ramps or into FUP, by OPs. The only time they should "fight in place" is when you have very long fields of fire. Go up on the Golan Heights and you'll see what I mean. That's your OP line. No one fights without one and it should be supported by vehicles held in FUPs to extract the OP line, if required. Strongly disagree. That makes no sense. Yes, destroy the enemy recce, once they are inside or past your OP line, but why use an IFV? Destroying recce is not an IFV task. Many armies do Recce with MBTs in close support.

Tanks can work in close terrain if supported by infantry and those infantry can march in APCs, and manoeuvre on foot. With the greatest respect, that reasoning does not work as operational analysis.

....and that would be something my professional/academic work looks at. The APC upgraded with an Anti-tank system was the basis for the BMP-1. It was an APC designed to be able to defend itself against tanks. It was never an "MICV" or IFV. Nor was Marder. Give me a CV-90, with no turret, able to mount 8-10 men and use the saved weight for more armour.

That can be done with anything with TOW on it. So wouldn't a tank just do that better? This is why APCs seem to make more sense. No one risks them in a fight as useless light tank.

Ssnake: Understood. I felt that may be the case, and the maps I and a mate are experimenting with, do not seem to have made the most of that. Likewise, "rocks" and "scrub" seem to have an effect as well. Make no mistake, I am generally extremely impressed with SB, now I have come back to it. It still has the best AI of any desktop simulation by far.

Well MICV's are distinct from APC's where I come from. MICVs generally have a manned turret. Concur. Infantry and ATGM teams certainly seem very easy to spot, except in buildings - and this seems to be a major limitation in terms of the simulation. Well that you never get a choice of who fights who. Again, that implies choice and risks vehicles full of troops to do things they should not be doing.

As a bit of a newbie to SB, but not modern warfare tactics in general, I was not really surprised to find out that MICV's appear to be just about useless. a.) They contribute just about nothing to the direct fire battle. b.) They die easily. c.) When they do die, you suffer lots of casualties - as in dead infantry. Basically, everything they do, apart from carrying infantry, is always better done by tanks. I'd be genuinely interested to hear if other SB players have reached the same broad conclusions, or any radically different.