pmaidhof

Courtesy of PeterG on the A_Willing_Foe group. "First 3 batteries in line 5 km FEBA, last 2 batteries 10 km FEBA, each battery is 15 km apart. Batteries are organized in line, shallow V, diamond or box with launchers 100-750 m apart depending on terrain. Diamond seems more common with 4 launchers and Straight Flush is in the middle of the launchers." Thanks Peter.

here. Don't know how long it will be here. Need DirectX and apparently Quicktime. Here is the museums site in case there is further interest.

Based on various sources and discussion on the HG chat this evening, the following data has been "agreed" upon as workable. max speed: 18kts range: <60nm size: Vsmall signature: quiet capacity: 8-10 pax 1 DP 25% max speed at Sea State 4+ Comments appreciated. Pete

Find it here. Harriers Complete Combat Runs in Afghanistan Marine Corps News | Capt. David E. Nevers | September 25, 2006 Aboard USS Iwo Jima - The 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit’s AV-8B Harriers flew the last of 136 combat missions over the skies of Afghanistan Sept. 21, ending a short but productive stint in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Using just four of its jump jets per day, the MEU’s Harrier detachment dropped a total of 17 precision-guided bombs over 13 days on behalf of NATO forces battling a resurgent Taliban in southern Afghanistan. With the MEU and the Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group positioned in the Arabian Sea, and with NATO forces in daily contact with insurgents, coalition commanders were happy to have the Harriers’ help. “Our Harriers were invaluable in filling the gaps of coalition air cover,” said Maj. Pete “Chumly” Lee, who led the first section of Harriers into Afghanistan on Sept. 9. “We would regularly show up when no other aircraft were on station and coalition forces were engaged with the Taliban, and we would deliver lethal fire on the enemy. Our presence on more than one occasion resulted in the destruction of the Taliban and their weapons.” By opting to openly challenge coalition forces determined to assert control in southern Afghanistan, the Taliban have frequently exposed themselves to waiting bombers and jets loitering above. The Harrier’s weaponry includes a 25 mm cannon and a mix of precision-guided, all-weather Joint Direct Attack Munitions and laser-guided bombs. Additionally, the Harrier is equipped with a targeting pod that provides considerable standoff range, allowing the pilot to spot and fire on the enemy while remaining undetected himself. While the Harriers operated mostly from the deck of the USS Iwo Jima, the MEU sped up their turn-around time between missions by inserting a small detachment of maintainers and bomb-loaders at a coalition-run airfield in Kandahar. The Harrier’s ability to take off from short runways and to land vertically allows it to operate both from its ship at sea and airfields ashore, greatly enhancing the aircraft’s responsiveness. “By using Kandahar Air Base, we nearly doubled our sorties,” said Lt. Col. Robert Barr, commander of Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 365 (Reinforced), the 24th MEU’s air combat element. “The versatility of the Harrier allowed us to rapidly refuel, rearm and get back in the fight. Our jets truly made a difference these last two weeks.” The 24th MEU is the landing force for the Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group. Based at Camp Lejeune, N.C., the MEU consists of its command element; Battalion Landing Team 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment; Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 365 (Reinforced); and MEU Service Support Group 24.

