PDA

View Full Version : Raging Tiger MTO&E



CPangracs
17 Feb 04, 09:24
Below is a link to a general Modified Table of Organization & Equipment for the base Task Forces in ProSIM Company's upcoming release "Raging Tiger: The Second Korean War". This is NOT the last word in the unit-types included in Raging Tiger, but will give you an idea of the new units included in the game and how forces may be organized on the battlefield.

Raging Tiger MTO&E (http://www.pangracs.com/RagingTiger/Raging%20Tiger%20TOE%20CHART_files/frame.htm)

This MTO&E is 6.5 years in the future, so please realize that much of this is "best guess" with a bit of "artistic and aesthetic license" thrown in! :D
Enjoy!

Curt Pangracs
Raging Tiger Lead
ProSIM Company (http://www.prosimco.com/)

kbluck
17 Feb 04, 12:29
I'm not terribly optimistic that the Grizzly or even the Wolverine will be fielded in 6.5 years. It keeps getting cut from the budget, despite the predicable Congressional preference for pork-barrel procurement projects over training and maintenance. Really clever of the engineers to trash the CEV before they had a replacement in hand, wasn't it? In the meantime, we soldier on with MiCLiC, metal detectors, and little sharp pointy wooden sticks. Welcome to the 21st Century!

--- Kevin

CPangracs
17 Feb 04, 15:10
I'm not terribly optimistic that the Grizzly or even the Wolverine will be fielded in 6.5 years. It keeps getting cut from the budget, despite the predicable Congressional preference for pork-barrel procurement projects over training and maintenance. Really clever of the engineers to trash the CEV before they had a replacement in hand, wasn't it? In the meantime, we soldier on with MiCLiC, metal detectors, and little sharp pointy wooden sticks. Welcome to the 21st Century!

--- Kevin
Actually, they are both in limited production right now, and there is also a major push for the Panther remote-controlled mine-clearing vehicle based on the M1 chassis. This, by the way, is in response to the prevalence of IED's in Iraq and the estimation that this type of attack will continue, if not proliferate, as the war on terror continues.

kbluck
17 Feb 04, 16:45
Actually, they are both in limited production right now, and there is also a major push for the Panther remote-controlled mine-clearing vehicle based on the M1 chassis. This, by the way, is in response to the prevalence of IED's in Iraq and the estimation that this type of attack will continue, if not proliferate, as the war on terror continues.

We've heard all this many times before. Grizzly has been in "limited production" since FY2000. It has been "projected for acquisition and fielding next fiscal year" since 1998. And yet no engineer battalions that I am aware of have actually received any to replace their discarded CEVs. Exactly one has received Wolverine, to my knowledge. Ironically enough, funding for both systems has repeatedly been suspended to free up cash for the big push to field the SBCTs.

Admittedly I'm now a bit out of the loop on engineer affairs. Perhaps there really is a new sense of urgency now that troops are dying regularly in Iraq. But I still won't really believe it until I see battalions getting issued full complements of 12 at a time. If you know of any fully-equipped units, I'd be very interested to hear of it.

Frankly, I don't see how Grizzly would really be all that useful in Iraq anyway. Its a breacher, not a detector. Using it to destroy a roadside bomb would be the proverbial sledgehammer swatting the fly. You need a bomb robot, not a converted tank. And what about the demo gun? That would be *very* useful in urban combat. They should bring that back.

I still think the engineers should train a corps of mine-sniffing dogs. Police bomb squads seem to think they work better than any "techno-solution" available thus far.

--- Kevin

CPangracs
18 Feb 04, 07:47
We've heard all this many times before. Grizzly has been in "limited production" since FY2000. It has been "projected for acquisition and fielding next fiscal year" since 1998. And yet no engineer battalions that I am aware of have actually received any to replace their discarded CEVs. Exactly one has received Wolverine, to my knowledge. Ironically enough, funding for both systems has repeatedly been suspended to free up cash for the big push to field the SBCTs.

Admittedly I'm now a bit out of the loop on engineer affairs. Perhaps there really is a new sense of urgency now that troops are dying regularly in Iraq. But I still won't really believe it until I see battalions getting issued full complements of 12 at a time. If you know of any fully-equipped units, I'd be very interested to hear of it.

Frankly, I don't see how Grizzly would really be all that useful in Iraq anyway. Its a breacher, not a detector. Using it to destroy a roadside bomb would be the proverbial sledgehammer swatting the fly. You need a bomb robot, not a converted tank. And what about the demo gun? That would be *very* useful in urban combat. They should bring that back.

I still think the engineers should train a corps of mine-sniffing dogs. Police bomb squads seem to think they work better than any "techno-solution" available thus far.

