Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 79

Thread: Organization & Distance

  1. #41
    i pwnd ur ooda loop selil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Belly of the beast
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cavguy View Post
    I got in some hot water once for claming my "spidey sense" was tingling - my chain of command was pretty dismissive, to say the least. I had just opined that the insurgents in our AO were about to make a move - later that day, a major car bomb went off in a market - and caused huge problems.

    Never got anyone to believe I could sense the events coming! ("Sir, time to up the posture, Cavguy has a bad feeling ... or gas from KBR")

    About to read : "Blink: The power of Thinking without Thinking" - I think the real reason is that I was very close to the populace in the AO and picked up some subconscous signs that things were amiss .......

    We have a lot of anectdotal evidence from law enforcement to suggest something like "ESP".. Unfortunately it isn't as sexy as brains on hyper drive, but is actually closer to our roots. Forms of pattern recognition from our hunter reflexes have been shown to provide flashes of insight that are otherwise not apparent. Examples from a book I read a long time ago include police officers noticing that all the cars in a row had the front tires facing away from the curb (get away ready). The rear license plates on cars that were bug splattered parked in front of "stop and robs" (camouflage).

    Tiny signs in the environment provide clues to the mind that may not be part of the conscious dialog. Absence of clues and normal hum can have the same effect. In New York City the sudden absence of noise is usually indicative of something bad. Many people after 9/11 complained of a sudden sense of dread that was only alleviated when jets started flying again (counter intuitive considering the events).

    The more observant the individual the more likely that they will pick up on cues they are unaware of in the environment. Few people actually look with their entire eye let alone the rest of their senses. Most people only "see" a tiny cone of what they eye can actually process. Even fewer people "listen" to the totality of the environmental churn of noise. Unlike closing your eyes you can't turn off hearing. So people block noise out fairly well. Further degrading their sensitivity to the environment. Smell, and feeling also get short shrift in most technology cultures yet advertising has used them well. There is a reason the movie theater has fragrant pop corn smell pumped into the waiting area. If you were in Iraq around dinner time would you notice the absence of cooking smells? Though you would likely perceive the smell of gasoline? Danger is processed faster than the absence of normal.

    Sensory perception is an interesting phenomenon. My interest was piqued while doing forensic analysis. We seen in investigations that people look for the evidence to convict but rarely look at exculpatory evidence regardless of roles or rules in place. I found lots of stuff on sensory research and less on the mental acuity.

    Bottom line listen to your "gut" feeling and more important listen to the silence as much as the noise....
    Sam Liles
    Selil Blog
    Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
    The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
    All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.

  2. #42
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    51

    Default

    At first, I decided to stay out of this thread, since OPSEC concerns were being raised, and at least a few denigrated the very topic as being at best irrelevant and at worst, amateurish.

    Yet, how often have all of us heard "train as you fight, and fight as you train"...?
    Someone, somehow, must decide what vehicles will be in your motorpool, how many weapons and of what type must be in your armsroom, how many officers, NCO's, and troopies you are supposed to have (and sometimes, those numbers actually do match up with reality).
    ...and while that obviously doesn't solely determine how you will train, it darn sure has a real impact.

    Besides, arguing over organizations is fun, as long as everyone realizes that it is just one detail of the endless multitude of details that determine success or failure on the battlefield... possibly because organization is so easily analyzed, as opposed to concepts like doctrine, leadership, and training, which of course play a much larger role.

    So, to cavalierly disregard the "it depends on the situation" argument, and drastically simplify things, I'll just wade in and draw fire…

    Beginning with artillery (which some may decry as being totally irrelevant to “small wars”):
    If you expect to see a decent amount of combat, then you want artillery, if for nothing else than "just in case".
    It can be thought of as a reserve of (near) instantly applicable combat power. A battalion commander can dispatch a reserve platoon to reinforce a unit in contact, and it may take them the better part of an hour to get there, while artillery can affect the fight within minutes, or even seconds.
    For this reason, I believe that every commander, from Company level up, should have their own artillery, organic to their organization (so that he will actually *have* it when he needs it).

    Artillery must have enough range to sit behind the combat platoons, and reach out to targets beyond those platoons (and any scouts /recon elements the commander has out there, hopefully). Artillery, thus far, must be stationary to fire, and requires at least some time to emplace ("set up"), and thus maneuver units can easily "outrun" their fire support. The other major consideration is how much the ammo weighs, since even with precision munitions, you may need generic suppressive fires, or smoke screens, and those fire missions still require plenty of ammunition...

