Military Discussion Thread

[walker 0]

Hi all

First up: I am not and never have been in the Army and have never fired a real gun in my life.

In the Mythbusters ArmA Edition thread I made the following post.

NB DONT CRAWL OVER THE CREST AND THINK YOU ARE IN COVER!

Or a hill side is not a tacically superior position to being at the bottom of the slope

There was a time when I used to make this mistake. It comes from seeing all those films where they take the hill to be in a tactically superior position. A case of Hollywood negative training as it were.

In the old days of land wars, of cavalry charges and short range missile weapons like spears and bows, the gravity well afforded by a hill gave you a big advantage, With high powered rifles and machine guns, rockets and artillery that has disappeared.

When you crawl over the crest of a hill you are just as exposed as the person at the bottom of the hill. Depending on steepness perhaps you are in a worse position! If it is very steep and your enemy is far enough away he can stand up and take shots at you when you are laid down and he is the smaller target! Think about it. Worse if you stand up you do not get the same target size reduction he does. And it is impossible to duck while being on your belly.

While crawling to the crest is correct for observation (preferably near some bushes or trees so you do not skyline), going on to the forward slope is inadvisable in almost all cases.

The correct way to use the crest of a hill is to use it as cover. Eg standing up so that only your head shoulders and gun are presented to the enemy as a target then ducking down when under fire. When you receive fire change firing position. Better still change position after every (shot/burst)

For MGs this is all different, as they have to lay down to fire accurately the key protection to using an MG is primarily distance. Ideally the MG should be situated just on the crest or even reverse slope and used as an indirect fire weapon using plunging fire, with a spotter on the forward slope, calling in your round impacts and tracer same as a sniper consequently all MG assistants need binoculars! Where an MG must fire from the forward slope, then hard cover such as MG nests, sandbags, walls etc. is advisable

As I was using examples from the real world in the post Second disputed the subject with me with regard to its application in the real world.

To aid the discussion I will break it down to numbered points that can be quoted, I will also expand on them for this thread..

1) NB DONT CRAWL OVER THE CREST AND THINK YOU ARE IN COVER!

My initial reason for saying this was how often in ArmA MP I have seen groups of human players bodies layed dead on the crest of the and forward slope hill; obviously dead in the crawling stance, and how often I also sufferd the same fate. After watching this happen several times when a group of my community were crawling over a railway embankment I came to the conclusion it was because their whole body was exposed. I then thought about it with relation to hill crests. The geometry is identical. If you crawl to the forward slope in order to fire down on those below you expose the whole body.

2 Or a hill side is not a tacically superior position to being at the bottom of the slope

Note here I am talking about the specific tactical position not its strategic function as a point from which to observe the enemy.

3 There was a time when I used to make this mistake. It comes from seeing all those films where they take the hill to be in a tactically superior position. A case of Hollywood negative training as it were.

Many hollywood films revolve around the importance of a hill.

Some latter films like Hamburger Hill point out that fighting over the hill is of little or no strategic value.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hamburger_Hill

4 a In the old days of land wars, of cavalry charges and short range missile weapons like spears and bows, the gravity well afforded by a hill gave you a big advantage.

Pretty obvious realy

4 b With high powered rifles and machine guns, rockets and artillery that has disappeared.

Now here is the crux! With the advent of modern weapons; while the strategic value of a hill may have increased has its tactical value decreased?

5 a When you crawl over the crest of a hill you are just as exposed as the person at the bottom of the hill.

The geometry of the situation, now that high powered rifles have decreased the influence of gravity as an advantage means that being at the top of the hill with the OPFOR at the bottom is no different than being on two oposite hills acros a valley.

5 b Depending on steepness perhaps you are in a worse position! If it is very steep and your enemy is far enough away he can stand up and take shots at you when you are laid down and he is the smaller target! Think about it.

We should examine this point.

5 c Worse if you stand up you do not get the same target size reduction he does.

We should examine this point.

5 d And it is impossible to duck while being on your belly.

