ChrisWerb

OK, if it's done in reality, it should definitely be allowed.

This is to get soldiers other than the leader to fire? I have seen a video showing how to get your squad leader to move independently and fire the Pzf 3. If you're talking firing into an area, the AT-4/M-136 (which technically is more of a smoothbore recoilless gun than a rocket), my guess is the sim would prohibit this as, unlike the 40mm, the AT-4 is not normally used as an area weapon (unlike the Garl Gustav M2/3/4 which sometimes is with timed airburst) and it would make no sense to allow troops to fire these expensive weapons into an area rather than at a point target.

I think it's impossible to ballistically match a full-bore 12.7 x 99 spotting round to 105mm APDS as the L28A1 had an m/v of 1473 metres a second - that's 4,932 fps. IIRC typical 0.50 rounds would be around 2750 fps. Therefore the rounds must have been matched* to HESH in the 105mm which had an m/v of around 2400 fps. 2400 fps is distinctly inferior to a standard MG round in velocity but we are still talking a c. 750 grain (IIRC) projectile at 0.303 British velocities and that is going to mess most things it hits up and potentially ruin your whole day. What we don't know is if this matching was attained by a heavier and/or blunter bullet - that seems unlikely given the substantial space given over to the spotting charge. That would lead me to believe that the gun was specially tuned for the spotting rounds - it would have needed re-setting (presumably a stronger recoil spring) to five conventional ammunition. There are quite a few sources stating the Australians used RMGs offensively in VN and it seems highly likely that the guns so used were configured for regular ammunition. However, one states that the guns were somehow set to fire 3 round bursts only - that doesn't make them completely ineffective as weapons of course, particularly in surface to surface roles - it may have been possible to disconnect the limiter or even substitute a normal M2HB machine gun receiver or entire gun. One of my friends built 0.50s for the US and foreign militaries for many years so I'll ask him the question. *It's obviously impossible to completely match a much larger round throughout its trajectory - the matching solution inevitably involved compromise.

It's a sad admission, but this indirect fire stuff really fascinating - almost as much as logistics. It's diverting and clogging this thread though, so if I need to discuss it further than this post, I'll give it its own thread. AIUI (from the US Army manual FM 6-30, Chapter 4: Call For Fire) there are three basic methods of calling for fire. <gross oversimplification> Grid (you initially give a grid ref and the observer to target direction), Shift (you give the direction and distance from a known or pre-registered point) and Laser (you give observer to target direction and distance). Laser requires that your position is already known to the FDC - you never include it in the request for fire for obvious reasons.</gross oversimplification> 12Alfa, at the risk of trying your patience, what I understand you are saying is that, for Grid, if you are at a known point (GPS or map derived) and know the target's azimuth (either from the map or using the "K" (SB pixie driven helpie thing) key because simplified terrain graphics in the game limit the ability to use terrain features) you can use the laser to derive the grid ref from the map, although in the real world you would still need to give a rough azimuth for subsequent corrections. I am not sure when you would use the Shift method. Presumably in a fluid situation, when you have multiple enemy targets or concentrations thereof in a designated EA, it is more rapid to tell the FDC that the enemy are 200 metres NW of point X34 than work out their grid ref unless they are in a building or terrain feature that is itself clearly marked on the map. Phew! Incidentally, in trying to get my head around the accuracy of modern (unguided) artillery techniques, I found this <not worksafe> excerpt </not worksafe> from the Danish documentary film "Armadillo" pretty sobering.

Thank you Grenny.

OK, I've been back over the thread and understand how you would give a grid azimuth using the protractor tool, assuming you know your own location which in this day and age must be pretty much a given. The direction, in any case doesn't need to be very accurate for corrections. What I don't understand is how the vehicle above generates azimuth (I mean beyond you press "K" and the SB azimuth pixies do their stuff). Are we looking at a gyro compass that is periodically aligned with grid or a system that takes successive GPS locations and works out the vehicle's direction of travel from those? The system must then apply where the turret is pointing to that direction as a correction. I know some recent vehicle nav systems can do this, but AIUI it only works whilst the vehicle is moving. Or is it working it out in some other way altogether?

I'd leave it be. It just raised some questions in my head. I'm a bit autistic and tend to go off on obscure trains of thought. I don't know what the doctrine was regarding using the RMG as a weapon and would love to hear some input from those in the know. Late edit: I put up a thread on this over on tank-net.com. We still seem to be on Google's shit list, but there are still quite a few knowledgeable people posting over there..

I know you can't use a compass in an AFV You can hop outside of an AFV and use one though (the capability to do so is something I'd mentioned as desirable in the past). FOs as you know are not confined to AFVs, nor are they the only ones who can request fires. Also, some vehicles have sights that give the bearing to target in mils from the orientation of the vehicle for pre-registration (I'm thinking Marder here). If you know exactly where the vehicle is from GPS/DGPS or triangulation from known locations and the bearing to a known location, could you not apply a simple mathematical conversion to get to the grid direction to the target in mils?

