Jump to content
🛡️FORUMS ARE IN READ-ONLY MODE Read more... ×

Satchel

Member
  • Content Count

    761
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Everything posted by Satchel

  1. Satchel

    Who has the worst army/forces in the world?

    We had several international exercises on a Divisional basis with some par taking troops from the Netherlands, Great Britain and US. The first time i saw a soldier of the Netherland Army, my jaw almost dropped down, because quite some of them wore piggy tails...and they weren´t women, but guys . Apart from that we often sat together with them after an 8 hour schedule was due. Not so much to say about the british, as they were located not directly in the operation central, but a bit further away operating either relais or (RIFU-MUX) directional radio vehicles. The U.S. soldiers were the easiest folks around, they took everything slow and let the day be a day. As we had an simulated ABC alert, some of them were walking around without protection mask and poncho outside, on their way to the exersice range´s cantina. We almost laughed ourself to death under the masks as we saw their sergeant jogging after his crewmembers to get them back. Another highlight was the Nijmegen 4x50Km march 1997, there dozens of military formations from all over the world amongst civillians are marching on 4 days. On the third day we passed an U.S. unit that was virtually falling apart- a female officer leading the formation was screaming at a giant walking in the first row to push and motivate him. That guy  looked like he could crush anything, but he seemed to have serious problems on the march as many others from his formation. You couldn´t recognise a normal military marching order or form anymore, i couldn´t describe it with anything less than a "mob" . To top that all there was a very smelly vapor surrounding them as we passed, i first thought someone out of our formation had puked, farted or something. But it wasn´t us, and what was smelling there was alcohol mixed with other unidentified vapors, those americans must have party really hard the night before. Crazy, if you think about that each march starts at 4 a.m. in summer, and when you get back you are busy caring for your feet, eating and drinking much water, to be fit the next day.
  2. Satchel

    Is flashpoint a recruiting tool ?

    I didn´t hear of Jacobs Ladder yet, just checked a review and it sure does read interesting. Will check it out.
  3. I have also problems getting a squadmember report back if i sent him via the map; he was put into stealth mode with "hold fire" and sent to the position of a known enemy squad. In a test mission on Malden i was able to get him ca. 10m into the back of a soviet squad, without him reporting back. Line of sight was unobstructed btw.
  4. Satchel

    Is flashpoint a recruiting tool ?

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ April 04 2002,10:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the US has been making war related films ever since filems existed.. its nothing new.. and of course if its a US film made in the US for US viewers its going to be pro US.. jesus fucking christ what an amazing breaktrhough that must be.. wow propaganda.. oh and FYI the "US" deosent make films.. studios do.. and they are made for one reason: to turn a profit.. period..  its entertainment.. posts like this are dumber than the dogshit that posts them NEWS FLASH, THIS JUST IN!!: the US has nuclear weapons!! wholly shit it must mean the world is about to end!!<span id='postcolor'> Seems i have hit your nerve right on, turn and twist it like you want, self critism is something unknown and not tolerated in the U.S. unlike to what it is where i´m living. I just listed an example of how indirect media advertisement for U.S. armed forces works, by DOD "influencing" scenes of the original story book, to make it fit their view on how a movie should be, if the actual movie author intends to feature U.S. armed forces with help of the respective "technical Advisors" connected to DOD. For example, a story book has no "happy end" for the ever glorious U.S. troops, all U.S. Forces are wiped away by the end of an film. Although everything else in the film might be acceptable to DOD, the finish isn´t because it conflicts- the end scene has to be reworked by the author, even if this destroys the movie in it´s logic, it´s either that or DOD will cease military advising for this specific military film. In other words this is about advertisement on a indirect basis, advertisement for the U.S. Armed Forces and the big buck for movie productions if they willingly cooperate with DOD, no matter if the original idea of their storybook gets destroyed by doing this. Next where did i wrote that the US Government or similar is making those films in own productions, all they do is trying to remodell the content after their liking? Better read the text before you post an answer. P.S: if you are not able to discuss on a mature basis and if you are affected by a post like this little man, i suggest you keep yourself and your smearing out of these threads and do yourself and others a favor, especially if you do not understand the content of a post.
  5. Satchel

    Battlefield 1942

    Lol, i saw it coming... But there´s still H&D2 coming up for those wanting WW2 action.
  6. Satchel

    Is flashpoint a recruiting tool ?