Find it here. MEU BLT Preps for Nighttime Boat Raids Marine Corps News | Lcpl. Bryan A. Peterson | September 25, 2006 Kin Blue, Okinawa, Japan - More than 100 Marines and sailors with the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit's battalion landing team rehearsed boat landing raids Sept. 11 at Kin Blue. The daytime rehearsals helped prepare the A Company Marines and sailors of 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, for a difficult nighttime operation at Camp Schwab later that day, according to 1st Sgt. Tracy Offutt, the company first sergeant. "We need to be able to sustain our capabilities in over-the-horizon small boat amphibious operations," Offutt said. "Practicing during the day will provide us the necessary time to work out any kinks we have before going out at night." When the operation received the go ahead, the Marines and sailors quickly embarked on their combat rubber reconnaissance crafts and motored 500 meters from the beach. After a quick roll call and gear check, the Zodiacs moved another 600 meters offshore and the troops prepared the assault. A team of scout swimmers rode in the Zodiacs back to the 500-meter mark where they splashed off the side and swam to shore to clear the beach. "Once the swimmers clear the area of any enemies or obstacles, (they) place a marker to indicate whether it is safe for the rest of the coxswains to approach or not," said Staff Sgt. Martin Buck, the chief coxswain for A Company. The Marines and sailors have been practicing boat raids since February, making it often appear second nature, Offutt said. With approximately half the company being new, the constant rehearsals have brought the Marines to a synchronized level where the new Marines can not be distinguished from the veterans, he said. Boat raids are one of the stealthier methods of insertion, said Cpl. Martin Lambaria, a coxswain for the company. "This is a great element of the BLT," he said. "It's another way to get the guys in the fight without the enemy knowing what's about to happen." The boat raid training was part of the 31st MEU's overall Marine Expeditionary Unit Exercise, which is designed to help the unit refine its tactics and perfect the rapid-response planning process. This MEU-specific planning process enables the unit to launch a crisis response within six hours of notification. According to unit leaders, this type of training also helps the MEU maintain its maritime capability to respond to any contingency in the Asia-Pacific region and in the Global War on Terrorism. Interesting fodder for H4 GCS scenario's

I have a very nice set soft cover booklets from the "Marine Corps Historical Foundation", or something like that, covering the various stages of the Korean War, two of which cover the landings at Inchon and the subsequent campaign to recapture Seoul. Also of note is a copy that covers "mobile fleet operations" which is also very interesting. If anyone is interested in a particular topic, let me know and I can scan the appropriate "chapter" for you.

Omitted from the above was that the AH-1W section, prior to adding its GCS rating was engaged by the Opfor battalion's anti-air battery which consisted of SA-7b's. Per the GCS rules and some previous commentary by Mr. Bond, one of the SA-7's was properly sited, prepared, and got a shot off which the wiskey's 2nd generation decoys fooled.

Began a test scenario of a "veteran" USMC BLT+ attacking a "competant" Iranian Revolutionary Guards Infantry Brigade on a map of the greater New Bern, NC area. See general map here. The game starts with Opfor with an infantry battalion in the vicinity of Cove City, SApring Hope, and New Bern itself. The artillery battalion is in the vicinity of Chip. The armored reconnaissance company is screening to the south centered on Pollacksville. The USMC forces are conducting an advance to contact with a BLT OBJ 1 being the airfield at New Bern and with the MEU OBJ A being Washington. First turn, an LAR Company with a 155mm battery in DS engaged an Opfor Armored Reconnaissance Company with its 122mm battalion in DS in the vicinity of Pollacksville. Within an hour of game time, LAR was reinforced with a mechanized infantry company and the Opfor Recon Company was forced to withdraw into New Bern proper. It suffered approximately 2% losses. During this time the majority of the remainder of the BLT moved up into the Croatan, Pollacksville and Phillips Crossroad. At that time, preparations were begun for a deliberate attack into the Cove City area to further isolate New Bern and threaten the enemy's rear areas - remember the artillery is in the vicinty of Chip. after 2.5 hours of "planning", two mechanized companies with arty and a section of AH-1W's in DS conduct a deliberate attack toward Cove City. 2.5 hours of combat results in the Opfor infantry battalion being forced to withdraw, which turns into a rout when the tank platoon reserve is committed. Opfor scurries of toward Chip after suffering 10% losses. US forces suffered 2.5% losses. At this point, the Opfor has to determine whether to reinforce Chip with the battalion vic Spring Hope to avoid the "road to Washington" in danger of being opened, reinforce or abandon New Bern. USMC ponders a heli-borne assault to capture the bridge leading from New Bern to Bridgeton. or press on toward the Greenville-Washington line. Being an operational game, I envision a push on toward Washington., as New Bern is doomed to fall eventually. MTF, Pete

One more big step further away from what was once a proud and progressive aeronautical industry here on long island. The former Fairchild and Republic properties are now either delapidated old shells of what was once hangers and factories, or multiplex movie theaters and eateries. The old Grumman plants have also been sliced up for consumerism and other development. Roosevelt, Curtis, and Mitchell Fields are all shopping malls and community colleges. Bah humbug - gone forever are the days of the "All-Grumman Air Wing" Carrier Air Wing 2 of USS Ranger during DS/DS which made space for two full A-6E Intruder Squadrons by carrying no F/A-18's.