--- KevinActually, running a Grizzly down the shoulders of the patrol roads would, indeed, find any IED's where they are used, and the AGL is fairly effective as a self-protection weapon, plus the crew carries the LAW, which is an effective bunkerbuster. The Plow added to the M1 and other vehicles creates a CEV in the manner you are talking about, but that is all off-topic.

I'm sorry you are so disillusioned. I tend to have a little more faith, however misplaced, in the Army. I understand about the bloated bureaucracy and such, but I also know that there ARE people in the hierarchy who demand the best for the troops, and I am using this faith in the creation of the MTOE.

Let me ask you this:

If you had the task of breaching the widest and most dangerous obstacle belt, and you had even one or two advanced breaching vehicles at your disposal, would you use them, or ensure the slaughter of your dismounted breaching teams?!

It's simple. If a player of Raging Tiger was forced to breach the DMZ with only what is in the general inventory right now, it probably would NEVER happen, or at least be a slaughterhouse.

kbluck
18 Feb 04, 13:54
Actually, running a Grizzly down the shoulders of the patrol roads would, indeed, find any IED's where they are used

... and would tear hell out of the roadbed, allowing the next rain to infiltrate and undermine, and probably requiring the entire road to rebuilt before long. Destroying their highway system wouldn't do much to improve the Iraqi's opinion of us. Panther/M1 tank with a roller set, yes. Grizzly with its plow, no.



the crew carries the LAW, which is an effective bunkerbuster. The Plow added to the M1 and other vehicles creates a CEV in the manner you are talking about

Are you seriously comparing a 4 lb. AT-4 rocket with a 60+ pound 165mm demo round? AT-4 can't be used to blow apart roadblocks and abatis. Nor to cave in craters and ditches. Nor to knock really big holes in buildings and walls. Neither can 105/120mm tank guns, for the most part. They're designed to punch really narrow holes in other heavy vehicles. The M1 plow won't push debris well. Nor is there an A-frame to lift aside big chunks of whatever. No, losing the CEV was a major reduction in US engineering capability no matter how you slice it.




It's simple. If a player of Raging Tiger was forced to breach the DMZ with only what is in the general inventory right now, it probably would NEVER happen, or at least be a slaughterhouse.

*NOW* who's the pessimist?

;)

I don't share your opinion on how Grizzly would singlehandedly turn a "slaughterhouse" into a successful operation. Grizzly is optimized for the breach, yes, but at its heart its just a tank with an plow. I don't see what one Grizzly can do in a minefield that two M1 plow tanks can't. And let's not forget the US military's considerable capability for vertical and horizontal bypass of obstacles, not to mention interdiction of a breach zone with massive firepower to give less-than-ideal breaching assets enough cover to get the job done. Grizzly will make the operation somewhat easier, but it won't make the impossible possible. It's not that revolutionary.

If the Grizzly full-width plow is so awesome, and they just can't seem to get the Grizzly itself into the field due to budget constraints, and they're so concerned about troop welfare, why don't they retrofit the plow to existing M1 chassis already in inventory? That's pretty much what the Marines did. Bird in the hand and all that. For that matter, if concern for the troops is paramount, there are at least a few battle-tested off-the-shelf systems that are ready for purchase today, at reasonable prices, to hold us over. Israelis, British, Germans, heck, even the Russians have had something very similar to Grizzly (less the fancy drive-by-wire electronics) in the IMR for about 20 years now. Why are we so slow to the show?

I'm mainly just editorializing here. Why am I "disillusioned"? I was a combat engineer officer. When I came in, we were all talking about the cool new gear that was going to be here Real Soon Now. When I left, Real Soon Now still hadn't come. It still hasn't, years later, and we arguably have less than when we started. We're still breaching minefields with World War II technology. Yes! Even MiCLiC! Rocket-deployed line charges were used for breaching in Normandy. As were plows, rollers, bangalores, hand-placed charges, metal detectors, and guys with pointy sticks. And other stuff we've since discarded, like flails and dogs.

Where is the remote minefield sensing? Where are the robotics? Where are the assault systems? Where are the customized carrier vehicles? We've made some small strides in the last 10 years or so, fielded a handful of specialty systems here and there, but made even larger strides backwards as older equipment ages out of service without being replaced. Bottom line, our engineering capability remains pathetic compared to the huge, nay, revolutionary improvements in battlefield sensing and precision munitions, for example.

I think that, despite increasing defense budgets, engineers are going to remain at the end of the handout line. They are also historically among the first to lose what budget they have if defense spending is cut back, as seems fairly likely if Bush loses in November (and the current gravy train can't continue forever even if he wins.) I'll frankly be amazed if Grizzly is fielded to more than a couple of battalions within the timeframe of your game, and I doubt any of them will be in Korea; what precious few we have will likely be sent off to the "hot" theatres like Iraq or whatever new fiasco we're involved in by then. Being 40+ tons, they'll have to be redeployed by ship. Does your scenario allow that kind of time for deployment?