    At the company level, since we generally expect an infantry company to be able to walk places that vehicles can't go, we are limited to mortars. 81mm mortars can be "humped", but it is unpleasant (heh, the TOW missile launcher can theoretically be humped, too, and I knew an 11H sergeant who was in an AT platoon ordered to do it once, he said it was the most pathetic thing that he ever saw...) 60mm mortars are lighter, the ammo is lighter, and with 3 or 4,000m range, have enough range, as long as the company is grouped tightly together. If you are humping the mortar tubes, you probably have to hump the ammo, too (the alternative is a sling load under a helo, or parachute supply). In an attack, even if every grunt in the rifle company carries two rounds, and dumps them off at the firing point, that still isn’t much (60mm mortars have a murderous rate of fire, up to 20 or 30 rounds/minute). So having say, six mortars down at company level wouldn’t do much good, as you would just burn through the ammo supply unnecessarily fast, and then be left with 6 metal tubes doing nothing. The U.S. Army has two tubes at company level, the USMC has three; I’d say three is better – allowing you to pump out rounds fast enough, or alternatively to “chop” one to each of the three rifle platoons. In the mech world, a section of three 120mm mortars is enough to build a useful smoke screen even in unfavorable conditions, and the range is (barely) sufficient to support the platoons.

    At battalion level, you need more reach to be able to range in to support the line companies, and (theoretically) it is easier to keep them supplied with ammunition. Most have a platoon of 81mm (if you need to hump the tubes), or 120mm mortars (if you can use vehicles to tow them around), and a battery of howitzers habitually attached. If it were me, instead of a platoon of 4-6 mortars and a battery of 6-8 howitzers, I’d just have one large battery organic to the battalion, with 8 to 12 crews and howitzers, along with perhaps 6-8 120mm or 81mm mortars for when the howitzers can’t be used. It has been shown that artillery crews can rapidly transition from using one type of ordinance to another (with 2-3 weeks of training). On average, howitzers require only one or two additional crewmen, and it is easy to concoct scenarios where the artillery of a battalion must be called on for targets exceeding the 6 or 7km range of most mortars. (I can already hear the howls that will come from this over-simplification…)

  3. #43
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default I'm personally convinced the trusting one's instincts

    is the key not only to combat survival but to combat success. Be it ESP, Spidey Sense, intuition or instinct is is critically important in combat. Those that do not have it (and there are some, about 20% or os in my estimation) don't have any business being there. Like any human attribute, it's more pronounced in some than in others but a lack of it is not good. Particularly in a Commander -- and no experienced Commander will ever discount it from a good subordinate.

    Saber said:
    '...(I can already hear the howls that will come from this over-simplification…)"
    AhhhooooooooOOOO...

    Aside from equal accuracy within range, a terminally guided projectile (which the 105 howitzer has not...), a far, far higher rate of fire and a much greater bursting radius of the HE (and WP) shell and thus a more lethal hit (not to mention a longer lasting Illum round), no 120 Mortar owning Commandante is going to give up HIS tubes to get two more artillery tubes that belong to someone else. Totally correctly in my view.

    In Afghanistan and Iraq, the FArty (is that the correct abbreviation?) is not terribly busy and thus is responsive; in a busy war, they can be terribly unrespsonsive -- centralized control is not all it's cracked up to be; it'll divert your DS tubes to a "higher priority" target set in seconds.

    I'd also suggest that anyone concerned with being inside of his own artillery range is being unduly cautious and that should rarely if ever be a consideration. Yeah, I know -- but the guy that wrote that was sitting in an air conditioned building. Things in the real world aren't always that helpful...

    I agree with you that each echelon directly supported by artillery should actually own the tubes. That is totally doable technically but not politically, the Artillerists will kill to protect their ownership. I mean, they still insist on LTs for FOs in spite of the waste of Officers on unneeded tasks that most FD NCOs can do as well or better. Does keep the Branch population up, though...

    The Javelin is a great weapon, no need to haul the TOW. Humping 81s isn't all that bad and the ammo problem is manageable (ammo problem is solved by fire discipline -- not one of the strong points of the US Army...).

  4. #44
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default I'm personally convinced that trusting one's instincts

    is the key not only to combat survival but to combat success. Be it ESP, Spidey Sense, intuition or instinct is is critically important in combat. Those that do not have it (and there are some, about 20-30% or so in my estimation) don't have any business being there. Like any human attribute, it's more pronounced or stronger in some than in others but a lack of it is not good. Particularly in a Commander -- and no experienced Commander will ever discount it from a good subordinate.

