Originally posted by Eddie
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
T2K Themed Picture Thread
Collapse
X
-
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes
Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
-
Originally posted by pmulcahy11b View PostYou're mistaking an FSV and a FISTV.
The FSV provides enhanced surveillance, target acquisition, target identification, target designation, and communications supporting the SBCT with first round fire-for-effect capability. It integrates the current M707 Striker Mission Equipment Package. The FSV provides the Fire Support Teams (FIST) with the capability to automate command and control functions, to perform fire support planning, directing, controlling and cross-functional area coordination, and execution.
Comment
-
I think we have a generational difference in terminology here. I apologize; in my day, an FSV tackled the hot spots for you, took out light armored vehicles, and if they were lucky, a tank or two. A FISTV (FIRe Support Team Vehicle) carried a team that spotted for the artillery, strike aircraft, and shipborne guns, designated targets, and the vehicle carried special equipment to do so. Just a mixup in terminology caused by changing times.I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes
Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Comment
-
Originally posted by pmulcahy11b View PostI think we have a generational difference in terminology here.
But we're talking about Stryker vehicles in a Stryker Brigade, of which I spent the last three years of my life until I left it in December and went to a school fo six months where I learned the operational, definitional and doctrinal differences between Fire Support and Support by Fire (which is what you're arguing for).Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
Comment
-
Terminology! It's a bitch getting old. Now where did I put those percussion caps and that powder horn...I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes
Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Comment
-
I went to save that gorgeous image of the LAV-75 with the bug gun and unmanned turret and discovered that I already had it. How could I have forgotten such a thing It's like forgetting that I found $100 in my jacket pocket.
I'm less concerned with what the current name of such as thing is as what it does on the battlefield. A favorite author of mine once pointed out that anyone can call a light truck with an ATGM a tank destroyer, but whether it fits the general specifications of the terminology is another matter. I imagine the Ridgway as combining anti-armor fire and direct fires in support of troops. Is "gun system" a catch-all for these functions
Webstral“We’re not innovating. We’re selectively imitating.” June Bernstein, Acting President of the University of Arizona in Tucson, November 15, 1998.
Comment
-
Which General Buford is the M8 AGS named after My guess is John Buford Jr, a Union cavalry officer during the Civil War who found himself in command of infantry units more often than cavalry units.
I personally think they should have kept the name Ridgeway for the M8, after Matthew Ridgeway. He commanded the 82nd Airborne for much of World War II, later commanded the XVIII Airborne Corps, and was largely responsible for holding the fort until MacArthur's Hail Mary pass at Inchon during the Korean War. He was also a strong proponent of Airborne armor.I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes
Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Comment
-
That's why we chose to call the upgunned LAV-75 the Ridgway.Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG:
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048
https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module
Comment
-
I support of the original intent of the thread, I too appreciate that the young has had the foresight to bring kneepads.
Webstral“We’re not innovating. We’re selectively imitating.” June Bernstein, Acting President of the University of Arizona in Tucson, November 15, 1998.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Webstral View PostI'm less concerned with what the current name of such as thing is as what it does on the battlefield. A favorite author of mine once pointed out that anyone can call a light truck with an ATGM a tank destroyer, but whether it fits the general specifications of the terminology is another matter. I imagine the Ridgway as combining anti-armor fire and direct fires in support of troops. Is "gun system" a catch-all for these functions
On a side note: none of these vehicles were intended to perform anti-tank functions, despite a capability to do so.
Naming a vehicle is a lot more detailed than most people think. Normally when people describe what a particular vehicle should do they rattle off a couple of capabilities as you did above with anti-armor and direct fire. I did, and still do on occasion, the same thing. then follow that up with something like "sounds like an assault gun/MBT/light tank."
To use the AGS as an example, there were 96 characteristics that the vehicle had to satisfy. The name had to be reflective of all those nuances. Technically, the AGS program began in 1976 with the objective of developing a replacement for the Sheridan. The characteristics changed in both number and style a number of times, and with it came a name change. Ultimately, the name AGS was selected as holistically representative of those characteristics. The CCV-L was chosen as the closest physical manifestation of those 96, but only became the AGS after development changed the vehicle to fit all 96.Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Comment
-
I don't know this for certain but, based on the image quality, the cleanliness of the gear, uni types, and the dudes' faces, I think that the "Soviet" soldiers in the snow shots posted by HorseSoldier are reenactors.Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG:
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048
https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module
Comment
-
The detail shot of the naval infantry guys in the snow may be reenactors or air softers, or may be PR shots of guys on exercise -- I have a tendency to save random cool pictures and and much less developed tendency to note where I found them on line.
If they are reenactors or airsofters, though, they spent some money on that kit (unless somebody in Hongkong is doing knockoffs of Soviet/Russian body armor).
Comment
-
LAV-75A1
Originally posted by Raellus View PostJames1978 posted this image in the LAV-75, M8 AGS, Stingray thread. I think it makes for a pretty convincing LAV-75A1 Ridgway prototype.
LINK: Expeditionary Tank Pictures and Background
Comment
Comment