captiva303
Active member
It is a direct copy of the liberty defence system from the "Resistance" series of games on PS 3. Didn't work then can't imagine it working now.
Perimeter defences plan for a military base for the GWOT
Peter Dow
Active member
Ah, war game computer simulation. I am cool with that.
I will investigate TacOps demo-version later.
Have you heard what we computer scientists say about computer programs? We say "GIGO - garbage in, garbage out" - meaning if the input data is wrong then the results which the program calculates will be wrong too, even if the program works fine.
So if you feed in data which doesn't correspond correctly to my plan, misses something out, then the program won't give the correct results.
For instance, for these two scenarios -
you just assumed that the Toyotas could drive between the gun towers. They can't. There's a vehicle barrier field which is impassible for ground traffic unless a path is cleared through the obstacles and minefields first.
So your TacOps simulation did not model the effect of the "Vehicle barriers - obstacles, anti-tank mines" field which would blow your Toyota pickups into pieces if they drove onto the minefield.
The minefield starts somewhere near the effective range of the gun tower autocannons something like 2.5 kilometres or 1.5 miles from the gun towers.
I presume you forgot about the minefields, shown as a blue ring in my diagram? Take a closer look.
If the enemy Toyota pickups stop before the minefield then they are still 7.5 miles or 12 kilometres from the Central Base and that's well out of range of a 60 mm mortar - the M242's range is only 3490 metres and an 82mm mortar - the 82-PM-41 has a range of only 3,040 metres and with the long range mortar shell still only 4020 metres.
Even if the Toyota pickups are carrying 120 mm heavy mortars, with a range of 6200 - 7200 metres or 107 mm rocket launchers with a range of 8500 metres they are still well short of the Central Base.
The enemy would need mortars or rockets with a longer range than that to hit the Central Base from outside the Vehicle barrier minefields.
Now if the enemy were to try to fire a command-line-of-sight MANPADS such as a Blowpipe missile at a gun tower and if the enemy didn't get shot by the autocannon first and if the missile didn't misfire and if the enemy had a skilled operator that could hit the gun turret from a range of over 3000 metres, with the missile's shaped-charge warhead and even with cage armour on the gun turrets, that I think could do some damage to the turret and possibly enough to suppress the tower. It's a long, risky, difficult, expensive shot but I suppose an enemy suicidal terrorist group like the Taliban might think it worth a try?
The 82mm mortars and your light machine guns if they have time, which I doubt but assuming they do have time, they can certainly start firing on the towers from positions outside the Vehicle barrier minefields.
Mortars and LMGs both have a maximum range in excess of 2500 metres so the gun towers would be in range. The problem the enemy would have is accuracy and hitting the target to effect in the short time available.
The mortar team would need some time to set up and find the range and adjust any error in targeting with successive rounds to be able to hit the target and the light machine guns could probably hit the gun tower OK but would find it difficult to hit the gun turret at that extreme range and even if the occasional LMG round hit the gun turret it would just be stopped or deflected harmlessly by the turret armour, impressing nobody.
LMGs, however many of them, 30, 40, 50, whatever, firing at the gun turrets are just going to be targeted by the autocannons and taken out one by one. It's just target practice for the tower gunners.
If the enemy mortar teams got very lucky, if the towers were not paying attention and didn't sound the alarm until they started receiving incoming and one of the early mortar rounds struck the gun turret although it would not destroy the gun turret with its additional armour or kill the gunners, just shake the gunners up a bit, possibly suppress them, it might take them out of that fight and disable that tower.
But even before the mortar teams are finding their range, the reaction forces are going to be responding.
The Toyotas should be seen by the gun towers at the time they drive onto the Threat Zone and the autocannon will open fire if a vehicle gets within about 3000 metres with devastating effect against an unarmoured vehicle and the alarm will go out for a reaction force to scramble and attend.
I would point out that a convoy of 30 Toyota pick-up trucks heading towards the base even while in the Trust Zone could alert suspicion and trigger a base scramble, putting an Apache in the air. It is likely that the roads in the Trust Zone near the base will have a base camera on them 24/7 looking for signs of enemy activity.