    Saber said:
    '...(I can already hear the howls that will come from this over-simplification…)"
    AhhhooooooooOOOO...

    Aside from equal accuracy within range, a terminally guided projectile (which the 105 howitzer has not...), a far, far higher rate of fire and a much greater bursting radius of the HE (and WP) shell and thus a more lethal hit (not to mention a longer lasting Illum round), no 120 Mortar owning Commandante is going to give up HIS tubes to get two more artillery tubes that belong to someone else. Totally correctly in my view.

    In Afghanistan and Iraq, the FArty (is that the correct abbreviation?) is not terribly busy and thus is responsive; in a busy war, they can be terribly unresponsive -- centralized control is not all it's cracked up to be; it'll divert your so-called DS tubes to a "higher priority" target set in seconds.

    I'd also suggest that anyone concerned with being inside of his own artillery range is being unduly cautious and that should rarely if ever be a consideration. Yeah, I know -- but the guy that wrote that was sitting in an air conditioned building. Things in the real world aren't always that nice and easy...

    I agree with you that each echelon directly supported by artillery should actually own the tubes. That is totally doable technically but not politically, the Artillerists will kill to protect their ownership. I mean, they still insist on LTs for FOs in spite of the waste of Officers on unneeded tasks that most FD NCOs can do as well or better. Does keep the Branch population up, though...

    The Javelin is a great weapon, no need to haul the TOW. Humping 81s isn't all that bad -- there was no 60mm Standard A for many years in the 50s and 60s -- and the ammo problem is manageable (the ammo problem is solved by fire discipline -- not one of the strong points of the US Army...).

  5. #45
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sabre View Post
    Besides, arguing over organizations is fun...
    That's what I realized about the other threads. They're a bit like an arguement in a bar over sports teams, never mind the whys or reasons.

    If one wants 32-man platoons in 4 squads but another wants 36 men in 3 squads and the one is pushing light raiding forces at the same time (and in the same conversation) his boothmate is talking Fulda Gap 1985, well, have another pint and carry on! Since everyone knows my hockey team can beat your baseball team in football any day of the week.



    You shouldn't feel odd about joining the fray and expressing an opinion as that is exactly (and merely) what everyone else is doing. Yours is just as valid as any other.

    As one forum member mentioned there's a reason the combat vets shy away from such threads and upon further consideration I saw the wisdom of his comments.

  6. #46
    Council Member krsna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    21

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    I'm not sure I understand this well enough to comment, but I would not agree with the idea that:

    "The dispersion is a factor of communication, surveillance and target acquisition as well as logistics.".

    These are certainly factors, but a squad, as cited in the example, can in theory acquire targets at 3,000m, so I am not sure why a frontage and depth would be specified

    As I say, I may not have understood correctly
    Dear Owen,
    Never mind the niceties. Best debate is frank and forthright. As I said, I shall clarify further. The dispersion as we understand is the geographical area covered by a subunit or unit (let us call it ENTITY for ease of reference) for independent operations whereas frontage and depth is the area covered by the capability (in terms of SATA and Target engagement range) of weapons and equipment organic to it. Dispersion is a product of the the organic capbility as well as the communications (internal permits intra entity dispersion while external permits inter entity dispersion) besides the logistics (mobility and sustenance). Hence the three factors of fire power, mobility and communications play a major role in frontage-depth as well as dispersion. Hope it is a better attempt this time. By the way I am a Colonel from Infantry.

  7. #47
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by krsna View Post
    Dear Owen,
    Never mind the niceties. Best debate is frank and forthright. As I said, I shall clarify further. The dispersion as we understand is the geographical area covered by a subunit or unit (let us call it ENTITY for ease of reference) for independent operations whereas frontage and depth is the area covered by the capability (in terms of SATA and Target engagement range) of weapons and equipment organic to it. Dispersion is a product of the the organic capbility as well as the communications (internal permits intra entity dispersion while external permits inter entity dispersion) besides the logistics (mobility and sustenance). Hence the three factors of fire power, mobility and communications play a major role in frontage-depth as well as dispersion. Hope it is a better attempt this time. By the way I am a Colonel from Infantry.
    Call me Wilf, everyone does. Interesting explanation. So would weapon's time of flight (ATGM and Mortars) be a planning factor associated with Front and depth and not dispersion?
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  8. #48
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    If we are addressing time of flight for things like ATGMs, then I would offer that we must look at mobility from a specific perspective, and that is how terrain affects the X number of engagement windows available. That, as I'm sure folks here know, will have a significant affect on both frontage and depth (especially depth) if the terrain prevents full LOS for the entire range and time of flight for a system.