Don't get me wrong. Grizzly or no, Raging Tiger will be a very interesting game, and reasonable men can disagree about such fine details without impugning the concept as a whole. I just think the US capability ought to be portrayed as it is, warts and all. Breaching capability (or lack thereof) is a major wart for the US. Unless you postulate a sudden wholesale policy change and a "crash" aquisition of some substantial fraction of the procurement objective, I can't see how Grizzly (or something similar) is going to be anything other than scarce to non-existent on the battlefield until well after 2010.

--- Kevin

CPangracs
18 Feb 04, 15:35
... and would tear hell out of the roadbed, allowing the next rain to infiltrate and undermine, and probably requiring the entire road to rebuilt before long. Destroying their highway system wouldn't do much to improve the Iraqi's opinion of us. Panther/M1 tank with a roller set, yes. Grizzly with its plow, no.I disagree. First, the roads in Iraq are already crappy, and having a tracked vehicle lighter than the M1's that have already run through those streets won't harm them any more. Also, I said they would use them on the SHOULDER, where it is soft, and an IED could/would be buried. For devices on the surface, I say shoot the crap out of anything bigger than a loaf of bread on the side of the road!:devil:





Are you seriously comparing a 4 lb. AT-4 rocket with a 60+ pound 165mm demo round? AT-4 can't be used to blow apart roadblocks and abatis. Nor to cave in craters and ditches. Nor to knock really big holes in buildings and walls. Neither can 105/120mm tank guns, for the most part. They're designed to punch really narrow holes in other heavy vehicles. The M1 plow won't push debris well. Nor is there an A-frame to lift aside big chunks of whatever. No, losing the CEV was a major reduction in US engineering capability no matter how you slice it.
Of course I'm not comparing, only contrasting. The CEV was a pig, and parts for it are now out of the US inventory,...though I belive the ROK would have some base chassis parts! This is where the Grizzly would come in very handy, as it has a backhoe that CAN remove debris. Granted, the ability to destroy a bunker is limited, but there are other manpac rocket systems that could be used, and yes, a number of 120mm HEAT rounds could reduce a bunker to rubble. We could argue this all day.



*NOW* who's the pessimist?

;)

I don't share your opinion on how Grizzly would singlehandedly turn a "slaughterhouse" into a successful operation. Grizzly is optimized for the breach, yes, but at its heart its just a tank with an plow. I don't see what one Grizzly can do in a minefield that two M1 plow tanks can't. And let's not forget the US military's considerable capability for vertical and horizontal bypass of obstacles, not to mention interdiction of a breach zone with massive firepower to give less-than-ideal breaching assets enough cover to get the job done. Grizzly will make the operation somewhat easier, but it won't make the impossible possible. It's not that revolutionary.Yes, massive firepower in support of the breaching operation is the way I have practiced it over the last 14 years or so. A grizzly in the breaching operation can free those M1's to do what they do best, provide firepower for the breach. As for vertical and other means, I think you are mistaken in the way the US Army, for the foreseeable future, will move mech forces onto the battlefield from their staging areas. Bypassing the DMZ is an option, but only in the realm of a marine incursion, which is represented in Raging Tiger. There are a multitude of problems with this, too many to engage in here.



If the Grizzly full-width plow is so awesome, and they just can't seem to get the Grizzly itself into the field due to budget constraints, and they're so concerned about troop welfare, why don't they retrofit the plow to existing M1 chassis already in inventory? That's pretty much what the Marines did. Bird in the hand and all that. For that matter, if concern for the troops is paramount, there are at least a few battle-tested off-the-shelf systems that are ready for purchase today, at reasonable prices, to hold us over. Israelis, British, Germans, heck, even the Russians have had something very similar to Grizzly (less the fancy drive-by-wire electronics) in the IMR for about 20 years now. Why are we so slow to the show? Ahh, the $64,000 question! You didn't hear it from me:hush: , but there is an ugly trend in the Armed Services towards rivaly and professional jealousy!:surprise:

This is why the Air Force now has BLUE FRIGGIN TIGER-STRIPE CAMO UNIFORMS.

It's absolutely scary, and reinforces my decision to retire.;)



I'm mainly just editorializing here. Why am I "disillusioned"? I was a combat engineer officer. When I came in, we were all talking about the cool new gear that was going to be here Real Soon Now. When I left, Real Soon Now still hadn't come. It still hasn't, years later, and we arguably have less than when we started. We're still breaching minefields with World War II technology. Yes! Even MiCLiC! Rocket-deployed line charges were used for breaching in Normandy. As were plows, rollers, bangalores, hand-placed charges, metal detectors, and guys with pointy sticks. And other stuff we've since discarded, like flails and dogs.