I think this is a truism with exception of the four or so inches of duck from face up, to face layed in the dirt and to the side. That is of course a difference in target size.

6 While crawling to the crest is correct for observation (preferably near some bushes or trees so you do not skyline), going on to the forward slope is inadvisable in almost all cases.

7 The correct way to use the crest of a hill is to use it as cover. Eg standing up so that only your head shoulders and gun are presented to the enemy as a target then ducking down when under fire. When you receive fire change firing position. Better still change position after every (shot/burst)

I think this true. NB I do mean the crest as it apears to the OPFOR. eg the point at which the OPFOR cannot see beyond. In other words the crest of a hill is relative to the observer and the observed.

8 For MGs this is all different, as they have to lay down to fire accurately the key protection to using an MG is primarily distance. Ideally the MG should be situated just on the crest or even reverse slope and used as an indirect fire weapon using plunging fire, with a spotter on the forward slope, calling in your round impacts and tracer same as a sniper consequently all MG assistants need binoculars! Where an MG must fire from the forward slope, then hard cover such as MG nests, sandbags, walls etc. is advisable

AS someone who has never been in the Army I still stand by this I think it is correct even in the real world but if people want to dispute it, I will do my amateur best to defend the statement.

Kind regards walker

[Yoma 0]

Hi Walker

Even today hills do have certain tactical advantages. Hills slow people down, and slower moving people are easier to shoot. So getting in a position where you have overwatch yet are not skylined can be an advantage.

I'm no big tactician, but hills often have multiple "layers" multiple "crests" if you like. If you can lure the enemy into scaling a hill where your team is on the second crest i do feel you sometimes have an advantage. (you can quickly fall back, where the enemy can only slowly mount the slope)

But yes, cresting the hill, laying put and just fireing without any tought out cover might not be the best idea there is.

Having an overview can and will help you and your teammates. The first step to shooting someone, is seeing them.

Being caught out in the open on a hillside is however a quick means to get yourself killed indeed.

Also against tanks being on a hill might just mean that you're out of reach for the main gun, if the hill's height surpasses the max inclination of said gun. It may also be easier to hit softer armour (top?) of a tank. Certain weapons (nadelaunchers etc) might also be in a better position uphill facing downwards then vice versa.

Edited July 26, 2010 by Yoma

[Baff1 0]

Hills are good, you can observe your enemy coming from many miles away.

A position on a hill can overwatch a significantly larger area of land than a position in a valley.

[jakerod 254]

Also, hills tend to be better when you have dug yourself in. Unfortunately, standard ArmA/II/OA doesn't really let you do that.

@Baff1- Yeah, I think the observation thing is one of the reasons hills are considered to be good. Also, not only are hills better for overwatch than valleys, but when youre on the tallest hill in the area, youre a lot less likely to get shot from above you.

Edited July 27, 2010 by Jakerod

[Baff1 0]

Right, that's a good point too.

From an elevated position it's harder for people to find cover from your fire.

[Second 0]

Right, that's a good point too.

From an elevated position it's harder for people to find cover from your fire.

Yeah. In simple rifle squad versus rifle squad situation one using (much) higher positions will much more likely result into guys in higher positions to win. Quite simply because he can take shots at opponents backs and legs when they are lying in ground behind cover it provides (be it trees, bumps, nooks etc). Getting up hill will be more slow than advance on even ground.

But if one starts to add factors like indirect fire, direct fire support, recon, ability and time to dug in, endless variety of terrain etc then things gets much more complicated. Basic question being: How to remain in crest if you can't see to you killzone, answer usually is that you have to go into hillside. Then next question is which is proper positions on hillside so that you reach compromise in between of ability to fire into killzone and yet remain protected from enemy observation and firepower and not to go wander too much into hillside.

My english is lacking to explain it further. I could try but i don't think anyone would get any wisdomz out of it.