When a base Apache attack helicopter arrives overhead the attackers will be quickly taken out.
The attack ends there. The most the enemy can achieve with that attack is a shaken up gun tower team and a bit of superficial damage on the gun turret armour. More likely there would be no damage done at all.
The enemy would lose all its men in that attack and the defenders would lose none. My defence plan succeeds this time.
Nice try rattler.
The lesson of the Maginot line for Afghanistan is don't expect the Afghanistan / Pakistan border defences to be effective - the Taliban will go around them. The other lesson is expect strongly defended bases to be very difficult for an enemy to take.
So the lesson of the Maginot Line supports my strategy 100%.
Oooh! That sounds & looks interesting! I have just downloaded and installed the program. Thanks rattler! :bravo:
I will investigate TacOps demo-version later.
I don't think so. You forgot the Vehicle barriers with minefields which will blow vehicles up.
Have you heard what we computer scientists say about computer programs? We say "GIGO - garbage in, garbage out" - meaning if the input data is wrong then the results which the program calculates will be wrong too, even if the program works fine.
So if you feed in data which doesn't correspond correctly to my plan, misses something out, then the program won't give the correct results.
For instance, for these two scenarios -
you just assumed that the Toyotas could drive between the gun towers. They can't. There's a vehicle barrier field which is impassible for ground traffic unless a path is cleared through the obstacles and minefields first.
So your TacOps simulation did not model the effect of the "Vehicle barriers - obstacles, anti-tank mines" field which would blow your Toyota pickups into pieces if they drove onto the minefield.
The minefield starts somewhere near the effective range of the gun tower autocannons something like 2.5 kilometres or 1.5 miles from the gun towers.
I presume you forgot about the minefields, shown as a blue ring in my diagram? Take a closer look.
If the enemy Toyota pickups stop before the minefield then they are still 7.5 miles or 12 kilometres from the Central Base and that's well out of range of a 60 mm mortar - the M242's range is only 3490 metres and an 82mm mortar - the 82-PM-41 has a range of only 3,040 metres and with the long range mortar shell still only 4020 metres.
Even if the Toyota pickups are carrying 120 mm heavy mortars, with a range of 6200 - 7200 metres or 107 mm rocket launchers with a range of 8500 metres they are still well short of the Central Base.
The enemy would need mortars or rockets with a longer range than that to hit the Central Base from outside the Vehicle barrier minefields.
Now if the enemy were to try to fire a command-line-of-sight MANPADS such as a Blowpipe missile at a gun tower and if the enemy didn't get shot by the autocannon first and if the missile didn't misfire and if the enemy had a skilled operator that could hit the gun turret from a range of over 3000 metres, with the missile's shaped-charge warhead and even with cage armour on the gun turrets, that I think could do some damage to the turret and possibly enough to suppress the tower. It's a long, risky, difficult, expensive shot but I suppose an enemy suicidal terrorist group like the Taliban might think it worth a try?
OK well the first part of this enemy attack against the gun towers sounds more plausible but not the second about a "gap" that won't be there because the Vehicle barrier minefield is still there even if you manage to disable a gun tower.
The 82mm mortars and your light machine guns if they have time, which I doubt but assuming they do have time, they can certainly start firing on the towers from positions outside the Vehicle barrier minefields.
Mortars and LMGs both have a maximum range in excess of 2500 metres so the gun towers would be in range. The problem the enemy would have is accuracy and hitting the target to effect in the short time available.
The mortar team would need some time to set up and find the range and adjust any error in targeting with successive rounds to be able to hit the target and the light machine guns could probably hit the gun tower OK but would find it difficult to hit the gun turret at that extreme range and even if the occasional LMG round hit the gun turret it would just be stopped or deflected harmlessly by the turret armour, impressing nobody.
LMGs, however many of them, 30, 40, 50, whatever, firing at the gun turrets are just going to be targeted by the autocannons and taken out one by one. It's just target practice for the tower gunners.