    There recently was a report on german television about DOD involvement in making of U.S. based films portraying the U.S. armed forces. They have a simple guideline; a producer gets supervisor support for his movie if the U.S. armed forces are portrayed in a, as they called it, appropiate way. In clear consense this means if it is to the liking of DOD supervisors. Films that were made with DOD support are Top Gun, Navy Seals, Blackhawk Down, Saving Private Ryan and others. A movie mentioned without DOD support was Apocalypse Now. An Officer with a mission to kill an own soldier isn´t realistic and perverts what the Armed Forces are doing, in other words it would be bad press and certainly no good advertisement for the military branch, that´s understandable. However, personally i think that Apocalypse Now is one of the best War/Antiwar movies ever made. Of course it´s unrealistic, so is Top Gun, Navy Seals and others, that pervert reality by the same amount or even more, but unlike Apocalypse Now the viewer tends to admire those guys in the later mentioned movies and what they are doing; styled and stage dived american heros doing their amazing dream jobs in the U.S. military- who wouldn´t want to be one of them, everyone wanted to be Maverrick and fly Fighter planes and get the girls after doing the job or Charly Sheen beeing the undisciplined Navy Seal that can do whatever he wants and when within his let loose lynch mob of supersoldiers.....unless you have been in the armed forces and now how reality is really like.
  7. Satchel

    Want the rah-66 comanche?

    Now all we need in addition to your Comanche is the sky displayed on these pics.
  8. Satchel

    Is flashpoint a recruiting tool ?

    My thoughts also, if the Army would have been involved (even just as name- giver for marketing purposes) in the development of Flashpoint, U.S. Army would be plastered all over it, like Novalogic used to do, claiming "realism" and other bla.... The Army doesn´t need to shy away from public like running secretly Psyops on kids that play computer games all day long to get fresh meat, it uses all opportunities to go into the public, making advertisement. A good and in my oppinion hillarious example is "The Sarge"...no it hasn´t got bionic legs, but still goes from 0-100mph in 8/10 seconds: "The Army's top fuel dragster, "The Sarge," is the fastest (of course, who would have thought otherwise...) dragster in the world and can go from 0 to 100 mph in an amazing eight-tenths of a second. With a small "army" working together to keep the top fuel dragster on the track and in the winner's circle, you could call the crew "An Army of One."   March 14-17 33rd Annual Mac Tools Gatornationals Gainesville, FL Check out when and where The Sarge will be racing next by contacting your local recruiter." Get the drift how it functions? I made the important parts in bold lettering.
  9. Satchel

    Dumb question on viewing

    You can also assign yourself as commander of a group or vehicle in the editor to use the "command view". This is especially useful if you want to take shots from your own face, fixed or rotary wing aircraft inflight, or if you want an overview screenshot of a whole column,group, flight etc. If your commanding a vehicle or group, simply hit " DEL" (by default) on the numpad, "+" and "-" lets you zoom in/out while camera rotation is done via the mouse. You can cover all angles with this.
  10. Satchel

    Projectiles!

    Wow, and i thought bullets weren´t modelled in OFP...i never stop learning about this game and i like it.
  11. Satchel

    Nato equipment in 1985

    Hahaha, i think thats the top answer.
  12. Satchel

    T-90.t94

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ April 03 2002,22:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and u forgot to mention that the farther the sabot travels the less penetraing power it has. and again: thats all and well. but the real threat are missiles that are top-attackers.<span id='postcolor'> and i havn´t forgot to mention that the T-90´s top is protected by Kontakt-5...just go back a few pages in this thread.
  13. Satchel

