Video Thread

[Gibsonm]

Agreed but as I said

 

15 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

Not sure what there is that would be exciting (video worthy) to see.

 

 

If you want to do a video on how to build a bigger map, use the Instructor mode, the more detailed AAR, etc. then all yours.

 

The view through the gunner's sight, what many here would like to see, isn't that much different (the explosions aren't sexier or anything).

 

Also, are there any ITAR issues?

 

Edited July 15, 2016 by Gibsonm

[mpow66m]

I thought there'd be some cool stuff like bayo charges and H2H in the Mil. V.

[Iarmor]

An Israeli Centurion-equipped reserve unit training in the Negev desert, 1997 (action starts at 2:23):

 

[Grenny]

So no BV in the Sho't?? Or why is he using a gas cooker?

 

Btw: "reserve unit" became obvious when you see the guys hair-style ;-)

Edited July 20, 2016 by Grenny

[Azure Lion]

30 minutes ago, Grenny said:

So no BV in the Sho't?? Or why is he using a gas cooker?

 

Btw: "reserve unit" became obvious when you see the guys hair-style ;-)

 

I bet it was broken and thus why it was sold. 

Hmm, makes me want to install one in my vehicle now since I love my coffee and teas.

Install one in the engine compartment or cargo area and run pex pipe to the cab... yeah...

[Iarmor]

38 minutes ago, Grenny said:

So no BV in the Sho't?? Or why is he using a gas cooker?

AFAIK, the IDF removed the boiling vessel from the Centurions during the conversion to diesel engine.

[Grenny]

4 minutes ago, Iarmor said:

AFAIK, the IDF removed the boiling vessel from the Centurions during the conversion to diesel engine.

Shame, no BV halves the vehicles combat effectiveness ;-)

 

Great video! Nice that it show the "flash effect" when hitting a hard target. You know what ammo was used?

[Iarmor]

9 minutes ago, Grenny said:

Great video! Nice that it show the "flash effect" when hitting a hard target. You know what ammo was used?

No

[Gibsonm]

48 minutes ago, Azure Lion said:

Install one in the engine compartment or cargo area and run pex pipe to the cab... yeah...

 

They do a lot more than just boil water for drinks.

 

You can also put tins (or sachets) in the vessel and the boiling of the water heats the food too.

 

So you get a hot drink and a hot meal.

 

Not sure a hot water pipe quite achieves the same thing.

 

 

[TSe419E]

3 hours ago, Grenny said:

Shame, no BV halves the vehicles combat effectiveness ;-)

 

Great video! Nice that it show the "flash effect" when hitting a hard target. You know what ammo was used?

We would get the flash on the metal targets when we fired the aluminum training rounds.  Made knowing you hit on a dusty day much easier.

[Azure Lion]

5 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

 

They do a lot more than just boil water for drinks.

 

You can also put tins (or sachets) in the vessel and the boiling of the water heats the food too.

 

So you get a hot drink and a hot meal.

 

Not sure a hot water pipe quite achieves the same thing.

 

 

 

So long as there is a decent enough particulate filter I shouldn't mind. Don't want to have too much extra in my diet with bug parts and the like. I might not mind so much, but the crew might find things a bit too... odiferous.

 

Seriously though, in the civilian world I think I would use it just to heat water, mainly because of... civilians... in general-ish.

Common sense no longer seems to be common.

Civi: "But I saw you cook food in there."

Me: "Yes, but it was in a can / sealed packet that was designed to be boiled in a BV..."

 

Still, one would still have access to the BV if needs be, after all, water does need to be added. Still, I personally would probably use it for heating water only as I usually just like drinking my coffee and tea while I am stuck in traffic.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Azure Lion

[Marko]

Some Eurosatory footage.

 

 

[TSe419E]

Video from 7/22/16's TGIF:

 

 

 

 

 

[Zaphod]

You know what I hate watching videos of steel beasts....... is that i tend to use the mouse and want to look around

[TSe419E]

Same here.

[Invader ZIM]

This is footage from Feb 25,28 1991 of 3AD Apaches 2/227th Aviation during Desert Storm, interesting footage through the sensors of the Apache's as they fly out to their targets at low altitude.  You can actually see the Iraqi armor firing on U.S. forces from the perspective of the Apache's.

 

https://vimeo.com/4593872

 

Edited July 30, 2016 by Invader ZIM

[Marko]

On ‎30‎/‎07‎/‎2016 at 9:26 PM, Invader ZIM said:

This is footage from Feb 25,28 1991 of 3AD Apaches 2/227th Aviation during Desert Storm, interesting footage through the sensors of the Apache's as they fly out to their targets at low altitude.  You can actually see the Iraqi armor firing on U.S. forces from the perspective of the Apache's.

 

https://vimeo.com/4593872

 

I wonder was it the lack of training/determination to fight from the Iraqi troops or was there equipment just out of date.

Probably a combination of both.

Reinforces my view AAA type vehicles and man pads are vital  on todays modern battlefield and you need a lot of them.

I play DCS combined arms sometimes just to experiment with combined arms tactics

I would like it if ground attack and gunships were more of a threat in SB then they currently are.

What is currently modelled  can be effective but the fear factor isn't there . IMO

Even most third world armies have some type of ground attack assets.

[AlphaOneSix]

MANPADS would not have helped the Iraqis much in that case since nearly all of the engagements (at least initially) were at night, and the Iraqis had an incredible lack of night vision devices. They had quite a bit of AAA in the form of ZU-23s ans ZPUs, but as these are visual weapons, the whole night thing made them useless. There were a couple of ZSU-23-4s here and there, but they were by and large destroyed by weapon systems that outranged them. Iraq also had a fairly decent Integrated Air Defense System, but this was one of the highest priorities for most of the early missions (including the very first one of the "air war" by Apaches against several radar sites that opened the way for the first F-117 strikes).

 

Gunships (i.e. AH-64) in SB can be an incredible killer, it just depends on the environment and whether they are properly utilized.  Hint:  If your AH-64 is within 4-5km of the enemy, it's too close, unless it's infantry with only light weapons, then you should be fine closing to around 1.5-2km.

[Ssnake]

5 hours ago, Marko said:

I wonder was it the lack of training/determination to fight from the Iraqi troops or was there equipment just out of date.

 

Some units DID put up a fight, but it was largely limited to the Republican Guards (e.g. 73 Easting, which was a chance encounter and looked like a Turkey shoot in hindsight ... but not when it happened). If you're a recruit and know that you've been sent to the front with minimal directions and that your tanks is loaded with training ammo (yes, that's what they did in some cases) and when you get bombed on a regular basis by planes that you don't see, I suppose your enthusiasm for fighting would take a bit of a hit as well.

Just look at what happened to the poor Argentinian draftees in the Falklands.

[Invader ZIM]

As stated above, the Iraqi's did put up a fight and they did have an impressive IADS network.

 

Here's an F-16 pilot that ended up dodging 6 SAM's in 5 minutes, excuse his language, action starts 3 minutes in.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUjX1RntqVw

 

 

Edited August 5, 2016 by Invader ZIM

[Iarmor]

 

15 hours ago, Marko said:

I wonder was it the lack of training/determination to fight from the Iraqi troops or was there equipment just out of date.

Probably a combination of both.

The Iraqi military was considered relatively large and well equipped, but not as much as the US military of course.

The Iraqi soldiers' motivation was low (partly) because they were pounded from the air for a over a month, by a world-wide coalition led by a superpower, due to their dictator's erroneous decision to insist on occupying their small neighbor, thinking no one would bother to interfere.

The continuous rain of bombs made clear that the US wasn't bluffing and that the Iraqi army doesn't stand a chance against the coalition. Obviously most Iraqi soldiers weren't eager to fight the US over Kuwait for Saddam. Some might have also speculated that the coalition would continue all the way to Baghdad, as eventually happened in 2003.

The more motivated, better trained, equipped and paid Iraqi Republican Guard soldiers were the ones from the "right" religious (Sunni) and tribal origins, who feared loosing their privileges (or lives) whether Saddam falls (as most Iraqis are Shia) or stays in power and blames them for not fighting fiercely.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Iarmor

[Marko]

26 minutes ago, Iarmor said:

 

The Iraqi military was considered relatively large and well equipped, but not as much as the US military of course.

The Iraqi soldiers' motivation was low (partly) because they were pounded from the air for a over a month, by a world-wide coalition led by a superpower, due to their dictator's erroneous decision to insist on occupying their small neighbor, thinking no one would bother to interfere.

The continuous rain of bombs made clear that the US wasn't bluffing and that the Iraqi army doesn't stand a chance against the coalition. Obviously most Iraqi soldiers weren't eager to fight the US over Kuwait for Saddam. Some might have also speculated that the coalition would continue all the way to Baghdad, as eventually happened in 2003.

The more motivated, better trained, equipped and paid Iraqi Republican Guard soldiers were the ones from the "right" religious (Sunni) and tribal origins, who feared loosing their privileges (or lives) whether Saddam falls (as most Iraqis are Shia) or stays in power and blames them for not fighting fiercely.

I remember reading a top military analyst stating one of the conclusions reached after the war was quantity was less important then quality

The Iraqis had a lot of equipment. But it tended to be older platforms Sa-6 etc. as for there armour a lot of it was Chinese made versions of older Russian Tank designs type 59/69,  But I am pretty sure the soviets/Russians took note how relatively easily the Iraqis were defeated and how ineffective some of there weapons were.

 

 

[Iarmor]

2 hours ago, Marko said:

I remember reading a top military analyst stating one of the conclusions reached after the war was quantity was less important then quality

The Iraqis had a lot of equipment. But it tended to be older platforms Sa-6 etc. as for there armour a lot of it was Chinese made versions of older Russian Tank designs type 59/69,  But I am pretty sure the soviets/Russians took note how relatively easily the Iraqis were defeated and how ineffective some of there weapons were.

1,000 T-72s, 1,500 BMPs, Milan and HOT ATGMs, self-propelled artillery, MiG-29, Su-24, Su-25, Mirage F1, Crotale, Roland, SA-6 (it wasn't so old in 1991), ZSU-23-4, Exocet...

The Iraqi military didn't have financial problems, as Iraq had a lot of oil money and Saddam chose to spend much of it on military, strategic assets and self security, in addition to luxury life and terrorism support. There was indeed a significant inequity, though, between the regular army (cannon fodder) and the Republican Guard, whose mission was to keep Saddam in power.

Surely Iraq's military equipment wasn't as advanced as the US military equipment, but I think they were relatively well equipped, at least in regional terms.  

Edited August 5, 2016 by Iarmor

[Marko]

24 minutes ago, Iarmor said:

1,000 T-72s, 1,500 BMPs, Milan and HOT ATGMs, self-propelled artillery, MiG-29, Su-24, Su-25, Mirage F1, Crotale, Roland, SA-6 (it wasn't so old in 1991), ZSU-23-4, Exocet...

The Iraqi military didn't have financial problems, as Iraq had a lot of oil money and Saddam chose to spend much of it on military, strategic assets and self security, in addition to luxury life and terrorism support. There was indeed a significant inequity, though, between the regular army (cannon fodder) and the Republican Guard, whose mission was to keep Saddam in power.

Surely Iraq's military equipment wasn't as advanced as the US military equipment, but I think they were relatively well equipped, at least in regional terms.  

 Iraq was broke that's why he attacked Kuwait in the first place.

 His plan was to raid the country and take over there oil production he really believed the west would do nothing

and the other Arab states would not want to take him on.

Iraq owed billions to fund the Iraq/Iran war for arms to the soviets and Chinese supplied on credit. 

[Iarmor]

15 minutes ago, Marko said:

 Iraq was broke that's why he attacked Kuwait in the first place.

 His plan was to raid the country and take over there oil production he really believed the west would do nothing

and the other Arab states would not want to take him on.

Iraq owed billions to fund the Iraq/Iran war for arms to the soviets and Chinese supplied on credit. 

True, the Iraqi economy was broke in 1991 due to its excessive military expenditure during the 1980's.

One of the problems with the common dictatorial regime is the fact that the dictator tends to spend money on the military regardless of the economical situation.