If the enemy mortar teams got very lucky, if the towers were not paying attention and didn't sound the alarm until they started receiving incoming and one of the early mortar rounds struck the gun turret although it would not destroy the gun turret with its additional armour or kill the gunners, just shake the gunners up a bit, possibly suppress them, it might take them out of that fight and disable that tower.
But even before the mortar teams are finding their range, the reaction forces are going to be responding.
The Toyotas should be seen by the gun towers at the time they drive onto the Threat Zone and the autocannon will open fire if a vehicle gets within about 3000 metres with devastating effect against an unarmoured vehicle and the alarm will go out for a reaction force to scramble and attend.
I would point out that a convoy of 30 Toyota pick-up trucks heading towards the base even while in the Trust Zone could alert suspicion and trigger a base scramble, putting an Apache in the air. It is likely that the roads in the Trust Zone near the base will have a base camera on them 24/7 looking for signs of enemy activity.
When a base Apache attack helicopter arrives overhead the attackers will be quickly taken out.
The attack ends there. The most the enemy can achieve with that attack is a shaken up gun tower team and a bit of superficial damage on the gun turret armour. More likely there would be no damage done at all.
The enemy would lose all its men in that attack and the defenders would lose none. My defence plan succeeds this time.
Nice try rattler.
Yes I know about the Maginot Line. The German army went around the strongest parts of the line, they by-passed all the strong points and went on to Paris which surrendered without a fight. The strong points themselves were not taken by military force. They were ordered to surrender when the whole French government surrendered.
The lesson of the Maginot line for Afghanistan is don't expect the Afghanistan / Pakistan border defences to be effective - the Taliban will go around them. The other lesson is expect strongly defended bases to be very difficult for an enemy to take.
So the lesson of the Maginot Line supports my strategy 100%.
Last edited:
Peter Dow
Active member
Not quite like most X-box games no though you could call it "war gaming" of a sort.
I've proposed a design for perimeter defences for a military base which I have just described in words and a diagram and rattler has suggested modelling my plan using a PC military simulation program he knows about to estimate how well the proposed defences might hold up under various attack scenario simulations.
Peter Dow
Active member
Fortified towers - what will they think of next?
Mmmm. My plan is not a "direct copy" though is it?
Resistance computer game dates from 2006. I am fairly sure that defensive towers were invented before then.
Oh look there's one that dates from medieval times -
Wikipedia: Fortified tower
and here's one from the Great Wall of China
My, my.
Resistance Wiki: The Liberty Defense Perimeter (LDP) was a 4,500 mile boundary line ...
The United States War Department established the Liberty Defense Tower program, which consists of a series of 1,400 foot tall towers placed every 50 feet along the LDP. This comes to 38,780 towers along the whole of the Perimeter. The towers consisted of four crank 44mm emplacements surrounding a single large 90mm emplacement, and are armed with concussion shells that can fire at targets up to 50 miles away.
Mmmm. My plan is not a "direct copy" though is it?
Resistance computer game dates from 2006. I am fairly sure that defensive towers were invented before then.
Oh look there's one that dates from medieval times -
Wikipedia: Fortified tower
and here's one from the Great Wall of China
My, my.
Last edited:
I think only someone who works with computers could predict such perfect variables- and then have the arrogance to try to rethink a whole world military effort with little to no experience in ANYTHING relevant to it.
Its shocking frankly. Please tell me you are under 16
Its shocking frankly. Please tell me you are under 16
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
It certainly is a mighty expensive way to stop a couple of guys in a pickup truck.
Wouldn't it be cheaper to get all the troops that would be needed to man that system to dig a 10m trench right around the the yellow line, maybe fill it with water and have access regulated by a retractable bridge?
Hell throw in a few alligators and you will keep infantry at bay as well.
Similar to this...
I guarantee they wont hit it with a Toyota unless the Taliban reinvent and build a really large trebuchets.
I tried to take this post as serious but I just cant do it, you have gone past using a hammer to crack a walnut and are now trying to use a wrecking ball.