    T-90.t94

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> We've done a lot of work to analyze how effective Kontakt-5 is and by what methods it defeats the incoming APFSDS rounds. The results of the analysis are quite impressive in their own rough and limited way. We assumed that the Kontakt-5 brick was 10.5 cm wide by 23.0 cm long by 7.0 cm thick, with a mass of 10.35 kg. We arrived at a total mass of 2.8 t for the array. We later found out from Steven Zagola's literature that the array is supposed to be around three tonnes, so we were pretty happy. Assuming the use of Semtex for the interlayer, I found that the configuration was most likely a 15 mm plate up front, backed by 35 mm of explosive, and then a 20 mm plate. This assymetrical configuration had improved effectiveness because the APFSDS rod could still 'catch' the retreating rear plate while the front plate would retain a charateristic high velocity. This is completely opposite to the model that the US Army used in the late 1980s to discribe 'heavy' ERA. In their model, the front plate was on the order of 60 mm thick and the rear a standard 5 mm plate. They thought that the thick plate simply moved up into the path of the incoming long rod and forced it to make a 'slot' (thickness x height) rather than a hole (thickness). This is bogus; the front plate would tamp the explosive and would be barely set in motion. Anyway, back to the point. Without getting into the actual math, after a couple of analyses, we arrived at our conclusion as to what defeat mechanisms were being imployed. These conclusions have not yet been conclusively proved and we hope to do that soon. We assumed that the massive areal density of the long rod perforated the thin plates with relative ease. Actual ablatic penetrator mass loss was set at about 2%. What we found was that we had these two plates, each individually with about 60% the momentum of the long rod penetrator, were moving oppositely up/down to each other, and that the path of the penetrator was such that it was moving between them. The forces exerted on the penetrator are apparently very large, so large in fact that they were in the region of plastic failure for most (read: all) metals. Essentially, when the penetrator touches the rear plate, the front plate guillotines off the first 5 - 6 cm of the rod. For a round such as the 120 mm M829A1 this represents a loss of about 8% of the total mass. More importantly, the nose is blunted. You would not believe how important that sharp point on the penetrator is. The difference in penetration between an equivalent hyper-sonic spike tipped penetrator and a blunt nose one is at least 20% (to a maximum of around 30%). This is mainly because a blunt nose is very inefficient in the initial phase of penetration before the ablatic shear phase can begin. The penetrator has to actually sharpen itself to the optimum Von Karam plastic wave theory shape for penetration of the target material before it can begin radially displacing the target material. This resolves itself in the form of a lot of wasted work and thus penetrator mass. The blunted penetrator also suffers structural damage and more mass loss as a shock wave travels down its length and blows spall off the tail. The main secondary effect of Kontakt-5 EDZ against APFSDS rounds is yaw induced by the front plate before contact with the rear plate is established. The total is about two to three degrees of yaw, which suddenly becomes a lot more in a denser material such as steel. Reduction in penetration due to a 2° yaw is about 6% and it grows exponentially worse from there, and on the 67° slope of the front glacis of the T-64/72/80/90, this is increased to about 15%. Total loss in penetration amounts to about 2% + 8% + 22% + 6% = 38%, or in other words the penetrator is now only capable of penetrating 62% its original potential. Conversely we could say that the base armour is increased by the factor of the reciprocal of 62%, which is - surprise! - 161%. <span id='postcolor'> As you can take from the article, the applying of Kontakt-5 has little to do with cost effectiveness, or unability to build armor with very high RHA ratings, but rather is a very effective design in terms of protection, and that´s all what counts. Russian MBT´s are all build for low silhouette and high mobility, the application of extremely heavy armor, like used on our western tanks conflicts with these design guidelines and principles.
  14. Satchel

    T-90.t94

    Explosive Reactive Armor protection is measured as the main armor upon it´s RHA rating. RHA stands for Rolled Homogeneous Armor, in this case an equivalent RHA thickness of a given armor package against a given type of threats in terms of penetration resistance. Kontakt-5 ERA has an RHA protection rating of 250 mm vs. APFSDS, and 600 mm vs HEAT. Add this up to the T-90´s 740 mm RHA on the front turret vs. APFSDS, and you theoretically have 990 mm RHA protection vs long rod penetrators on the front turret. But since the Kontakt-5 ERA has thicker steel plates housing the explosives and is heavily angled, a long rod penetrator will loose about 30 % of it´s penetration power after hitting a Kontakt-5 module, making it virtually incapable of penetrating the vehicles armor. In addition, thanks to their heavier front plate, the Kontakt-5 elements are harder to trigger by the precursor charges of tandem warheads, forcing the producers of tandem ATGMs to allocate more mass to precursor charge and, making an MBT more resistant to tandem HEAT warheads, as well. While light ERA containers are completely destroyed in the process of detonation, Kontakt-5 sections are not, as their detonation is contained by the outside armor plates. Therefore even after detonation Kontakt-5 sections continue to provide some applique protection.
  15. Satchel