Edited July 27, 2010 by Second

[pre-Vet 10]

the downside of hills is that people instictively want to find teh highest point and thus: skylining. always have a propper background to dissapear.

fighting uphill is really hard because you will be exhausted very fast and its a lot more dangerous to use nades.

have a laserrangefinder in you group to laser distances because hills tent to screw up your distance estimation.

using a spotter for your machine gunner is nice but not really needed at ranges less than 600m. gunner should have eyes on target though.

let a infantry group carry a m2 up teh hill in parts and asseble it when in position to reach out to ranges of 2000m.

put your machinegunners and automaticriflemen on the far sides of your line so their fire will cross the enemys assault line and my even take out multiple targets. its important to finish your firering drill to lay down a blanket of fire (m240=5tracers m249 3x3 rounds)

Also against tanks being on a hill might just mean that you're out of reach for the main gun,

the mujahideen made use of this tactic forcing the russiant to put ZSU-23-2 on the back of trucks and bring ZSU-23's in the convoys as their elevation is far greater than that of a BMP or BMD

placing IEDs just over the top of the will make them harder to spot as the driver of the lead vehicle is still looking towards the sky or his hood.

[Takko 10]

Do you guys have a clue what provides better protection?

The Stryker armour (version against RPGs) or Rooikat one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooikat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stryker

[Hillslam 0]

Depends, are slats present?

[Takko 10]

On none of them.

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

By "version against RPGs" you would have to mean SLAT/SRAT armor. A standard Stryker would be shredded by an RPG if it didn't have slat armor.

[maturin 12]

I wonder what "shredded" really means. When you get down to, it's a really little hole. Does a lot of the blast and heat come through in the wake of the penetrating copper stream? Does the stream solidify and bounce around, killing the crew, or is the interior spalling alone enough to know out a vehicle? If a HEAT warhead strikes the opposite end of a thin-skinned APC, does the driver have a good chance of escaping injury?

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

One thing i am curious about, is how much a Stryker can actually stand. I don't know if the copper would actually harden enough to bounce around. Probably, but I've never seen it happen & I hope I never will.

[maturin 12]

One thing i am curious about, is how much a Stryker can actually stand. I don't know if the copper would actually harden enough to bounce around. Probably, but I've never seen it happen & I hope I never will.

Well it's plasma at that point, solid on the outside and in some sort of poorly-understood state of hyperplasticity on the inside, so who really knows.

I wonder if it scatters like so much molten buckshot or simply burns up and evaporates in mid-air.

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

No, it definitely scatters, that's what gives it it's killing power. If a jet of molten copper pierces your armored vehicle, you and every member of your crew are going to experience a very painful death, or atleast be maimed pretty damn bad. I think some tank designers implemented anti spall crew spaces, but I don't know how, or how effective they are/were.

The whole reason I'm curious, is because I've heard that the Stryker is relatively thin skinned, so maybe it's possible for the jet to go in, and hit the other side of the interior before it solidifies enough to spall.

But yeah, IED makers have been getting "wise" to copper streams, and have been using copper in IEDs in an effort to penetrate the armored underbelly of tanks/ MRAPs. Or atleast that was reported in a paper or in an online news article a while back. It may have even been in a post paper. (Ft. Bliss, Texas possibly.)

[maturin 12]

I've read that the jet from HEAT weapons "dissipates" in ten times their cone diameter, which is 70-80 centimeters for your average RPG. That's the rationale behind SLAT armor.

But they're also supposed to be able to penetrate 1-2m of mud brick, which is much more than 70cm. Maybe punching through a hard material keeps the stream together.

[krzychuzokecia 719]

And now for something completely different...

Modułowy System Broni Strzeleckiej 5,56mm (MSBS-5,56) - .303 cal. Modular Weapon System (click photo for full article in Polish).

New technology demonstrator developed by WAT (Military Academy of Technology) and FB Radom (Weapon Manufacture in Radom city). Final weapon derived from it is going to replace Beryl and Mini-Beryl assault rifles. Two versions are planned: classic and bullpup, each with various barrel lenghts (photo of short-barreled carbine (205mm)).