Where is the remote minefield sensing? Where are the robotics? Where are the assault systems? Where are the customized carrier vehicles? We've made some small strides in the last 10 years or so, fielded a handful of specialty systems here and there, but made even larger strides backwards as older equipment ages out of service without being replaced. Bottom line, our engineering capability remains pathetic compared to the huge, nay, revolutionary improvements in battlefield sensing and precision munitions, for example.Well, like you said, why mess with something that works? The one trend I DO see is away from the traditional combat engineer doing his thing, and those basic missions being carried-out by the 11B and the plow/roller equipped armored vehicles.

Also, the ability to fire anti-mine munitions in the ATF engine is currently non-existent, but I assure you that a good burst of 155 on top of a mine field will almost assuredly create a rather large breach. Maybe I'll see if that can be coded in?:D



I think that, despite increasing defense budgets, engineers are going to remain at the end of the handout line. They are also historically among the first to lose what budget they have if defense spending is cut back, as seems fairly likely if Bush loses in November (and the current gravy train can't continue forever even if he wins.) I'll frankly be amazed if Grizzly is fielded to more than a couple of battalions within the timeframe of your game, and I doubt any of them will be in Korea; what precious few we have will likely be sent off to the "hot" theatres like Iraq or whatever new fiasco we're involved in by then. Being 40+ tons, they'll have to be redeployed by ship. Does your scenario allow that kind of time for deployment?Actually, the medical side of the house is right there with you, as they have been promised upgraded equipment, but are still running around the battlefield in M113's and M577's, instead of the M2-based AMEV and other pieces of equipment. I don't think there is any one CS/CSS area that gets picked-on more than any others.

The scenario in Raging Tiger is, indeed, a "build-up" to war, and will be well defined in items on the CD.



Don't get me wrong. Grizzly or no, Raging Tiger will be a very interesting game, and reasonable men can disagree about such fine details without impugning the concept as a whole. I just think the US capability ought to be portrayed as it is, warts and all. Breaching capability (or lack thereof) is a major wart for the US. Unless you postulate a sudden wholesale policy change and a "crash" aquisition of some substantial fraction of the procurement objective, I can't see how Grizzly (or something similar) is going to be anything other than scarce to non-existent on the battlefield until well after 2010.

--- KevinWell, fortunately for Raging Tiger, everything doesn't hinge on the Grizzly, or the Wolverine, or even the Tazmanian Devil!:nuts: I think that, if other assets are used correctly, the scenarios will be challenging without being so hard that you would have to alter the unit attributes to finish them. There are plenty of "warts" to go around!

Thanks for your expert input, Kevin. I will keep things in mind as I polish the database and finalize scenarios.

kbluck
18 Feb 04, 20:55
I disagree. First, the roads in Iraq are already crappy, and having a tracked vehicle lighter than the M1's that have already run through those streets won't harm them any more. Also, I said they would use them on the SHOULDER, where it is soft, and an IED could/would be buried.

I'm trying to visualize this as a useful technique, and failing.

Plows work by running tines under the surface. The soil is lifted, shoved to either side, and deposited as spoil. The idea is to lift the mine from the bottom to avoid activating the fuze, and push it out of the way. In fact, the Grizzly and other plows are specifically designed *not* to detonate the mine if possible, since too many detonations will destroy the plow. Most mines are in fact not detonated unless they have anti-handling or tilt-rod devices installed.

Presumably, any IED would be buried as close to the road as possible, to maximize destructive effects, and probably pull or pressure-fuzed. Therefore, the plow would most likely actually end up shoving the IED *onto* the road, undetonated. So, for all your effort you'd end up with a big long pile of dirt in the travelled way, which has to be pushed back off the road, and which might or might not contain unexploded ordnance. I don't see the situation having improved by this exercise.

The alternative is to run the centerline of the plow along the pavement edge, in which case you'd be digging up the pavement on one side.

And, don't forget, plowing speed is around 5 mph or less.

If CENTCOM thought that running plows along the highway shoulders would solve their IED problems, they certainly don't lack tanks and plow kits to make it happen. They don't, because it is neither practical nor particularly effective. We'd be much better off for this purpose having something like the Russian DIM vehicle-mounted detector system. Another option is a full-width roller kit, which would probably detonate most IEDs and minimize damage to the surface.

That's why I think Grizzly, spiff as it may be, wouldn't be very useful in low-intensity conflicts like Iraq.

--- Kevin