    T-90.t94

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> "Actually, the american bombing did very little to the t72's (except from the a10's that is)" <span id='postcolor'> About 250.000 individual bombs and missiles were expended in 43 days of air war, a great chunk of them being "smart weapons". With an overall sortie raid of ca. 2500 per day, 40500 tonnage of ordnance were dropped per month average, this number coming close to the per month average of ordnance dropped in the 2nd WW (48000 tonnage/month),  they were litterally bombed back to stone age. Of those 2500 sorties per day, apx. 100 sorties/day were against Iraqy ground units in the first 6 days (17.-23 Jan.) of the campaign, after 4 more days it jumped up to 500 sorties/ day. This is why the "ground war" lasted hardly 100 hours, if you take into account that those still living on the iraqy side had been cut of from all supplys, comms and mostly stood under constant aerial strikes for a month, it´s no wonder they surrendered by the 1000´s. What a 500lb bomb will do to a tank when hit needs no illustration, you probably can imagine. What the Iraqys called "black rain", were in fact cluster bombs, like the MK 20 Rockeye or CBU-89 Gator,  both are affecting a large area with their submunitions and capable of knocking out whole armored columns, either directly by shaped charged submunitions or through AT mines that are mixed into. In addition to AGM´s,  laser guided bombs like GBU-12´s and unguided MK82´s (500lb) / Mk84´s (2000lb) were used to kill tanks. By no means was the A-10 the biggest or only tank killer, every A/C loaded with proper munitions for CAS (later stage, beginning of ground campaign), or S&D missions was. Especially successful in these tasks were F-16 Killer Scout- as well as F-111 and F-15E "Tank Plinking" operations, along with the A-10´s deployment. This is an excerpt from an F-16´s pilots war journal: -31-91: Hit the Hammurabis with rockeyes- no emotional satisfaction from the ride. . . . pick whatever target looks least scorched. 2-16-91: The second sortie and . . . the 3rd sortie were hunt around and blow up whatever you happen to see. 2-18-91: It's tough finding a place to bomb that looks like it hasn't been hit yet. God help the Kuwaitis, that place is a ravaged wasteland. We describe where our targets are from blown up things and bomb marks and craters. Although B-52´s are not suited to conduct precision strikes on point targets, PSYOPS would use them in Desert Storm to carpet bomb iraqy formations and positions to lower morale and kill/damage on random. As the first allied ground troops crossed the Iraqi border, the elite Republican Guard heavy division Tawakalna was already down to ca. 50% in strenght, with other regular iraqy units already wiped completely out, surrendered, scattered, fled with just some pockets of resistance remaining.
  16. Satchel

    Best video card

    psst.. if you hadn´t post a reply, the ati-nvidia debate would be at least gone for a few days on the forum, now you started it all over again.
  17. Satchel

    Best video card

    psst.. if you hadn´t post a reply, the ati-nvidia debate would be at least gone for a few days on the forum, now you started it all over again.
  18. Satchel

    Has anyone

    I´m not through yet, although i got it nearly a week now. It´s an amazing game, there is lots of work put especially into the lightsaber fighting and AI. The sound as graphics are first class also.
  19. Satchel

    Best video card

    Depends on whether you want to get the most bang for the limited buck, or if money plays absolutely no important role when buying a new card. The fastest cards currently available to the broad market are Geforce 4 cards, with exception of the G4MX models, that are slower than Geforce 3´s. If money is unimportant, get a Geforce 4 TI 4600, than you can be sure of having a card that runs everything smooth as silk...with performance reserves. If you want the most bang for your buck, then a Geforce 3 TI 200 (you can overclock it to near TI500 niveau), or the Radeon 8500 from ATI whiuch comes in slightly more expensive than the G3 TI 200. BTW, the flaming wars ATI-NVIDIA will soon come to an end, because NVIDIA bought ATI , those sly buisness devils. First 3DFX now ATI.
  20. Satchel