Wouldn't it be cheaper to get all the troops that would be needed to man that system to dig a 10m trench right around the the yellow line, maybe fill it with water and have access regulated by a retractable bridge?
Hell throw in a few alligators and you will keep infantry at bay as well.
Similar to this...
I guarantee they wont hit it with a Toyota unless the Taliban reinvent and build a really large trebuchets.
I tried to take this post as serious but I just cant do it, you have gone past using a hammer to crack a walnut and are now trying to use a wrecking ball.
03USMC
Active member
Capt Frogman
Brit Pack (Troop Commander)
:m16:
Allow me!
Hi ladies: http://www.completelyfreedating.co.uk/members/PeterDow / http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/meet-the-lonely-heart-from-hell-1079428
Twitter: http://twitter.com/peterdow
News: http://scot.tk/ / http://aberdeentramps.blogspot.ie/2005/01/local-hero-1-peter-dow_10.html?m=1
Blog: http://peterdow.wordpress.com/2012/...military-strategy-and-the-war-on-terror-15-2/
Arrse'd: http://www.arrse.co.uk/naafi-bar/155225-peter-dows-again.html / http://www.arrse.co.uk/naafi-bar/163706-afghan_kandak-peter-dow-whos-bigger-****.html
:shock: :shock: :shoothea: :shoothea:
I know we call this place the lunatic asylum, but I didn't realise it actually was!!!
Enjoy!
Tell me more Para.
Allow me!
Hi ladies: http://www.completelyfreedating.co.uk/members/PeterDow / http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/meet-the-lonely-heart-from-hell-1079428
Twitter: http://twitter.com/peterdow
News: http://scot.tk/ / http://aberdeentramps.blogspot.ie/2005/01/local-hero-1-peter-dow_10.html?m=1
Blog: http://peterdow.wordpress.com/2012/...military-strategy-and-the-war-on-terror-15-2/
Arrse'd: http://www.arrse.co.uk/naafi-bar/155225-peter-dows-again.html / http://www.arrse.co.uk/naafi-bar/163706-afghan_kandak-peter-dow-whos-bigger-****.html
:shock: :shock: :shoothea: :shoothea:
I know we call this place the lunatic asylum, but I didn't realise it actually was!!!
Enjoy!
rattler
Active member
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
No, (though there is something like what you are mentioning out there with the same name but has nothing to do with this TacOps).
TacOps is, let me quote,
[/FONT]
As for Peters reply, I used the mortars to blast a track throught your minefields, and (a) bomb truck(s) to blast through the barriers then, made it into strike range in the numbers described.
As I said, for the third scenario the mortars were used for supressive fires, and if you run a nice faint your Apaches will be where they cannot impede that. OTOH, do you know the number of rounds and missiles an Apache can fire? Target saturation will take care of that aspect.
Etc., etc., I wont go on discussing this with somebody who obviously does not have a real clue but a firm idea, as I said: Run your scenarios through TO and see where you get.
Rattler
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
No, (though there is something like what you are mentioning out there with the same name but has nothing to do with this TacOps).
TacOps is, let me quote,
[/FONT]
Sums it up quite nicely. And, to make it clear: From my POV best bang for the buck if you are interested in realistic outcomes of set up scenarios.
As for Peters reply, I used the mortars to blast a track throught your minefields, and (a) bomb truck(s) to blast through the barriers then, made it into strike range in the numbers described.
As I said, for the third scenario the mortars were used for supressive fires, and if you run a nice faint your Apaches will be where they cannot impede that. OTOH, do you know the number of rounds and missiles an Apache can fire? Target saturation will take care of that aspect.
Etc., etc., I wont go on discussing this with somebody who obviously does not have a real clue but a firm idea, as I said: Run your scenarios through TO and see where you get.
Rattler
Last edited:
Hi Rattler,
I wish I could run this simulation too, as TacOps look like a very cool tool. Unfortunately, my PC's a sh*tbox and doesn't have the balls to run it.
