.com.unity Forums

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)
-   TO&Es (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=108)
-   -   MBT's (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=45260)

Suhiir April 7th, 2021 05:33 PM

Re: MBT's
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Karagin (Post 849977)
One thing both sides need to work on is being able to talk to each other over the networks, the biggest issue I dealt with was the fact that no one could effectively communicate clearly since it was like two groups speaking two different languages. Made for some interesting times.

Not just different languages but comm gear that can't talk to each other. This has been a serious on-going issue when US service branches need to talk to each other. Due to the close cooperation the USMC has with it's own air assets and the US Navy we can all communicate with each other (A USMC platoon commander, and often squad leader, can talk to aircraft, artillery, and ships). The US Army frequently can't talk to the US Air Farce except via their USAF air controller and his one, one, radio.

Karagin April 8th, 2021 12:28 AM

Re: MBT's
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Suhiir (Post 849979)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Karagin (Post 849977)
One thing both sides need to work on is being able to talk to each other over the networks, the biggest issue I dealt with was the fact that no one could effectively communicate clearly since it was like two groups speaking two different languages. Made for some interesting times.

Not just different languages but comm gear that can't talk to each other. This has been a serious on-going issue when US service branches need to talk to each other. Due to the close cooperation the USMC has with it's own air assets and the US Navy we can all communicate with each other (A USMC platoon commander, and often squad leader, can talk to aircraft, artillery, and ships). The US Army frequently can't talk to the US Air Farce except via their USAF air controller and his one, one, radio.

Email always seemed to work, till certain folks started reading more into those. However, you are right, for all the wonderment we do need to fix that issue of communication, the networks SHOULD be able to merge and talk at all levels.

Imp April 8th, 2021 10:17 PM

Re: MBT's
 
Pretty much what I thought. Send email how several armies have shown the capability to track mobile phones now & send artillery that way very rapidly.

FASTBOAT TOUGH April 9th, 2021 12:42 AM

Re: MBT's
 
You need only to go back a 3-4 years or more and ask how that worked out for the Ukrainians. It didn't, as Russian COMINT and SIGINT systems compromised a cell phone app that was developed by a Ukrainian Artillery Officer. It ended up on You Tube and that's all the Russians needed. There were many bad days for Ukrainian artillery being counter-batterie in a couple of instances before even firing a shot, before they figured out they were hacked.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russian...p-compromised/
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...s-phones.shtml
https://www.voanews.com/europe/sinis...nt-ukraine-war
https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/ar...n-cyber-io-and
https://www.ausa.org/articles/russia...tronic-warfare


Here's some tank news to go with the thread from Australia concerning their ABRAMS...
https://armynews.partica.online/army...ing-our-armour

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Imp April 9th, 2021 11:48 AM

Re: MBT's
 
Sorry for straying off topic & hijacking your post Pat as ever though you come through.

FASTBOAT TOUGH April 9th, 2021 12:13 PM

Re: MBT's
 
John,
No need sir!?!

But the Ukraine situation provided both a current combat situation as well within time. Just felt the need to wrap it up with pertinent data in regards to the posts.

You have a great weekend!! As always, I value your thoughts and insights.

Lunch/Shower and Work!

Everyone have a wonderful weekend!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG April 9th, 2021 12:40 PM

Re: MBT's
 
Yes, there is a serious downside to everyone using the same system and codes if the other side knows what they are.

Karagin April 9th, 2021 02:07 PM

Re: MBT's
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DRG (Post 850015)
Yes, there is a serious downside to everyone using the same system and codes if the other side knows what they are.

Agreed, but different branches of an armed force SHOULD (yes, there's that word, very bad word) be able to talk to each other on all levels of Command and Control, but more importantly at the tactical level that all deal with.

High tech doesn't mean much when you can't get your point across and wonder why your supply depot is fighting off two companies of enemy infantry and your sector is quiet.

Karagin April 9th, 2021 06:39 PM

Re: MBT's
 
Seems that Brits are keeping their armor:

https://www.tankroar.com/2020/10/16/british-army/

FASTBOAT TOUGH April 10th, 2021 02:09 AM

Re: MBT's
 
Yes but at a cost. The UK currently operates 227 CHALLENGER 2 tanks. All were planned to have been upgraded to the CHALLENGER 3 now that the Defense Review has been completed only 150 will be upgraded. Local papers are suggesting the remaining 77 are to be scrapped, which I believe would both a tactical and longer term a strategic error to do so.

I've already detailed a CHALLENGER 3 model. This tank will mark a significant change in the MG from previous decades by mounting a 120mmSB L/55 (This might change.).
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/brit...-148-from-227/
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-...le-tank-fleet/


WARRIOR CSP is dead. Current WARRIOR will be around until games end which should coincide with RL replacement by the BOXER which is on track for IOC AGAIN IOC in 2025 under an accelerated program.

This will now cause a game issue, I looked further into one our WARRIORs 2-3 years ago and found it never got past the prototype stage. I didn't bring it up due to the WARRIOR CSP getting "kicked around" at the time. I'll be putting it up for deletion in next years patch based on this new information.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/warr...ng-in-service/
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-l...tion-of-boxer/


The tendency of industry with a weapons procurement program that's facing review at "the highest level", is to slow investment and development (i.e. the WARRIOR CSP costs already incurred from above ref. of 430 Million Pounds. Which now is a loss.).

My point is, CHALLENGER 3 and AJAX will be affected by delays further due to COVID, this Defense Review (And it's decision to delay the release of the findings by almost 4-5 months.) and the ongoing technical issues with AJAX, as well documented in the threads.

What we need to do is watch and track these programs and not get ahead of ourselves.

I stand by what I said of some of these programs years ago, that it's likely some just won't see the "light of day" or better Full Operational Capability FOC..

HELD THIS UNTIL NOW...
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...-72500-by-2025

I'm on the 5 yard line, I need some sleep to come up with a plan :ghug: to get across the goal line later today to score a TGIF completion. :doh: ;) :p :cool: :shock: NO CHEERLEADERS HOWEVER... :party:

Have a great weekend everyone!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:42 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2022, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.