Today at lunch, a reinforced, veteran, Light Armored Reconnaissance Company, with a battery of M198 155mm (T) artillery in direct support met an "Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps" inexperienced Infantry battalion in a meeting engagement, each conducting hasty attack orders in rolling foothill terrain. In 1.5 hours of game time, or 3 turns, the Iranian attack stalled on a disruption result, and suffered three more Attrition Points. The USMC units suffered one attrition point. I did not have the time to finalize the losses. It has something to do with the interaction of unit quality and attrition points equaling the % of GCS lost by that unit. All in all, it was entertaining while giving an abstract or low-fidelity view of the "battle". If you are looking for more decision making or eye candy, it is not for you. This system was designed to go with H4's naval and air battles so where a particular unit is specifically located or if he is hull down is not addressed. The player is the overall commander and must have faith that his subordinate commanders have "done the right thing." Fred: This may work well with your SEAL operation that you conducted a few weeks back.

Does the Kolchuga appear in HC or in the H4.1 data annexes? Interesting capabilities. seems western pressure put the kabash on a proposed sale from Ukraine to Iraq prior the ongoing situation there. Equally interesting is that the verbage on the globalsecurity site is that the Czech Republic has a copy, so I would assume that entrance to NATO may have had costs that likely exposed the Kolchuga to examination/testing to look for its true performance and ways to neutralize it.

Thanks Tony, for looking at the CRT and my feeble examples tonight on HG chat. You put me on the straight and narrow to finally derive some joy from the Ground Combat System and even the CIC Combat Plotter.

Find it here. Navy Christens Littoral Combat Ship Freedom The U.S. Navy will christen Freedom, the first littoral combat ship (LCS) at 10 a.m. CDT on Saturday, Sept. 23, during a ceremony at Marinette Marine Corp. in Marinette, Wis. The future USS Freedom acknowledges the enduring foundation of our nation and honors American communities from coast to coast which bear the name Freedom. States having towns named Freedom include California, Indiana, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Wyoming. The 378-foot Freedom will be the first U.S. Navy ship to carry this class designation. Birgit Smith will serve as ship’s sponsor. She is the widow of Army Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith, who was killed in action in Operation Iraqi Freedom and was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor. The ceremony will be highlighted by Smith breaking a bottle of champagne across the bow to formally christen the ship, which is a time-honored Navy tradition. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Mullen will deliver the principal address at the ceremony. A fast, agile, and high-technology surface combatant, Freedom will act as a platform for launch and recovery of manned and unmanned vehicles. Its modular design will support interchangeable mission packages, allowing the ship to be reconfigured for antisubmarine warfare, mine warfare, or surface warfare missions on an as-needed basis. The LCS will be able to swap out mission packages pierside in a matter of hours, adapting as the tactical situation demands. These ships will also feature advanced networking capability to share tactical information with other Navy aircraft, ships, submarines and joint units. Freedom is the first of two LCS seaframes being produced. Freedom is an innovative combatant designed to operate quickly in shallow water environments to counter challenging threats in coastal regions, specifically mines, submarines and fast surface craft. The LCS is capable of speeds in excess of 40 knots and can operate in water less than 20 feet deep. Freedom will be manned by one of two rotational crews, blue and gold, similar to the rotational crews assigned to Trident submarines. The crews will be augmented by one of three mission package crews during focused mission assignments. The blue crew commanding officer is Cmdr. Donald Gabrielson, who was born in northern Minnesota and graduated from the U.S. Navy Academy in 1989. The gold crew commanding officer is Cmdr. Michael Doran, who was born in Harrisonville, Mo., and graduated from Villanova University in 1989. Upon the ship’s commissioning in 2007, Freedom will be homeported at Naval Station San Diego, Calif. In May 2004, the Department of Defense awarded both Lockheed Martin Corp., Maritime Systems & Sensors in Moorestown, N.J., and General Dynamics - Bath Iron Works in Bath, Maine, separate contract options for final system design, with options for detail design and construction of up to two flight 0 LCS ships. In December 2004, the Navy awarded Lockheed Martin Corp. the contract for detail design and construction of the first LCS. Lockheed Martin’s teammates include Gibbs & Cox in Arlington, Va.; Marinette Marine Corp. in Marinette, Wis., where the ship is being built; and Bollinger Shipyards in Lockport, La. For more information on the LCS, visit the Web site at http://peoships.crane.navy.mil/lcs/ .