    Because of rolling terrain, I may only have a few engagement windows, thus forcing me to sight ATGM systems further forward in sector because targets moving at X speed will only expose themselves for X time period, and to engage from max effective range, the target would disappear from view before the missile made impact.

    I had the good fortune of having this battlefield geometry lesson instilled during a combt readiness evaluation and not actually on the two-way range. I actually knew the answer, but lack of sleep lead me to eyeball the sector of fire and call it "good" when that was the furthest thing from the truth.
    Last edited by jcustis; 01-11-2008 at 04:35 PM.

  9. #49
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Timothy OConnor View Post
    That's what I realized about the other threads. They're a bit like an arguement in a bar over sports teams, never mind the whys or reasons.

    If one wants 32-man platoons in 4 squads but another wants 36 men in 3 squads and the one is pushing light raiding forces at the same time (and in the same conversation) his boothmate is talking Fulda Gap 1985, well, have another pint and carry on! Since everyone knows my hockey team can beat your baseball team in football any day of the week.
    Actually, I was referring to Vilseck circa late 1980's, not Fulda Gap 1985 - we were to deal with the Russkies as they tried to exploit the boundary between US VII Corps and German II(?) Corps - but close enough. But now I find myself rather more favourably disposed towards the "light raiding forces".

    jcustis raises important points about ATGMs and frontages and depths. Javelin is something that may really change a few things when it comes to siting ATGMs. I had real reservations about TOW, and for a lot of reasons; especially the crew having to track it all the way to the target, which could be a real problem when having to fight in places where the terrain only allows for shots out to about a mile a lot of the time, and the capture range is measured in hundreds of metres to begin with. That just doesn't give TOW and HOT the time to get more than a round or maybe two off, especially when tanks can snap-shoot real easy at those ranges.

    Javelin changes some of that, at least in so far as it can actually be man-packed, fired from cover, and then you just haul out macht schnell. Or it can be mounted on a light or armoured vehicle. Except for the range, it's way better than TOW for most Battalion purposes. Makes siting your AT weapons and figuring out your plan much easier, and your plan a little more flexible. But unless you have Javelin Under-Armour like TOW and HOT came to be by the 80's, it's easier for Javelin to be suppressed by enemy fire, and harder to move long distances quickly without having to re-mount. Sill, Javelin may be able to do wonders for Company and even Platoon frontages.
    Last edited by Norfolk; 01-11-2008 at 05:35 PM.

  10. #50
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    19

    Default

    The book Roughneck Nine One provides an excellent description of the Javelin being used under combat conditions for which it was intended (ie anti-tank rather than busting houses). The account describes Javelin's advantage which, as it turns out, can be a liability. Its ability to kill AFVs actually exceeds paper specs with respect to range according to the book (from a security perspective I was surprised to read this in a mass market book). As for flight time the crew first thought there had been a mis-fire since, from their perspective, the missile simply vanished into a low cieling for a very long period only to come down right atop the target. But the operators also had some difficulty achieving lock when an insufficient amount of the target's hull was visible.

    So Javelin's long flight time is not as important to the crew since they were able to exploit the missiles homing ability and shoot-n-scoot if desired (they stood, fought, and won in the actual event). But that same human-independent homing ability was clearly less capable than the human eye and judgement.

  11. #51
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jcustis View Post
    If we are addressing time of flight for things like ATGMs, then I would offer that we must look at mobility from a specific perspective, and that is how terrain affects the X number of engagement windows available. That, as I'm sure folks here know, will have a significant affect on both frontage and depth (especially depth) if the terrain prevents full LOS for the entire range and time of flight for a system.
    .
    High speed stuff! Good observation!