    Best video card

    Depends on whether you want to get the most bang for the limited buck, or if money plays absolutely no important role when buying a new card. The fastest cards currently available to the broad market are Geforce 4 cards, with exception of the G4MX models, that are slower than Geforce 3´s. If money is unimportant, get a Geforce 4 TI 4600, than you can be sure of having a card that runs everything smooth as silk...with performance reserves. If you want the most bang for your buck, then a Geforce 3 TI 200 (you can overclock it to near TI500 niveau), or the Radeon 8500 from ATI whiuch comes in slightly more expensive than the G3 TI 200. BTW, the flaming wars ATI-NVIDIA will soon come to an end, because NVIDIA bought ATI , those sly buisness devils. First 3DFX now ATI.
  21. Satchel

    C-130 update

    I really hope they pull this one off, also the Little Bird sounds interesting.
  22. Satchel

    T-90.t94

    Hope there is no misunderstanding, i havn´t said that wasn´t a valid and successfull strategy, indeed it did shorten the whole conflict considerably, while exposing own ground  troops to as little enemy opposition as possible.  However, the essence of my post is that the gulf war can´t be taken to compare newest generation equipment to mostly "antique equipment pieces" used by Iraq, especially as the numbers and troop consistence didn´t match by the slightest amount, it couldn´t have been more unbalanced. Iraq was won through aerial bombardment, the so called "ground war" to mob up remainders, is vanishing and almost pathetic compared to that. It was an uneven fight either way, now arm yourself with a slingshot and we´ll meet outside, i get my rifle and 10 buddies in the meantime and lets see who will be able to see another day to post on this forum, j/k- know what i mean? .
  23. Satchel

    T-90.t94

    You can only compare based upon technical data, well unless you´ve operated both vehicles yourself...what hardly will be the case. Of course every forum member thinks his country has the best equipment and best trained personal, that´s normal and the usual exaggeration normally rises parallel to a posters national fanatism, but in the end it says very little. A third world war never happened, where western equipment would have fought against that of the eastern block, so everything comes down to speculation. All soviet era based equipment the NATO had fought against, were export models from the former Soviet union, means with stripped down features and mostly badly trained personal  operating them without any supportive troops. Without supportive troops all odds are against a unit, it´s a very delicate chain, if it´s interruptet the combat machinery can´t work at full efficiancy and you will find yourself struggling for survival and rather react to whats coming next, than to have the initiative to conduct large scale offensive maneuvers. Without air superioty and supportive troops the best tank or ground equipment is near worthless, a lesson learned from the 2nd WW. Without air superioty DDay would have never become possible, as  bombing raids of the 8th USAAF to destroy the german  industry would have never become possible.  In Iraq for example there were about a handful of Mig-29 fighters against 100´s of coalition Fighter A/C, none of the MIG-29´s were destroyed in aerial combat according to terms, they were either destroyed on the ground or while the iraqys were trying to transit them over the border to avoid their loss. What i´m saying is that NATO never fought against even odds or a formidable enemy on equal terms, so it´s a bit quick to draw final conclusions, there´s much overrating going on. It´s the same as i would be cladded with my Shrapnel protection Vest and kevlar helmet aiming the G36 at someone 100m away who is armed with a sling shot, doesn´t take much imagination what the outcome would be. Back to the gulf war (that is taken willingly for comparion purposes of equipment); it was a turkey shoot, nothing more nothing less. As hundreds of coaltion A/C passed the flight corridor on the first day, Iraq had virtually lost, it was only a matter of mopping up remaining iraqy troops that were dazzled and demotivated by the aerial attacks, if they survived them at all. What was left over by the aerial attacks stood against newest generation coaltition ground equipment, while the iraqy stuff was mostly older than i am. Without air superioty, or more precise without a single iraqy helicopter or A/C capable of supporting troops, cut of from communication, and in complete disadvantage in every regard the iraqys of course were eradicated, that isn´t surprising nor a huge achivement, nor something to meassure current western equipment on russian equipment.
  24. Satchel

    T-90.t94

    The basic T-90 is an improved version of the T-72BM, designated as Objekt 188 it is constructed at Vagonka KB. It is currently the only produced MBT for the russian army, which lacked a real standard in the past, as they were using T-64, T-72 and T-80 in many variants amongst older models. Having such a huge variaty of types in many variants that undergo constant development and modifications, was becoming a problem, as critical parts were often not compatible/ exchangable between 2 tanks of the same type. Also russian armored forces equipped with T-80U´s and T-80BV´s took horrible losses from shoulderfired light anti tank weapons in the first chechnya war. These points lend the russian army to declare the T-90 as "new" standard. The T-80U however is still produced, but only for export purposes. For the technical aspects: It was designed with knowledge gathered from the deployment of the T-72 in many different environments, all critical parts had been reworked after this assessment. The T-90 has greater firepower than it´s predecessors, the Firing system (1A45T) was in large parts adopted from the T-80U (1A45) with some improvements. The 1V528-1 fire control computer is a new integration and true improvement over the T-80. The gunner has a fully stabilized 1A43 optic with integrated laser range finder and AGAVE-2 Thermal optics. The TC´s cuppola is adopted directly from the T-80, it has a vertically stabilized TKN-4S Optic. The TC can search for and assign targets to the gunner and commence firing from his position  while overriding the gunner. Additonally he has a PZU-7 Optic for deploying the AA MG from within the tank. Main armament is the fully stabilized 125mm 2A46M-1 Smoothbore cannon with automatic loader. The loader has a capacity of 22 rounds, additional 19 rounds are stored in the fighting compartemnt, which is a problem however, as a direct hit in the fighting compartment most certainly guarantees a fatal loss of the vehicle and crew. Munition sorts available are APFSDS, HEAT and HE-FRAG. Also 9m119 Refleks (AT-11 Sniper)/ 9M119M (tandem warhead) can be used against armored or slow flying targets at ranges of up to 5000m while moving, the gunner just needs to keep the crosshair on target, the calculation and sending of signals is done by the 9K119 steering complex. The armament is completed by a 12,7mm NSVT AA MG and 7,62mm PKT coax. Powered by an 850 HP V-84MS multifuel engine, that is normally operated with diesel, the T-90 has 350HP less than the T-80 while weighting nearly the same. In addition the acceleration time of Diesel engines is naturally slower than that of turbines, resulting in less maneuverability in open terrain compared to the T-80.  The T-90 has better armor protection than it´s predecessors, it uses a reworked T-72B turret with additional armor components, that gives it more protection against both, APFSDS and HEAT. It is multilayered with inserts of plastics, kevlar, aluminium and titanium. Additionally it is equipped with Kontakt-5 (reactive armor), modules are located on the turret and hull front, as well as on the roof. The lower hull of the T-90 is identical to the T-72. In October 1999 firing tests were made to test the armor protection of the T-80U and T-90. Both tank types were fired upon with rocket propelled grenades, ATGM´s, HEAT, APFSDS and other munitions. Respectively 2 tanks of each type were tested, one fitted with Kontakt-5 and one without. Each munition type was fired 5 times on each of the tanks. The result was that the T-90 couldn´t be penetrated successfully by any of the munitions when fitted with Kontakt-5. Without Kontakt-5 penetration eventually was successful, but not often or always (3 RPG-26, 1 KORNET, 1 KE). The T-90 is equipped with the E/O countermeasure /IR jamming system Shtora-1, which is effective against modern ATGM´s, it functions by blending the missile threats IR guidance system, or blocking a laser lock with fog. "This system consists of two projectors, one on each side of the main gun, which continuously emit coded pulsed infrared jamming when an incoming ATGM has been detected, it also has a laser warning device." Newest variant in russian army use is the T-90M with reworked turret; instead of a round shaped it has a welded turret in the front section under Kontakt-5 ERA, a V-92S2 engine and ESSA thermal viewer. other versions: BREM-72 Armoured recovery vehicle BRM-3M Combat Engineer vehicle MTU-90 Bridgelayer T90K- Command version Export versions are: T-90E T-90S T90-SK.
  25. Satchel

    Do you want a herc?

    I would like a C-130 ingame; it´s big, yes, but also slow, has comparable takeoff-Landing distances to the A-10 and can deploy lots of troops or supplies, also in NOE flying.
Ă—