Here is an elementary question for resolving combat with the Ground Combat System - NOTE: I have never been accused of being a mathlete and last night "worse". Once the opposing forces ratings are calculated and modified, the instructions advise you to divide your rating by the opponent's and then the opponent's rating by yours to come up with simple odds. Each player rolls the D6 secretly and applies the result to himself. Last night I totaled up the the two forces found in HNR2003 and after doing the calculations the results were something to the effect of US 2.2 and Iranian 0.46. When I then take these figures to the Combat Results Table, I believe that I understand the logic, US rolls on the 2.2:1 row and the Iranian should on the 0.5:1. Following my logic, there appears to misplaced decimal points in the lower rows of the table. Labels like 05.0:1 but the results appear to be in line with 0.5:1. There is no South Atlantic War II (where the GCS Rules reside) errata on clashofarms.com website. Any help? Thanks

What does Haiti bring to the table? How about the Cuba-Venezuela-Iran axis. Moreso the possible transfer of technology.

Find it hereHere Hezbollah cracked the code Technology likely supplied by Iran allowed guerrillas to stop Israeli tank assaults BY MOHAMAD BAZZI Newsday Middle East Correspondent September 18, 2006 AITA SHAAB, Lebanon -- Hezbollah guerrillas were able to hack into Israeli radio communications during last month's battles in south Lebanon, an intelligence breakthrough that helped them thwart Israeli tank assaults, according to Hezbollah and Lebanese officials. Using technology most likely supplied by Iran, special Hezbollah teams monitored the constantly changing radio frequencies of Israeli troops on the ground. That gave guerrillas a picture of Israeli movements, casualty reports and supply routes. It also allowed Hezbollah anti-tank units to more effectively target advancing Israeli armor, according to the officials. "We were able to monitor Israeli communications, and we used this information to adjust our planning," said a Hezbollah commander involved in the battles, speaking on the condition of anonymity. The official refused to detail how Hezbollah was able to intercept and decipher Israeli transmissions. He acknowledged that guerrillas were not able to hack into Israeli communications around the clock. The Israeli military refused to comment on whether its radio communications were compromised, citing security concerns. But a former Israeli general, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Hezbollah's ability to secretly hack into military transmissions had "disastrous" consequences for the Israeli offensive. "Israel's military leaders clearly underestimated the enemy and this is just one example," he said. Dodging the efforts Like most modern militaries, Israeli forces use a practice known as "frequency-hopping" - rapidly switching among dozens of frequencies per second - to prevent radio messages from being jammed or intercepted. It also uses encryption devices to make it difficult for enemy forces to decipher transmissions even if they are intercepted. The Israelis mostly rely on a U.S.-designed communication system called the Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System. Hezbollah's ability to intercept and decode Israeli transmissions underscores how the Shia group had higher military capabilities than many Israeli and U.S. officials thought. Much of Hezbollah's capability is believed to have come from its two main backers, Iran and Syria. During 34 days of fighting, which ended Aug. 14 under a cease-fire brokered by the United Nations, Hezbollah repeatedly surprised Israel by deploying new types of missiles and battlefield tactics. "The Israelis did not realize that they were facing a guerrilla force with the capabilities of a regular army," said a senior Lebanese security official who asked not to be identified. "Hezbollah invested a lot of resources into eavesdropping and signals interception." Besides radio transmissions, the official said Hezbollah also monitored cell phone calls among Israeli troops. But cell phones are usually easier to intercept than military radio, and officials said Israeli forces were under strict orders not to divulge sensitive information over the phone. Hezbollah eavesdropping teams had trained Hebrew speakers who could quickly translate intercepted Israeli transmissions and relay the information to local commanders, the Hezbollah official said. Even before the war, the group had dozens of translators working in its southern Beirut offices to monitor Israeli media and phone intercepts. Mistakes happen With frequency-hopping and encryption, most radio communications become very difficult to hack. But troops in the battlefield sometimes make mistakes in following secure radio procedures and can give an enemy a way to break into the frequency-hopping patterns. That might have happened during some battles between Israel and Hezbollah, according to the Lebanese official. Hezbollah teams likely also had sophisticated reconnaissance devices that could intercept radio signals even while they were frequency-hopping. During one raid in southern Lebanon, Israeli special forces said they found a Hezbollah office equipped with jamming and eavesdropping devices. Israeli officials said the base also had detailed maps of northern Israel, lists of Israeli patrols along the border and cell phone numbers for Israeli commanders. That raid highlighted the ongoing spy war between Hezbollah and Israel. Since Israeli troops withdrew from southern Lebanon in May 2000 - after an 18-year occupation and guerrilla war with Hezbollah - the militia has stepped up its espionage efforts against Israel. According to Israeli military officials, a special Hezbollah unit recruits Israeli Arabs and others to spy for it. The agents are assigned to obtain maps, monitor Israeli patrols, gather cell phone numbers and photograph military facilities. This information is used to draw up detailed maps and files that could be used to direct Hezbollah's rocket and missile attacks. "After the Israeli withdrawal in 2000, each side competed to spy on the other," said Nizar Qader, a retired Lebanese army general who is now an independent military analyst. "This intelligence-gathering was essential to fighting a war ... Hezbollah appears to have collected better information than the Israelis." After Hezbollah abducted two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid on July 12, Israel launched its most intense attack since it invaded Lebanon in 1982. The offensive crippled the country's infrastructure, displaced 1 million people, cut off Lebanon from the world and killed more than 1,200 Lebanese - the majority of them civilians. Hezbollah fired nearly 4,000 rockets at Israel, killing 43 civilians. Of the 119 Israeli soldiers killed, the majority were killed by anti-tank missiles. Hezbollah's ability to hack into Israeli communications made its arsenal of anti-tank missiles even more deadly by improving the targeting. Throughout the ground war, Hezbollah deployed well-trained anti-tank teams to transport these missiles and fire them in ways that would inflict heavy casualties on Israeli forces. The units were made up of four to six fighters who moved around mostly on foot. The militia used four kinds of sophisticated missiles that enabled it to disable - and, in some cases, destroy - Israel's most powerful armor: Merkava tanks. The Merkava is reinforced with several tons of armor, a virtual fortress on tracks intended to ensure its crew's survival on the battlefield. All the missiles used by Hezbollah are relatively easy to transport and can be fired by a single guerrilla or a two-person team. They all rely on armor-piercing warheads. The most prevalent of Hezbollah's anti-tank weapons is the Russian made RPG-29, a powerful variation on a standard rocket-propelled grenade. The RPG-29 has a range of 500 yards. Using all their capabilities Hezbollah also used three other potent anti-tank missiles, according to Israeli and Lebanese officials: the Russian-made Metis, which has a range of 1 mile and can carry high-explosive warheads; the Russian-built Kornet, which has a range of 3 miles and thermal sights for tracking the heat signatures of tanks, and the European-built MILAN (a French acronym for Anti-Tank Light Infantry Missile), which has a range of 1.2 miles, a guidance system and the ability to be fired at night. Israeli officials say the Kornet and RPG-29 were provided to Hezbollah by Syria, which bought them from Russia in the late 1990s. Russian officials are investigating whether Syria violated an agreement that these weapons would not be transferred to a third party. Analysts say Hezbollah used all its capabilities - eavesdropping, anti-tank missiles and guerrilla fighting skills - to maximum effect. "The information collected by signals intercepts was being used to help direct fighters on the battlefield," Qader said. "These are tactics of a modern army." Sonia Verma contributed to this story from Jerusalem. Key events July 12. Hezbollah kidnaps two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid. July 13. Israel begins bombing the runways at Beirut's airport and imposes a naval blockade of Lebanon. Hezbollah rocket attacks strike the northern Israeli city of Haifa. July 18. The United States, others step up evacuations of their citizens from Lebanon. July 22. Israeli ground troops enter Lebanon. Aug. 6. Hezbollah rocket attacks kill 12 Israeli soldiers and 3 others in deadliest day for Israel in nearly 4 weeks of war. Aug. 12. The UN Security Council approves a resolution calling for a "full cessation of hostilities." Aug. 14. Cease-fire takes effect. Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.

The overhead view is exactly what I was looking for. I have already been to the armyrecognition site, but the "the-blueprints" looks like it will be very helpful. Thanks a lot Jan. Pete

I'm looking for overhead vector or line art images of the LAV-25, LAV-AT, LAV-M, AAVP-7, and HUMMWV that can be used for a not for sale wargame project. Any leads that will not cost hundreds of dollars? Thanks

Thanks guys. I truely appreciate the kind words. He was a great pet and friend.

Ok, it appears that the Iranians have rejected any limitations on their nuclear program. The US UN Rep already intends to take a sanctions resolution to the Security Counsel to which Russia and China are said to already oppose. Given Tehran's recent apparent desire for asymetrical confrontation, what courses of action do we see for both Iran and its allies, both active allies and implied supporters? How about the West. Will the EU support any thing beyond sanctions? Will the US and Israel chose a kinetic option? Does NATO have any oxymoranic role here? Will any of the Middle Eastern/SouthWest Asian players have desire to curb Iranian nuclear ambition? If not, will they stay on the fence or throw their weight over to the "anti-West" players? Just some food for thought...

Bodene Aloysius Maidhof July 1991 - August 2006 3/4 Black Labrador Veteran of 2 tours with USMC (1991-1992, 2002) Born to a rural horse farmer, affectionately known in my household as the "Potato-Head Lady", in Folkstone NC. Small enough to be held in one hand. Despite his behavior at times, the proud recepient of a "Dog Obedience Certificate" In his younger years, renowned for his tenacious defense in one on one on "one-dog" basketball. Died peacefully this morning, August 28, 2006. A true friend who will be sorely missed. Rest easy Bo, I salute you.

Sure does Jan, thank you. In fact my neighbor has a Decca radar "dish" ontop of his boat. I've been meaning to ask him about it's performance and others he may be familiar with as he is a NYC Police Officer in the maritime unit. Pete

Test shot of Thorpe Bridge area.

D: I don't recall losing any assets either, sort of bloodless.

Battle Along the Tziepov Major John F. Schmitt, USMCR – Marine Corps Gazette – April 1999. Adapted for TacOps v4. Original Scenario: here. My version of the map will be posted here. If you cannot read it due to size limitations and would like to see the map graphic shoot me an email. Notes: USMC Tanks – M60A1; Host Nation Tanks – Leopard 1A5; Host Nation APC – M113; USMC Arty – Arty Bn 10 ICM/27 HE/3 Smoke; USMC Air 10% chance. Opfor Tanks – T-72BMS+ATGM AT-11; Opfor APC – BTR-70; Opfor SAM – SA-7B; Unaided visibility 3500m, thermal 4,000. Arty and vehicular smoke defeats thermals General Plans: Blue – per the actual scenario, Alpha LAR movement to contact to Thorpe Bridge. 1st Tank Bn reserve east of Pageton, 2nd Mech Bn movement to contact to vic Fouse Bridge. 3rd Motorized Bn establish battle position vic Leon Ridge, 4th Host Nation Bn establish defensive position Pageton, 5th Host Nation Bn establish Defensive position Gunnington. General Plans: Red – 1st BMP Bn seize Fouse Bridge, 2nd BMP Bn + exploit across Tziepov at Fouse Bridge, seize Gunnington, 3rd BTR Bn occupy Lafferty Heights. Advance Guard seize Thorpe Bridge, 4th BMP Bn sieze Leon Ridge. Turns 1-5: Contact vicinity Thorpe Bridge along Route 9 – Alpha Co LAR lost all four of it’s AT variants and 5 LAV-25’s in exchange for 4x BMP-2. LAR Company CO to Bde HQ: Spot Report – Blue 0704 Tank T72BM/S + ATGM, x3, Red, UTM:650313, *Moving south Tank T72BM/S + ATGM, x3, Red, UTM:650314, *Moving south APC BMP2 IFV, x2, Red, UTM:649312, *Moving south Inf Squad, x1, Red, UTM:649312 Inf Squad, x2, Red, UTM:649312 Establishing a hasty defensive position blocking enemy movement south along Route 9. Requests immediate suppression mission GC650323. US Bde HQ redirects 3rd Motorized Bn route of advance to go west of the wooded area vic GC 625268; Two Sections of 1st Tank Bn AT Company to overwatch positions north of Pageton. Opfor: Advance Guard made contact with enemy reconnaissance forces, multiple enemy casualties. AG continuing with its mission. 1st BMP Bn just north of Fouse, no contact. 2nd BMP continues. 3rd BTR Bn continues. 4th BMP Bncrossing Clarkson Bridge. Turns 6-10: Opfor Advance Guard approaches Thorpe Bridge, AT Sections of 1st Tanks get into position and engage Opfor just north of the Thorpe Bridge. Appears Opfor first attempt at Thorpe Bridge has been repulsed at significant cost. A total of one platoon, plus all four LAV-AT’s and one section of 1st Tank Bn’s AT Company. Opfor has crossed Fouse Bridge , about 400m south along Route 7 they make visual contact with US forces and launch a salvo of ATGM’s. Turns 11-15 Blue HQ directs 1st Tank Bn to establish a defensive position oriented NW in vic GC 616265. 2nd Mech Bn establish a defensive position vic 800m N of Gunnington. Cancel 3rd Motorized Bn’s orders, revert to reserve vic north of Route 30 between Pageton and Gunnington. Massacre of elements of 3rd Motorized which was caught in the open by BMP’s who unleashed a barrage of AT-5i Spandrels into the rear of 5 Ton Truck loaded with infantry. That BMP Company was finally savaged by an ICM stike but not after putting quite a hurt on a Mechanized company attempting to flank that unit. Turns 16-20 Opfor MLRS strike north of Gunnington as more Opfor forces pour into the Fouse Bridgehead. Blue Bde HQ decides to restrict M-60A1 from firing at ranges over 2km after countless rounds wasted in company volley fire. More skirmishing takes place in the vicinity of Thorpe Bridge as two previously unidentified mechanized rifle companies appear north of Thorpe. Turns 21-25 An Opfor Support By Fire (SBF) position unveils itself vic GC 610292 and establishes an ATGM cross fire just about ending the valiant resistance in the Thorpe Bridge area. An apparent breakout of the Fouse Bridgehead appears to have begun. The remnants of 2nd Mechanized Bn is putting up what resistance it can. 1st Tank Bn is in ambush positions. And should be able to provide effective enfilade fire. 2nd Bn Javelins engage as forces breaking out of Fouse enter their effective range. The Javelins of the devastated 3rd Bn enter into the breakout fray. Turns 26-30 Opfor is stalled in vic of Thorpe Bridge. Brutal ATGM duels are taking place in the area surrounding the Fouse Bridgehead breakout. 1st Tank Bn, after suffering the equivalent of one company lost, pulls back to regroup, suffering even further during the breaking of contact. Three companies (two tank and one mech) of 5th Host Nation Bn launch a spoiling attack out of Gunnington. Turn 31-35 Two immobilized M-60’s of 1st Tank Bn remain covering the rest of its battalion and disrupting the enemy advance as most of the US ATGM units have either exhausted their supplies or have been eliminated. Remnants of Alpha LAR engages a mech rifle company with M203’s south of Thorpe. Intense battle between the 5th Host Nation Battalion’s attack and a mechanized rifle company, and now the Opfor joins in with a previously unidentified force in the area of Lafferty Heights, north of the river. An Opfor airstrike devastes the mech company of the 5th Host Nation Bn. 5th Battalion has to go over to a hasty defense. Looks as both US and Opfor have reach relative culminating points. US 39% losses ver 41% Opfor. I’ll need to re-set, devalue some of the ATGM death rays from Javelins, AT-5i and AT-11 to Dragons, AT-3, and no-ATGM armed Tanks. Will post replay if there is any interest. Pete