Jump to content

Breakthrough7

Members
  • Content Count

    49
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Breakthrough7

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

418 profile views
  1. They're correct. DPICM submunitions have a 15 percent dud rate and are therefore banned by most civilized countries and signatories to the 2008 convention on cluster munitions. It has the potential to create a low density minefield wherever it's used. We didn't sign up to the treaty in the US, but we did, under Bush implement policy that, for a decade, sought to essentially ban it's use, but more accurately aimed to reduce our 1.5 million round stockpile, while seeking replacement warheads that could achieve a less than 1 percent sub-munition dud rate. That policy has, for better or worse, since been softened, by our current administration, in response to a changing geo-political landscape and our failure to find suitable substitutes.
  2. @Gibsonm Right now the only graphics bound to the Arty Overlay are the boxes that represent Fire Missions. So when you flip that overlay off, the only thing you're turning off are the red fire mission boxes. I'm suggesting that an additional category of Fire Support graphic (lines/text/TRPs) be created here: And exist subordinate to the Arty Overlay, in order that extensive and cumbersome fire support plans can be made, and displayed, as the student/player/teacher requires, without clogging up the maneuver overlay. A commander, or FSO may want to see the full gambit of graphics representing FSCMs, fire missions, trigger points, etc, but this information may be irrelevant and even interfere with others' map reading.
  3. Ya'll are validating the need for FSOs as FS advisors to maneuver right now. Requesting a combination of DPICM and HE requires the exact same math/firing solutions as (as I have already mentioned) HE+Smoke. There is nothing prohibitive about an FO specifying in his Method of Engagement portion of his call for fire a combination of HE and DPICM. Nothing. If an individual platoon or section can't service this request, it will be serviced by multiple units and that change will be reflected when the observer receives his MTO. If this is the Observer's desired shell fuze combo/method of engagement, there is no reason to require the FO to submit two concurrent fire missions in order to satisfy this request.
  4. You should definitely check with your gunners, I'd be interested in hearing their excuses about why they might think it's prohibitive. DPICM has the same ballistic profile as smoke. For suppression fires DPICM+HE is the most efficient method of engagement, and HE enables better observation of the target area at long range and night. Re; HE impacts interfering with DPICM functionality, HE impacting concurrently with DPICM has no more effect on functionality than DPICM impacting concurrently with other DPICM rounds. You're not tracking me on this. I'm not suggesting a fourth button.
  5. -An additional method of engagement/shell fuze combo ('type of round' in the fire support panel); HE and DPICM mix, in the same vein as the shake and bake 'HE and Smoke mix' option that's currently present. - Basic complement of lines/graphics/TRPs/text that are bound to the "arty overlay" and can therefore be hidden or shown as desired.
  6. November 2015 video of a Ukr 2b9 crew receiving counter-battery fire. First outgoing rounds are fired at ~15 seconds. First incoming counter-fire begins landing ~1:35 mins, intensifies and ends ~2:00 min. The crew returns to the position at ~2:15 mins and attempts to pack up at an excruciatingly slow pace before a second (effective) salvo begins to land ~3:10 mins. I don't get the impression anyone was wounded in this encounter luckily.
  7. M-142 HIMARS carries either 1 Missile, or 6 rockets [half the payload of the M-270 MLRS]. Those 18 [+2] will probably form 2-3 batteries in a HIMARS Battalion [or artillery brigade/regiment depending on Polish organizational norms], and that battalion [bde/rgmt] will be suitable for conducting counter-battery, interdiction, SEAD, neutralization/destruction fires of high-payoff/high value targets and suppression of large area targets in the close support fight as part of a corps' fire support allocation to a division sized element. Ranges depend on munition and treaty obligations, and the upper limits are classified but expect rockets to generally reach out to up ~+70km and missiles ~+300km. Relevant passages/tables for effects expectations: ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
  8. Funny story about the mugs and I'll be buying one soon here so please forgive the story. The last time I browsed the SB coffee mug shop, which must have been this past summer, I got to thinking about what I wanted from a mug of this sort; smaller size (I think I could only find larges), and along with the picture on the mug, I wanted the vehicle's specs, as an aid to memorization. So I went and made one myself of the 5.5 inch medium gun (most beautiful artillery piece ever created).
  9. On the application and effect of Cold War era massed fires in support of Offensive operations during Desert Storm [From US Army Historian Dr. Boyd Dastrup's Artillery Strong Modernizing the Field Artillery for the 21st Century];
  10. Some pages from the 3-09.30 and the older but superior 6-30 for additional reference;
  11. In my initial explanation I didn't acknowledge that in Steel Beasts the dimension inputs effectively function as (a) and (b) sides of a rectangle rather than conventional length (longer) and width (shorter) dimensions [as a result Steel Beasts offers the user two pathways for arriving at a desired target orientation and size]; That was on me, and I reckon that contributed to [or was the genesis of?] Wildbillkelsoe's confusion with Gibson's chart. Looks like you're tracking now though, so Mission Accomplished.
  12. @wildbillkelsoe The attitude of the target is the azimuth of the target's length dimension expressed from 0-3200. It exists independently of the OT Direction [the azimuth from the Observer to the Target]. To illustrate:
  13. @Damian90 If the chain of custody of Iraq's old tanks ever becomes relevant to your writing/research; that tank was kept near the north gate of Camp Fallujah in 2006 [there was another nearly pristine batch lined up at the south gate], and someone must have had a plan for them that precluded being towed to the boneyard or gunnery range.
  14. @Gibsonm Sharp answer, You win round #2! I wish I'd played around on this tank [and the BMPs] more and taken more/better pictures but Iraqi armor was just about the least interesting thing in the world to me at the time.
  15. Vehicle identification challenge #2: What kind of tank am I standing on here?
×
×
  • Create New...