Prev: Re: Limits of technology Next: Re: Limits of technology

Re: Limits of technology

From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@y...>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 10:11:41 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Limits of technology


--- Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:

> Wow! It looks like Op-For gets to have even more fun
> than I thought. 
> They're a bunch of bloody creative bastards aren't
> they?

As I understand it, Blufor isn't allowed to send their
barrage jammers to hell like they would in real life. 
Barrage jammers by their very nature have an
electronic signature that's downright silly.  Our EW
guys pick it up, pass the targeting data to people
like Don, and BOOM goes the jammer.  That's why the
Russkies massed hundreds in East Germany--they
expected to loose a lot.  Who today has that many
jammers?

Oh, and their "accurate, long range fires"??  There's
no counterbattery either, and no USAF playing. 
Between Counterbattery and the USAF, no one shoots
arty at the US and lives to brag about it.  Ask those
handful of ballsy Iraqi gunners.

Or you could if any of them hadn't been killed by MLRS
fire and A-10s.

The other problem is that the density of recon assets
at NTC is artificially low.  No one would get away
with most of those tricks if there were eyes on the
ground.  See: Afghanistan, where a handful of forward
observers could direct the Air Club for Men right onto
real targets.

NTC is an artificial game where the rules are heavily
slanted in OPFOR's favor.  The reason is that if
things were played 'real world' style, OPFOR wouldn't
stand a hope in hell.  SAM traps??  Since the '60s the
Air Force has put a lot of effort into SEAD, and they
ain't half bad at it.  Not as good as artillery is
(exposed rockets like on most WarPac SAM launchers
don't react well to fragments of red-hot metal), but
not bad either.  All OPFOR weapons have exaggerated
ranges, hit percentages, and ability to kill what they
hit.  All US equipment is underrated in all three
categories.  I mean really, does anyone REALISTICALLY
think that a T-72 can kill an M-1A1 frontally at 3km? 
Or that the M-1A1's max effective range vs. T-72
frontally is 2000m?  I know some guys would beg to
differ based on the Greatest Ever Desert Firepower
Demonstration.	Or the performance of the AT-5??? 
This is the OPFOR longrange (4-5km) killer, yet In
Real Life, the M-1 series is more or less immune to
ATGMs except across the rear or coming from the top.

John

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

Prev: Re: Limits of technology Next: Re: Limits of technology