Rifles will use STANAG cartridges, other are not planned. Main point of the system is modularity - so that weapon could be easily modified to LMG or sniper rifle. All parts (receivers, barrels, stocks, etc.) are fully interchable between any MSBS variant. Also new under-barrel GL will be developed (old Pallad won't do the job).

Guns on pictures above are dummies, prototypes of new, more ergonomical design, that will be used as a basis for next stages of development.

Development began in December 2007 (first prototype with new thermal-vision scope). After year (December 2008) another prototypes were shown for public for the first time (first shown prototypes (on the non-bullpup version you can see stock from newest Beryl), full article in Polish). After another year (December 2009) first firing prototypes were build, they incorporated a few changes when compared to first dummies, like suppressor acceptance (carbine, bullpup, full article). In May 2010 they were officially presented to army officials (full article) with another upgrades (new pistol grip). Current development of new look of this weapon is going to eliminate all flaws of previous prototypes. After that new weapon will be developed, using this technology demonstrator as a basis.

[Takko 10]

Looks like a worse and cheap ACR.

[ben_s 11]

The top one looks like a cheap and tacky AUGA3, or Tavor.

[krzychuzokecia 719]

Looks like a worse and cheap ACR.

Which looks like a worse and cheap SCAR :)

I can assure that on battlefield look is not important (although newest version is alot nicer than first ones), from what I know there won't be LMG version of ACR, and MSBS can be transformed from basic version to LMG, or sniper rifle, or bullpup (target time is 2-3 minutes to make all changes). So this is big advantage of MSBS. Also this is only technology demonstrator, it won't be fielded, and final weapon derived from MSBS is believed to be ready around 2015, or later. I believe that weapon (called by one military magazine in Poland "Rodon") won't resemble MSBS, just like AR-10 don't resemble M4 SOPMOD.

And if somebody will ask "why losing time and money to develope something you can have now? Why won't you buy ACR or SCAR?" - because we can learn new tricks (so in future we won't be forced to buy SCAR if MSBS turns out to be sh*t), and price for final weapon will be smaller than price for SCAR/ACR (costs of transport, customs, training).

ACR prototype also wasn't nice! :D

[niall0 10]

Is it metal? Cos it's pretty late and to my eyes that looks like some form of plastic like Polymer or something like that.

[krzychuzokecia 719]

Is it metal? Cos it's pretty late and to my eyes that looks like some form of plastic like Polymer or something like that.

It's probably some kind of cheap plastic, 'cause this is only a model of new design. Previous prototypes were made from metal, with plastic/polymer parts (taken from Beryl and M4 SOPMOD - pistol grip, stock etc.).

[NoRailgunner 0]

$60 Billion U.S. - Saudi Arabia arms deal > defensenews

In its notification to Congress, expected to be submitted this week or next, the administration will authorize the Saudis to buy as many as 84 new F-15 fighters, upgrade 70 more, and purchase three types of helicopters - 70 Apaches, 72 Black Hawks and 36 Little Birds

Could be interesting to know how much profit all countries get from their arms exports/trades.

[Tozmeister 0]

I was looking up information on the Mastiff 2 on a few credible websites and they all mentioned a 50mm cannon option for armament. At first i thought this was a misprint of .50 cal but it seems not as an M2 option is mentioned in the same sentence.

However, currently no 50mm cannon exists. There is a plan by ATK to develop their 35mm Bushmaster III to a 50mm Supershot but that's still in the experimental stage

One of the guys on an army rumour forum mentioned a Bushmaster III as a UOR but for Jackal not Mastiff, but there's no way you mount that on a 6 tonne open-top vehicle.

I also turned up an artists impression picture of a Mastiff with cannon mounted on top but i can turn up artists impressions of unicorns and dragons as well.

I'm tending to the theory that this is (was?) a misprint of .50 cal that's run away with itself, everyone's just c&p'ed the false info and no one's correcting it because they don't want to appear to be out of the loop. Does anyone know differently?

[maturin 12]

Speaking of cannon round caliber, is there a reason that the Russians put 30mm cannons on anything with four wheels while American aircraft and heavy AFVs rarely use anything bigger than 20-25mm?