    Quote Originally Posted by Timothy OConnor View Post
    So Javelin's long flight time is not as important to the crew since they were able to exploit the missiles homing ability and shoot-n-scoot if desired (they stood, fought, and won in the actual event). But that same human-independent homing ability was clearly less capable than the human eye and judgement.
    Javelin and Spike are two systems that change a lot of the rules. This is why it so important to a have thorough understandings on the limitations, of the systems. Spikes NLOS capability makes sighting of posts and even mobility and resupply, far less critical.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  12. #52
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    is the key not only to combat survival but to combat success. Be it ESP, Spidey Sense, intuition or instinct is is critically important in combat. Those that do not have it (and there are some, about 20-30% or so in my estimation) don't have any business being there. Like any human attribute, it's more pronounced or stronger in some than in others but a lack of it is not good. Particularly in a Commander -- and no experienced Commander will ever discount it from a good subordinate.
    Something's hinky here, Ken, something's hinky!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinky
    "Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper

  13. #53
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Hmm. Knew the word but just remembered that it

    was also part of the old American Legion song, Mademoiselle from Armentiers; the part in the chorus that is "...hinky, dinky, parlez vous..."

    Since hinky is defined at your link, dinky is generally construed as being of poor quality and 'parlez vous' is obviously French, I can only conclude you're indirectly bashing the French and that's not nice...

    Still, hinky or spidey -- it's really important to have it. And heed it.

  14. #54
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

  15. #55
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Nah, that dude needs a shave and a haircut,

    his nose is too small, he's wearing fruit boots and he's got his hat on in the house. Nope, not me.

    Not to mention he can carry a tune...

  16. #56
    Council Member krsna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    Call me Wilf, everyone does. Interesting explanation. So would weapon's time of flight (ATGM and Mortars) be a planning factor associated with Front and depth and not dispersion?
    Wilf and jcustis,
    This is for both of you. The effective interlocked arcs of fire, as defined by range of any weapon system, whether static or mobile, determines the frontage covered. In former case it would be frontage of static defence and that of mobile defence in the latter case. Depth is related to certain factors as capability to absorb the breach of frontage and allow repulse of breach by providing counterattack capability. As regards dispersion and the time of flight factors, I maintain that the dispersion is frontage and depth plus the capability to disperse by means of communication, mobility for maneuvre, protection for sustenance and logistics for sustenance. Time of flight is an attribute of speed, hence it influences the effectiveness in terms of time of decision (it may give more time for Commander to decide). Further it shall influence the maneuvre too by allowing speed of engagement and hence allow move to better position of advantage. Dispersion as we see it is not only a factor of larger frontage needs but also of defensive need to avoid being pinned by enemy massed attack by conventional means or by WMDs.
    Last edited by krsna; 01-14-2008 at 06:12 AM. Reason: typing error

  17. #57
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by krsna View Post
    Wilf and jcustis,
    This is for both of you. The effective interlocked arcs of fire, as defined by range of any weapon system, whether static or mobile, determines the frontage covered. In former case it would be frontage of static defence and that of mobile defence in the latter case. Depth is related to certain factors as capability to absorb the breach of frontage and allow repulse of breach by providing counterattack capability. As regards dispersion and the time of flight factors, I maintain that the dispersion is frontage and depth plus the capability to disperse by means of communication, mobility for maneuvre, protection for sustenance and logistics for sustenance. Time of flight is an attribute of speed, hence it influences the effectiveness in terms of time of decision (it may give more time for Commander to decide). Further it shall influence the maneuvre too by allowing speed of engagement and hence allow move to better position of advantage. Dispersion as we see it is not only a factor of larger frontage needs but also of defensive need to avoid being pinned by enemy massed attack by conventional means or by WMDs.
    krsna, excellent doctrinal description and a fascinating one, but it seems to me that frontage and depth, are in fact products of dispersion, and not the other way round. How far you can effectively disperse, (defined by the planning factors you mention) defines your frontage and depth - so the need to differentiate is an interesting point of doctrine.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  18. #58
    Council Member krsna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    krsna, excellent doctrinal description and a fascinating one, but it seems to me that frontage and depth, are in fact products of dispersion, and not the other way round. How far you can effectively disperse, (defined by the planning factors you mention) defines your frontage and depth - so the need to differentiate is an interesting point of doctrine.
    Wilf,
    Dispersion as an activity is part of frontage and Depth while as a Principle of War it is a factor of offensive manevre in pursuit of tactical advantage as well as defensive posturing to obviate massed attack.

  19. #59
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    AUT+RUS
    Posts
    87

    Default

    Doesn't that sound a little ... WW1?

  20. #60
    Council Member krsna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Distiller View Post
    Doesn't that sound a little ... WW1?
    some things are ageless and timeless. ask the americans who used horse-based laser target designators to direct smart munitions.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •