|
Farecoal posted:Not in the military, so I'm probably going to sound dumb, but I've always wondered what the protocol was for officers of the same rank. If there are two officers of the same rank in a combat situation, and they're the highest ranking ones in a unit, who takes command? Whoever has held that rank longer is technically senior. If that's the same I think it goes to whoever's been in longer.
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
Farecoal posted:Not in the military, so I'm probably going to sound dumb, but I've always wondered what the protocol was for officers of the same rank. If there are two officers of the same rank in a combat situation, and they're the highest ranking ones in a unit, who takes command? Time in Grade is technically the determining factor. In practice, it would be whoever is more capable/tells the other guy he is taking charge. Also, if one officer held a higher billet than the other, it would make him the guy in charge even if the other guy has been in grade or service longer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:Not in the military, so I'm probably going to sound dumb, but I've always wondered what the protocol was for officers of the same rank. If there are two officers of the same rank in a combat situation, and they're the highest ranking ones in a unit, who takes command? It goes to the one with the highest time in grade. The progression goes: TIG / TIS / DOB / Cock Size / Least Receding Hairline. (obv only the first 3) It also depends on the branch and the officers. If it's USAF, whoever is the rated officer is typically who's in charge regardless of TIG/TIS. And if one officer is medical/legal/chaplain then even if they're a 1 star general, a LtCol line officer would be the one in charge. Some units have a pretty clear continuity of operations plan in place that is position based instead of rank.. You'll see it go Commander, XO, -3, -2, -4, -5, -1 in a lot of places. This means that if after the captain and the XO are gone, the operations officer is in charge, then Intel, then logistics, supply, personnel.. etc. You're not going to run into this hypothetical problem above all that often anyway, chains of command are very well set in place before almost all combat situations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
Hekk posted:In practice, it SHould be whoever is more capable/tells the other guy he is taking charge. Here we go. I've seen this happen as well as where the book answer overrode all logic and common sense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
Okay, cool. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Whoever has held that rank longer is technically senior. If that's the same I think it goes to whoever's been in longer. I've told this here before, but we had E-5's who would pull rank on each other based on when they were pinned. A bunch were pinned on the same day, but they did them alphabetically, so they had literally 1-2 more minutes of TIG than the people whose last name was after theirs. It was incredible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 06:06
|
|
|
PLANES CURE TOWERS posted:I've told this here before, but we had E-5's who would pull rank on each other based on when they were pinned. A bunch were pinned on the same day, but they did them alphabetically, so they had literally 1-2 more minutes of TIG than the people whose last name was after theirs. It was incredible. yea except that isn't a thing your TIS/TIG/DOR etc is all effective on that day, not whatever time your retard commander and your wife punched you in the arm goddamn i hate airmen
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 06:10
|
|
|
Buddy of mine enlisted on the same day, halfway across the country. We're both E1s in OSUT. We both get pinned E2 the same week (different companies in Korea) but our date of rank was the same. I get promoted E3 early and we both PCS like a week later. Duder shows up a week later than I do to my unit in 3ACR. We both get pinned E4 the same effective month. When we were on torch party I bossed him around because I'm two months older 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 06:15
|
|
|
PLANES CURE TOWERS posted:I've told this here before, but we had E-5's who would pull rank on each other based on when they were pinned. A bunch were pinned on the same day, but they did them alphabetically, so they had literally 1-2 more minutes of TIG than the people whose last name was after theirs. It was incredible. Should have NJP'd all of them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 07:36
|
|
|
Are there any medical guys that post here that might have info on SSRI use in the military? I know USCG and other branch's regs probably differ, but I'd like to bounce something off someone, preferably over PM.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
did vas get told to take down that warning at the top 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
DEVILDOGOOORAH posted:did vas get told to take down that warning at the top We're all just puppets man
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
It wasn't appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 01:53
|
|
|
Vasudus posted:It wasn't appropriate. the word is "unprofessional" around here
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
Woah woah woah woah. Gentlemen, I was told today that it costs approximately half a million bucks to fuel up a tank. I don't think this can be right, but it came from a fairly reliable source. Is this true?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 02:50
|
|
|
not caring here posted:Woah woah woah woah. No, but they do take 500 gallons of fuel and get .6mpg, and in an 8 hour period of use will need to refuel. ninja edit: And starting one up eats around 10 gallons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 02:53
|
|
|
Probably figuring in the cost of some E1 92Fs salary in there and poo poo to make the whole thing sound catastrophic and military waste
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 02:53
|
|
|
Vasudus posted:No, but they do take 500 gallons of fuel and get .6mpg, and in an 8 hour period of use will need to refuel. Close. 550 gallons for the main fuel tanks, and 8 to spin up the turbines. And god help you if you start one up one that didn't wait for idle before turning off the engine- you'll have oil stuck on the fans which will burn and release a cloud of grey smoke that stinks to high hell. What does JP-8 cost per gallon these days?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
I just looked that up, as I figured the DoD would have it published as part of their budget. $3.73 per gallon is the most recent figure I can find. That is a far cry from a half million bucks to fill the front tanks and the rear. I'll put that down to PNN at the O5 level.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 03:13
|
|
|
I'm moving across the country doing a PPM (formerly DITY) and plugged all my poo poo into the site. Its telling me I'm going to get about a dollar a pound. I don't have a ton of stuff, and I'm not going to sham (buying like 4000 lbs in sand), whats the deal here? Do I get paid for mileage and gas, or has that changed?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 14:56
|
|
|
iceslice posted:I'm moving across the country doing a PPM (formerly DITY) and plugged all my poo poo into the site. Its telling me I'm going to get about a dollar a pound. I don't have a ton of stuff, and I'm not going to sham (buying like 4000 lbs in sand), whats the deal here? Do I get paid for mileage and gas, or has that changed? At the end of your move, you will settle everything up with the TMO (or whatever they are called in your branch) guys. The receipts for truck rentals, gas, packing materials, etc... don't actually change the rate you are paid at. That itself is a fixed rate based on distance between stations, the amount of weight you moved, and your paygrade. However, receipts will reduce your tax burden. The difference between what you are paid and the amount it costs you to move is taxed at a higher rate than normal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
Hey Platoon Goons, We're having a fine old time pretending to be WW2 era tank commanders over in World of Tanks inducing rage in terrible players. We have one in particular that has made all sorts of claims on the official game forum, one of them being that he was an Abrams gunner during the Clinton era. However, he refuses to disclose his previous unit and he has stated that gunners are trained to take out infantry by "aiming at their feet and working up." Any current or former tankers that can back this up? I can understand not wanting to tell dipshits on the internet what units you served in, but the gunnery thing sounds way off to us non-tank shooting civilian shitlords.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
I'm not a tanker, but it seems perfectly reasonable to aim at the ground rather than at a target that's 2-3 feet wide. edit: also the ground tends to stay in one spot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
If there's a group of infantry: ideally, and hilariously, load up a can round and unleash unholy hell. More realistically, however, you would use your 7.62mm coax, and aim dead center and pop of 10 - 20 rounds. When your coax is boresighted properly it's like a loving laser beam. And with the distance to target being taken into the firing solution, poo poo is pretty drat accurate. AND you've got some amazing optics that lets you zoom in like a mother fucker. AND no recoil to throw your aim off. Why you would potentially waste rounds firing low I have no idea. The only other possibility I can think of is that he is thinking of a loader, maybe? Your loader's 240 is not as accurate, and aimed by hand. You definitely want to aim low and walk the rounds onto the target; if you aim high you can't spot where your rounds land, and walking onto the target is pretty much impossible. Loader, however, is NOT the same as being a gunner. Not by a long shot. Most likely your "tanker" is full of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 22:51
|
|
|
Sorry, I forgot to include that he was talking about the coaxial, not the main cannon. Thanks not caring. He's 100% sure that he was a gunner, and not a loader.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 22:55
|
|
not caring here posted:If there's a group of infantry: ideally, and hilariously, load up a can round and unleash unholy hell.  http://imgur.com/9veBya0 First the first burst low across their front; fire the next burst across their front, tracking upwards from left to right or right to left; fire the last burst high across their front. vains fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Jan 30, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that's meant to be the suppression technique after the initial murder rounds, the ol' Z-pattern. And that's an old as gently caress technique, how long were you tanking?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 23:11
|
|
not caring here posted:I'm pretty sure that's meant to be the suppression technique after the initial murder rounds, the ol' Z-pattern. 2004-2011. Not a tanker pogue, LAV-25 crewman. Our sights aren't as good as yours and we'd probably just shoot HE anyways. edit: The coax would probably jam on its own links after one burst and then we'd shoot HE. vains fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Jan 30, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 23:14
|
|
|
not caring here posted:I'm pretty sure that's meant to be the suppression technique after the initial murder rounds, the ol' Z-pattern. We're Marines, all out techniques are old as gently caress dude, also I'm fairly sure he was LAR not a tanker, still they have a coax. e: nvm Veins answered.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
Veins McGee posted:2004-2011. Not a tanker pogue, LAV-25 crewman. Our sights aren't as good as yours and we'd probably just shoot HE anyways. Veins, what are the sights on an LAV like compared to an tank?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
you see, my tank isn't pog-ey because it has different letters
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
Heh heh, tonka tankers. But there you go, squidflakes, a bunch of knowledge from different perspectives with which to hit that bullshit artist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 23:23
|
|
genderstomper58 posted:you see, my tank isn't pog-ey because it has different letters You see, I'm not a pog because my occupational field is 03. LAR is gay so whatever. IDR posted:Veins, what are the sights on an LAV like compared to an tank? The primary sight now is a last generation Abrams or Bradley(I don't remember) thermal sight and a secondary optical daysight. The new thermals are really good. Until 2009, the primary sight was an optical daysight and lovely thermal night sights.  Syrian BTR at some border post circa 2008.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 23:27
|
|
|
Much obliged!
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
Veins McGee posted:You see, I'm not a pog because my occupational field is 03. LAR is gay so whatever. That's really loving cool, coming from an infantry guy anyway. It's just to bad our LAV's are made of loving paper compared to a Bradley but hey, at least it's not a Stryker hahaha.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
IDR posted:That's really loving cool, coming from an infantry guy anyway. It's just to bad our LAV's are made of loving paper compared to a Bradley but hey, at least it's not a Stryker hahaha. You could be an amtracker and roll around in floating bathtubs, in the desert.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 00:02
|
|
Hekk posted:You could be an amtracker and roll around in floating bathtubs, in the desert. YATYAS!
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
Veins McGee posted:You see, I'm not a pog because my occupational field is 03. LAR is gay so whatever. You'd think with 8 wheels you'd be better able to roll with your pog identity.  As a life long pog I know pog when I see it. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 03:42
|
|
|
Does anyone have suggestions for how to get the charcoal from MOPP gear off of boots? This poo poo is disgusting. My boots are no joke solid black.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
Mortabis posted:Does anyone have suggestions for how to get the charcoal from MOPP gear off of boots? This poo poo is disgusting. My boots are no joke solid black.  you actually trained in MOPP gear? I never even touched the stuff (beyond the mask) in over 4 years in the army.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 01:06
|
|