Anyway, in answer to your query about the maximum number of rounds an Apache can fire, according to Jane's Information Group - it is 1200 rounds in the Apache's 30mm, M320 Chain Gun.
The Apache is also armed, according to this website (I don't know how reliable it is): http://www.mechmodels.com/mas/downloads/manual/ah64a.htm with a maximum of 16 Hellfire missiles, and a maximum of 76 Hydra 70 unguided rockets. In addition, it also carries 4 Stinger Air-to-Air missiles.
Hope that answers your question.
I wish I could run this simulation too, as TacOps look like a very cool tool. Unfortunately, my PC's a sh*tbox and doesn't have the balls to run it.
Anyway, in answer to your query about the maximum number of rounds an Apache can fire, according to Jane's Information Group - it is 1200 rounds in the Apache's 30mm, M320 Chain Gun.
The Apache is also armed, according to this website (I don't know how reliable it is): http://www.mechmodels.com/mas/downloads/manual/ah64a.htm with a maximum of 16 Hellfire missiles, and a maximum of 76 Hydra 70 unguided rockets. In addition, it also carries 4 Stinger Air-to-Air missiles.
Hope that answers your question.
Peter Dow
Active member
I got TacOps installed and I ran the tutorial. So thanks again for that Rattler. It looks like a powerful tool.
I note that TacOps can save game scenarios in files and I'd like to ask if you would be happy to share the saved files for these scenarios you ran?
To suggest how that might be done here, I have tried to attach one of the TacOps tutorial autosave files to this post. It is a ".tac" file so I needed to put it in a ".zip" folder before uploading it.
I am running windows and what I did was right-click on the saved file then selected "Send To" then from the short-cut menu I selected "Compressed (Zipped) Folder".
That made a new .zip file and I used this posts's "Attach Files" options, clicking on "Manage Attachments" then "Choose File" and selected the .zip file then "Upload" which I think you can see attached the file "AutoSave0020 121003 0349.zip" to this post.
Can you do that for your saved files for any scenarios you have run against my gun towers?
That would help a lot because TacOps is a new program to me and the best way to learn a new program is to learn from somebody who has done it all already.
Maybe that way I would be able to run your scenarios Rattler and check what assumptions you have entered for the towers and attacking and defending forces.
To see the autosave file I attached you need to click the link to download load it to your PC, then simply open the zipped folder to get at the file.
Last edited:
Peter Dow
Active member
So you downloaded the installation file from Rattler's link OK? I'm on windows so my file was "tacops4demo_i_exe".
When I tried to run it first time, it would't install. I got an error message, something about "cannot run this because the windows workstation is going to shut down".
I suspected that was because I had a number of programs running and had hibernated and reawoken my PC a few times in the session.
So I did a "Turn Off Computer", booted it up and TacOps installed with no problems.
What's your issue with trying to install and run TacOps hawky94?
Last edited:
rattler
Active member
Should not be a prob really AFAIK (I have no deep PC knowledge as I am a MacMan), the program runs on old machines without windoze even (DOS), and it does not need much graphic power.
Was not a question (but thanks anyway), your data is correct.
My comment just wanted to point out to Peter that his Apaches wont be able to take out more than a certain number of trucks, mortar teams etc. then they gotta go back to reload, i.e. in a target saturated environment wont be the "cures-it-all" remedie he seems to believe they are.
Rattler
rattler
Active member
AFAIK the demo cannot load saved files created on a Mac, but I did not save them anyway (to run TacOps have to run System 9 on my Mac which I can only do on a very old machine and have no space to store them there). I suggest you use customs scenario US in the demo and set up your sceanarios to your liking.
Rattler
Peter Dow
Active member
I'm not really a Mac expert but think there are differences in the way the Mac files organise their data compared to a Windows file.
Still, if I got hold of any of your data files I could have a look, see if I could convert them to a format suitable for input to TacOps on Windows.
The file "Custom Scenario US Army.sce" in the "_Battles/_US" folder?
