|
Hmmm. Does look a touch off, still pretty obviously not Chinese.
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
Doing the forces test today, let's see how it goes. I guess they caught Cpl Bloggins.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
Hahaha, really? Well, it isn't like he was hiding it very carefully.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Doing the forces test today, let's see how it goes. Where are you hearing what's happening?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Definitely a sign of "peace-time military" when we start having multiple O groups across the country about a mean spirited meme picture poster.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Mantle posted:Where are you hearing what's happening? Well once the facebook page got shut down, guys at 2 Horse said they heard from a guy at 1 RCHA that someone in Shilo got caught. Bloggins mostly posted about the Pats and Strats too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Well once the facebook page got shut down, guys at 2 Horse said they heard from a guy at 1 RCHA that someone in Shilo got caught. Bloggins mostly posted about the Pats and Strats too. Well theres no armour in Shilo, so it must be Edmonton or a fresh posting to Shilo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
6 new posts and for some reason I thought they'd be about the new PER policies
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
What new PER policies? The new fitness test is pretty cool. The casualty drag was really easy though, I don't think 240lbs really represents what someone would weigh with all their kit on. e: phone posting. 240lb. Still, should be closer to 300 IMO. Frosted Flake fucked around with this message at 05:51 on Feb 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Well once the facebook page got shut down, guys at 2 Horse said they heard from a guy at 1 RCHA that someone in Shilo got caught. Bloggins mostly posted about the Pats and Strats too. Sounds credible. Frosted Flake posted:The new fitness test is pretty cool. The casualty drag was really easy though, I don't think 140lbs really represents what someone would weight with all their kit on. Its dragging 4 20kg bags, and holding 1 20kg bag. 5x20kg = 100kg aka 220lbs, which is about what your average soldier would weigh with kit on. You're pretty cool, Frosted Flake.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:What new PER policies? I'm way out of the loop, but the upshot is Cpls can opt out of getting PERs, Cpls (or is that every new promotion?) won't get them for the first two years in rank and I believe Cpls not promotable won't get one either (high ready or immediate - hazy on this might be covered in the opt out). The narratives go to point form, too and only for AFs at ES and up. I'm open to being corrected because like I said...the sense I get is that it will make PER season a hell of a lot more manageable. It used to be like nonstop writing/rewriting from October to March 31 or later on every goddamn Cpl in the section even if they were developing year after year after year. Could write some drat nice narratives on some definitely average performers though. The only way to fail the force test is to have a heart attack in the middle of it, and even that is like 50/50.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
The current PER system (from a Navy perspective) is a massive waste of man-hours for an end result that is neither accurate nor fair. Haven't got the low-down on the changes yet myself but I'm all for anything at all at least attempts to fix a portion of what's wrong. I've heard of people running out of time on the new shuttle run part of the Force test, usually by loving up and having to redo a bit. Edit: Oh and I guess the government just revoked our entire procurement budget today or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
The performance narrative is now point form with only ES and M points that need to have justification (or whatever the equivalent low end dot is). You also don't need to use the word picture book anymore as the adjective is considered to be included in the point score (so if he's an M for leading change you no longer need to put "member masterfully sat on his rear end all year" you can just say "member sat on his rear end all year" and be done with it) Technically you only needed to justify the ES and M scores under the old system as well but there was so much pressure to fill the entire narrative block that you ended up writing some verbose crap for every average performer out there. Under the new system if they've only got one AF above ES then the narrative will only have one line. The potential section is also point form but a narrative is only required for immediate or no promotion recommendations. Ready and developing PERs are still scored but the narrative can be left blank. Huge time saver. No change to the additional review. Slt/lt no longer get PERs, only PDRs. Any person in any rank can "opt out" of PERs (they get PDRs from then on) if they are happy at their current rank and don't ever want to be promoted again. There are a large number of caveats and small print, but in general it cannot be forced on anyone, is still up to the needs of the service and is reversible if you change your mind down the road however the lost time is not recoverable. It has no effect on postings but may harm your ability to get certain courses or high speed jobs. We are stuck with the current CFPAS software until 2015/16.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
I was pretty lucky that in my reserve career, my one and only PER was written when I was overseas and I had an awesome officer who I worked with in a two person office, so he knew me and my work really well. Then I had a really good OpsO and CO who both signed off of it. I got to leave on a high note. But yeah, gently caress that whole system. I was the only person he had to write a PER for, and it still took him forever. And I had to listen to the other officers in the TOC bitch about writing their PER's for the last two months of our tour.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
Posted in the Pictures/Videos Thread, 1RCHA Having a bit of fun. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150597303587117 What happens to a target when you shoot 105HE, and 155HE at it. Directly. I really hope they're not still teaching gunners on 105s to even try shooting at hostile tanks in direct fire. That's more of a "run" situation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:Posted in the Pictures/Videos Thread, 1RCHA Having a bit of fun. They did 5 years ago. And I'd say they do now too. Because if you cant run, you'd best put up a fight. Also those are just he rounds. Not HEAT rounds so theres a bit of a difference. I'm sure if theres a risk of running into tanks they wouldn't send you up without at least a couple HEAT rounds
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
Nope sorry HEAT from a 155 and especially not a 105 howitzer isn't gonna do poo poo against the armor of a modern MBT. Against a LAV or BMP sure but then you're getting a chaingun chewing you to pieces as you try and lay in. A bad situation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:Nope sorry HEAT from a 155 and especially not a 105 howitzer isn't gonna do poo poo against the armor of a modern MBT. Against a LAV or BMP sure but then you're getting a chaingun chewing you to pieces as you try and lay in. Nope sorry, most of the damage from HEAT rounds is the from the concussive blast which amplifies inside of the completely sealed off tank. Which does a ton of damage to the really soft crew inside of it. HEAT works just as well on modern armour as it does on light armour. Now you're obviously not gonna try to take on a tank or LAV with one if you can run. But if you're stuck right there with no ride out, you're gonna do anything you can to destroy/disable that tank. I'd rather die trying than surrender.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Depends who we're fighting, honestly. Who are we likely to enter a conflict with who have tanks? Ze Germans?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
I'm not saying that any tank crewmen aren't going to have ringing ears (or maybe spitting up blood) but you're not gonna knock out a tank with HE from a howitzer. They don't have the muzzle velocity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:I'm not saying that any tank crewmen aren't going to have ringing ears (or maybe spitting up blood) but you're not gonna knock out a tank with HE from a howitzer. They don't have the muzzle velocity. Not head on, but if they're facing any other direction it's mobility kill city. Combine that with incapacitating the crew and my god... I think you just knocked out a tank!! Also you have a carl g in your gun truck.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
Carl G ain't gonna do poo poo against a modern MBT. Its biggest use is a nom de guerre for knocking up white trash in Wainwright
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
Ultimate Shrek Fan posted:Not head on, but if they're facing any other direction it's mobility kill city. Combine that with incapacitating the crew and my god... I think you just knocked out a tank!! Yeah an 84mm isn't gonna do poo poo against modern armor. Against something like a T-54, sure. Same with the HE round. It's not designed to do anything against armor, it's designed for fragmentation. Yes it'll make a nice concussion effect but modern tanks are designed to absorb a lot of that stuff. Hit on the side, there's skirts covering the road wheels usually, you'll damage that. And before you even have a loving moment to consider reloading you've got a bunch of tank rounds down your throat. This whole argument is moot because in any situation truck-mounted field artillery is a very 20th century weapon and is completely outdated and irrelevant on the modern battlefield, SAVE for giving fire-support against people with absolutely ZERO counter-battery ability. Your first salvo is gonna get tracked by counter-battery radar and your entire battery is going to be utterly wiped out by MLRS with sub-munitions. That's why the Germans, the Swedes and such have shoot-and-scoot rapid-fire systems. Pop off 5 rounds and bugger right off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
Good thing we got rid of all those M109s.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:Same with the HE round. It's not designed to do anything against armor, it's designed for fragmentation. See I was talking about HEAT rounds, which is why I said HEAT rounds. Bunch of times. Not HE. No fuckin poo poo HE isn't going to do anything against a tank, except give the crew a headache and maybe a burst ear drums. The carl g is still very much an effective weapon with a HEAT round as well. Sure some of the equipment we have is pretty outdated and ineffective but a shaped warhead is still very much effective against tanks. Of course you wont get a tank in the first shot from anything, but we're not talking about a reservist gunline where they can only afford to take one gun to the field. We're talking a real live 4 gun battery. 4 guns firing HEAT rounds and four carl gustavs also firing HEAT rounds. But if it's a real war with an emeny that has tanks, it probably wont be just one battery. It'll probably regimental. You grossly underestimate the capabilities of modern artillery. But I guess thats because the reserves can't afford to update their training manuals that they got with the c-1s. I mean jesus christ, no army would buy anti tank rounds that dont penetrate armour. Use your goddamn head. If you think the science dicks in Ottawa haven't gotten their hands on the exact specifications of all the major player's armour and tested the rounds on them then I think it's time you hand in your VR, because there are enough morons in the military as it stands. Ultimate Shrek Fan fucked around with this message at 14:33 on Feb 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
 First off, relax. Second off, I'm out of the military now. The Carl Gustav's 84mm HEDP or HEAT isn't going to do a loving single thing against a MODERN TANK, unless you hit it right in the engine compartment basically. It's a 60 year old design, and simply isn't effective against anything with layered or reactive armor. Against 60's era stuff, T-54s and the sort, sure. It'll work just fine. And it's a fine weapon for bunker busting or light vehicles. Let's go back to your particular scenario. You have a battery of 5 or 6 guns (And as a reservist, we never trained without an entire battery). Suddenly, oh poo poo! It's a tank! Hopefully, it's in something pretty close to your direction of fire so you can lay in. If this tanks is; 1) 1960's vintage (A T-54 or Patton); or 2) A APC (BMP, LAV, Bradley, M113) I will fully admit that HEAT, or even plain HE if you're desperate will gently caress that up, even with direct hits to the front glacis plate. If this tank is; Anything made with reactive or Chobham armor (T-80, Leo, Challenger, T-90, Abrams) You are hosed. Plain, simple, hosed. HEAT from a 105 Howitzer is not going to do anything against the front plate. You might get a mobility kill, take optics off, knock a tread off, but it'll still sit there and pop away at your guns until the whole battery is dead. HEAT is ineffective against MODERN MBTs, the armor is designed to dissapate the effects of the shaped penetrator, which is why for dedicated AT purposes you use Discarding Sabot rounds, which are for tank use. This is also a situation where you have a single tank. Tanks don't work alone, they work in troops. So you're gonna have multiple tanks, capable of firing MUCH faster than your guns can track and reload, designed for extreme accuracy. There's very, very few situations where a truck-mounted field battery survives against tanks. Hell, it's been one of the big problems since the advent of artillery; what happens when there's a breakthru? It used to be cavalry was the big threat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Artillery 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
acumen posted:Artillery Ubique. We're special.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:
I never once said it'd be a good idea to sit and play cowboys and indians with a bunch of tanks. I said if you're in a pinch and can't get away. HEAT rounds will do enough damage to disable a tank or two and buy you time. Yes you're hosed. But you're not entirely hosed if you have HEAT rounds because you will knock out a few of them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Canuck-Errant posted:Depends who we're fighting, honestly. Who are we likely to enter a conflict with who have tanks? Ze Germans? A friend of mine was in Bosnia during the 90's. There he is, sitting at a checkpoint when he hears this rumbling and out of the forest comes roaring a German leopard with the big iron cross painted on it. It was the first time German tanks had been deployed outside of Germany since WW2, you see. The turret swivels towards him and just for a moment he thinks, "Oh god, it's happening again. They're back." We joked that, at some point during the drive from Berlin to Sarajevo, the tank came across a crossroad with the sign pointing one way towards Paris and the other towards Sarajevo. inside the tank, the commander breaks out in cold sweat thinking today is der tag when all will be as it should be, as it was meant to be... Serious talk: If all I have is a Carl G and a modern MBT is coming at me. Yeah, I'm taking off my helmet and throwing my hands up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Barrakketh posted:Serious talk: If all I have is a Carl G and a modern MBT is coming at me. Yeah, I'm taking off my helmet and throwing my hands up. Not me I'd rather die fighting than go to a prison camp. But confinement and I don't get along well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Ah who are we kidding we'd be dead right away from massively hilarious displays of firepower. "Aww lookit at those cute little 105s." *cue MLRS battery, oh it's raining submunitions across a grid square yaaay*
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:Ah who are we kidding we'd be dead right away from massively hilarious displays of firepower. All gun batteries must now have a minimum of two phalanx guns* *will be available in 2045
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
I'm still waiting for my battery to get those automatic grenade launchers and TAPVs we were promised.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:I'm still waiting for my battery to get those automatic grenade launchers and TAPVs we were promised. Thats awesome, 1 Horse was "set to receive them" about two weeks after my seperation date. Just over 2 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
With over a billion in defense cuts I'll be surprised if anything gets delivered. What's starting to get real old that needs replacing in Reg Force? I remember my reserves unit having those awful browning hi powers from WW2 that were essentially single shot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:With over a billion in defense cuts I'll be surprised if anything gets delivered. When I left the 1RCHA, they still had them. But we had new mags and they never jammed up on us and were fairly accurate. All in all I really liked the hi-power.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:What's starting to get real old that needs replacing in Reg Force? Pretty much the entire vehicle fleet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Pretty much the entire vehicle fleet. In the LSVW's defence. It needed replacement even when it was brand new.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
Jesus Christ when are we getting the severance payouts. Some people have had them since like April. Everybody I asked from Gagetown still hasn't received theirs. I'm pretty sure they just burned all our forms so the Gagetown tainted lovely paperwork infects the rest of the countries.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 05:53
|
|