I haven't even gotten SB purchased and installed yet* so this might seem cheeky, but here are a few. Lensatic compass in mils for commander to use coupled with map tool and compass in the map to allow realistic arty and mortar calls for fire procedures for non FOs who won't usually have a gizmo that will give accurate target location. This is how ARMA 3 does mortars. Latest lightweight Javelin CLU, networked, better TI and ability to hit out to 4,000 metres. Also fitted with "Far Target Locator" to produce accurate grid refs for arty, JDAM etc. Latest SABER TOW ground and vehicle launcher - this has better TI, limited auto tracking (within the FOV of the launcher), ability to fire all TOW missiles including TOW-2B Aero and/or RF. The latest remodelled LAV-ATs also have SABER enhancements. The SABER has been refitted with Far Target Locator too. Tow-2B and 2B Aero variants if not already modelled. IR searchlights for T-55, 62, 72, BMP etc. Visible light and IR illuminating rounds for 40mm UGL arty and mortars. Dark ignition and IR tracers in small arms ammunition. Option to mount Spike and Javelin on Kongsberg CROWS variants etc. if only for what if scenarios. CV9030N Mk III with RWS - (including 0.50 or 40mm AGL and hypothetical Spike) Driveable VBIED, from saloon car size up to and including uparmoured BMPs. *Latest problem is my broadband provider, British Telecom, claiming I live in an area where normal response times are so outside their control that 10 days vs 4 hours engineer response time is acceptable, although I live 15 miles up a main road from their depot and there is a broadband exchange a mile from my home that usually has at least one BT van parked outside of it.

That begs the question as to what the 0.50 would have been loaded with. Spotting cartridges don't have great AP characteristics, even compared to regular ball. This one is for the M40A1 BAT 106mm RR, so features the short case for the M8 series spotting rifle, but I would expect the projectile for the 12.7x99 cartridge used for spotting to be similiar. I am sure I read about the Australians in Vietnam using 0.50 ranging MG's to fire into enemy huts etc. but GibsonM would know a lot more about that. Since their odds of encountering a time-critical hard target beyond battlesight range in South Vietnam must have been very limited, they could have fed their MGs a more anti-personnel/anti structure oriented mix of rounds. I would expect a spotting rifle to be loaded entirely with spotter rounds, but an RMG may have had a mix as standard.

In anti submarine warfare that method of detection is referred to as the "flaming datum" method.

Thank you GibsonM.

I'm probably going to reveal my ignorance here, but I just sat through a really good TGIF game video and have a couple of questions. I saw no enemy units appear on the map. Presumably there is some way to have a scenario either with or without the map showing enemy units, with this option fixed from the outset for the duration of the scenario. I can see a downside of having the enemy units shown in that it would make it ridiculously easy to put indirect fire on them, particularly if they are infantry. However, without the enemy being shown on the map, how do players, and most importantly, the overall BG commander and whomever is running logistics, keep up with what is going on and control their units? They could have a print off of the map with a transparent overlay and wax pencils right next to their monitor I guess, but they have to convert sightings to locations, which is going to be a bit difficult if the only info you get is "A1 this is B3, contact, tanks, front, engaging, wait, out." How does this work out? There was a MILAN team some distance inside a treeline with some low undergrowth inside it less than a metre high. Firstly, can we be sure an AI MILAN team won't launch straight into a tree? Secondly, will the low underbrush damage the missile or its control wires, or its fuze? I am guessing the missile has a significant minimum safe arm distance. I read somewhere that the minimum engagement distance is 400 metres (but for the ADT-ER version used by South Africa and India 150 metres) with a minimum safe arm of 40 for the ADT-ER version.

Some wildlife - particularly deer and wild boar - lying around, grazing/rooting and moving pseudo randomly, so you would often not be sure what the transient thermal images deep inside a treeline really were. As an aside, this is mostly B-S and very old, but I found it funny. Mutant Marsupials Take Up Arms Against Australian Air Force The reuse of some object-oriented code has caused tactical headaches for Australia's armed forces. As virtual reality simulators assume larger roles in helicopter combat training , programmers have gone to great lengths to increase the realism of the their scenarios, including detailed landscapes and — in the case of the Northern Territory's Operation Phoenix — herds of kangaroos (since groups of disturbed animals might well give away a helicopters position). The head of the Defense Science and Technology Organization's Land Operations/Simulations division reportedly instructed developers to model the local marsupials' movements and reaction to helicopters. Being efficient programmers, they just re-appropriated some code originally used to model infantry detachments reactions under the same stimuli, changed the mapped icon from a soldier to a kangaroo, and increased the figures' speed of movement. Eager to demonstrate their flying skills for some visiting American pilots, the hotshot Aussies "buzzed" the virtual kangaroos in low flight during a simulation. The kangaroos scattered, as predicted, and the Americans nodded appreciatively . . . and then did a double-take as the kangaroos reappeared from behind a hill and launched a barrage of stinger missiles at the hapless helicopter. (Apparently the programmers had forgotten the remove "that" part of the infantry coding). The lesson? Objects are defined with certain attributes, and any new object defined in terms of the old one inherits all the attributes. The embarrassed programmers had learned to be careful when reusing object-oriented code, and the Yanks left with the utmost respect for the Australian wildlife. Simulator supervisors report that pilots from that point onwards have strictly avoided kangaroos, just as they were meant to. [Partly debunked here: http://www.snopes.com/humor/nonsense/kangaroo.asp ]

Thank you Bond_Villain. I only posted because I was curious as I'd have expected gun Cents to be out of Israeli service before the Elcan came along and have never seen an Elcan on any weapon in Israeli service. Someone above posted a pic of the Magach 5 (M48 based) Tammuz/Spike-NLOS launcher vehicle called Pereh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pereh_missile_carrier There was/is an M113 based launcher vehicle with six missiles called the Hafiz, some of which briefly served with the British Army. http://www.thejc.com/news/israel-news/146128/israel-gave-uk-rockets-own-stockpile

Which eventuality is covered in this wargame scenario (this is a great blog by the way - there is an article on Finnish Leopards and another on the limited reinstatement of Gotland's defences).

Thank you Scrapper! Could I just ask who used Browning M2HB (pre QCB/M2A1) 0.50s with Elcan optics on Picatinny rails on Centurions? Looking at the Engine deck I'm guessing this might be an Israeli example.

If you look at scenarios where one side is attacking and using fairly choreographed tactics (I'm thinking the Soviets here), and the other has an FCS range advantage and the added advantage of being static at the outset, any disruption inflicted on an attacking formation at a distance would have the potential to derail their attack so that it comes in in a more piecemeal way, enabling you to focus more firepower on fewer vehicles as they enter what would normally be the engagement zone. A long time ago (amazingly,26 years ago to be exact) the US trialled a round specifically intended to break up incoming tank formations at extended ranges even if line of sight was not available.

Different voices for each commander in a platoon with each voice recorded three or four times over with different inflection and chosen randomly but the system each time the wav file (or whatever) is requested, so you don't hear the repetitive "We're taking fire here" sounding exactly the same over and over which is a bit of am immersion kill.

Sweden appears to be accelerating its plans to defend Gotland. A mech infantry company sent there for a recent exercise was told it was not going home. Realistically though, if the Russians were to mount a surprise attack, I would expect the airport, barracks and vehicle storage areas to be the recipient of a conventional cruise and/or ballistic (Iskander) missile attack of which there would presumably be no warning. This move does make the ploy of simply diverting an airliner full of Little Green Men with supposed engine problems to Visby a little less attractive though.

Ultimate SB PRO PE workstation at 1:16

Are these new skins for already in-sim vehicles? They look absolutely awesome.

There may well be something specific to the British Army that tells you which weapon qualifies as what. There are a few symbols in APP-6A (the original document) that are country specific. The point of NATO standardised symbols, you would think, would be to have a common understanding in, for example, a multi-national operation. The British Army MG situation is (and serving BA members can correct me) LSW - box fed version of L85xx series rifle designated L86xx - since re-roled to Sharpshooter Rifle (DMR) LMG - FN Minimi Commando L110xx series (some SF had long barrelled early versions as L108xx and some Commandos have subsequently been refitted with longer barrels). Always used with integral bipod. L4xx BREN was previous LMG, last used in lieu of L7 by supporting arms such as Royal Artillery. GMPG - FN MAG as L7xx series. Used with integral bipod, Formerly at section level until replaced by 2 x LSW which were then replaced by two Minimi GPMG-SF Role (Sustained Fire Role) - FN MAG in sustained fire role with dial sight on oil buffered tripod (bipod generally left in situ but shoulder stock removed). Not sure where this sits in current light role infantry organisation HMG - Browning M2HB QCB (US M2A1), typically with short barrel. Either on M3 tripod, or M63 four-legged AA pedestal (haven't seen the latter in a long time). GMG - In the British army the H&K 40mm AGL is referred to as the "Grenade Machine Gun". Tripod mounted. Note, all of above, except LSW, Minimi and SF roled GPMG are also found in vehicle mounted configurations. The only vehicle currently rated as a tank or main battle tank in the British Army is the Challenger 2.

I get what an MBT is at a conceptual level and know how it came about historically. However, the symbol normally used for them and the one in the example I gave is the one for "Medium" tank. There is no symbol for MBT in APP-6A. You gave calibre as a classification method for MGs and I think it's the only one that can be applied consistently.

The situation with MGs is only cloudy as to whether you rate GPMGs in light role as light or medium and whether you call water rifle calibre cooled guns like the Vickers and M1917A1 as medium or heavy. The only logical way is presumably to do it as you have and rely on calibres - 5.56/7.62/0.50 and 5.45/7.62/12.7, though this reflects a techical specification rather than role. With AT guns, you could argue that the abortive British 94mm 32 pounder was a heavy AT gun,but that never made it into service and 128mm ATGs died with the 3rd Reich - both pre-date NATO symbology, but it gets cloudy where you have Soviet AT guns. To begin with when they had 57mm, 85mm and 122mm which fits in well. They then went to 85mm and 100mm (retaining the 57mm in the ASU-57 for a while), and finally standardised on a 125mm towed gun (although I expect 100mm are still around in numbers). Is the 125mm medium or heavy? I would guess medium because MBTs with the same calibre gun are shown as medium.