Was that the scenario ".sce" file you started with to run your towers attack simulation?
OK well I figured out that you need to run that scenario as a two person game, right? Then next it asks me for a terrain map.
The only map I could find was "Map001c.dat" in the "Maps\Map001c" folder.
That's the same map as was used in the tutorial and the same map for all 4 scenarios in the "_US" file included in the demo.
Is that the map you used? The map area is only 15 kilometres by 6 kilometres.
So that map is not big enough to build a whole base. I'd need at least 32 km x 32 km to build a base and that would not leave any room for a Trust Zone around the circumference so maybe 35km x 35km would be ideal.
That one map I have in the demo version is only big enough to build a 15 km x 6 km section.
So what did you do Rattler? Have you got a bigger map data file? Or did you only model a section of the towers, if so, which section?
Do you have the full version of the TacOps then, not just the Demo version? Does it come with a whole load of maps? Would you like to share your map files? I need a big map!
Or is there a way to create your own maps and datafiles?
So you didn't save any of your game play files? You didn't you have autosave on?
You seemed very precise about the results. It read like you had taken notes or something.
I'd like know how you modelled the towers? Did you make a new tower unit? How did you model the tower height? Did you put the tower units on high ground by creating a map?
It's interesting Rattler but I want to extract all the information I can please. Thanks.
:thumb:
Last edited:
rattler
Active member
Peter Dow
Active member
Well modern PCs have loads of memory, enough to handle the data for huge maps, so I can only assume that the max map size for TacOps IIRC is a limitation with the software?
I wonder why MajorH didn't find a buddy to revise his software to handle bigger maps, and maybe release a IIIRC?
Not that I was thinking of buying the full version of TacOps, but 32km x 32km is barely sufficient to represent my plan.
In my plan diagram assuming a 1km diameter Central Base, the diameter of the Warning Line Circle is actually 33km.
For a 5km diameter Central Base, the diameter of the Warning Line circle would be 37km. So you can see I would be bursting out of a 32km x 32km map.
Ideally I would need more map room for bigger Central Bases and for simulation of activity in the wider Trust Zone.
Since you seem to be an expert on these military simulators, can I ask you if someone was looking for a modern combat simulation program that didn't have a maximum limit on the map size imposed but was still very useful in other respects, is there a game or program which you would recommend? I'd be interested in Real Time Strategy as well as Turn-Based Strategy.
If not, never mind, and just tell me some more about TacOps please, to see if I could do something informative with the demo version.
Well if I simulate a line of towers every 333 metres across the TacOps demo map, some towers will be on high ground, others in low ground, maybe some in woodland.
The function of the towers would to get a good view of the surrounding land but the ideal ground to site a base would be reasonably flat ground to enable all the towers to see well because hilly ground can easily be higher than a 30 metre high tower could possibly see over or into. Hilly ground would be bound to cause blind spots that the towers can't see - that's not ideal.
But if I simulate my towers on the demo map, is there any way to get the towers to see as far as they would if they were on flat clear ground, even if they aren't according to the demo map?
I note that the TacOps User Guide says about entrenchments
"All entrenched units are significantly harder to spot. All entrenched units are significantly harder to hit with direct fire. Entrenched infantry units suffer less personnel casualties when they are hit."
But Towers are significantly easier to spot and anything you can see you can aim at, right? How do you simulate the increased range of sight of towers and increased range where they can be seen by the enemy?
So do you suggest entrenching the infantry units which have an autocannon, a machine gun and a TOW missile?
Are factors like visibility, and armour of entrenched infantry adjustable when creating a user scenario?
Part of the problem here is I'd like to over-ride the demo map and give my towers good vision if one of them happens to be stuck in a place on the map which normally gives poor vision and visibility. Is there any way to do that?
You've been very helpful actually Rattler! Thanks!
Last edited:
rattler
Active member
Again inserting answers. Please note, though, that I have the feeling that we are about to be hijacking the thread, so it might be better to open a new thread on TascOps management.
Rattler
Rattler
Last edited: