Combat Support and Combat Service Support

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Combat Support and Combat Service Support COMBAT SUPPORT AND COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT Under the Program Executive Office for Combat Support & Combat Service Support (PEO CS&CSS), project man- agers, together with their reporting prod- uct managers and product directors, are responsible for Army systems and some joint service programs across all phases of their life cycle. Program phases fall into the areas of: pre-systems acquisition (concept refine- ment or technology development), gener- ally consisting of research and develop- 350 ARMY I October 2010 ment programs and prior to a Milestone B; systems acquisition (between Milestone B and full materiel release); systems after full materiel release (in production and fielding phases); and two types of sustain- ment (operations and support): systems Logistics support that have completed fielding, are no longer vessel (LSV) in production and are managed directly by the project manager and systems that have completed fielding, are no longer in pro- duction and are managed by an Army Ma- teriel Command commodity command, but for which the PM is the life-cycle man- ager. PEO CS&CSS Project Managers include: Project Manager Force Projection, Project Manager Joint Combat Support Systems, Project Manager Tactical Vehicles and Pro- ject Manager Mine Resistant Ambush Pro- tected Vehicles. A representative sampling Army,” the Product Director for Army combat vehicles and sustainment cargo. of their programs follows. Watercraft Systems (PD AWS) is working The 313-foot LSV class vessel, designed to to provide “a flexible and responsive fleet, carry more than 2,000 tons of deck cargo, Project Manager Force Projection projecting and sustaining America’s forces has a beam of 60 feet and a molded depth The Project Manager Force Projection through the 21st century.” PD AWS is re- of 19 feet. It provides intratheater move- (PM FP) encompasses Product Director sponsible for the engineering, production, ment to remote underdeveloped coastlines for Army Watercraft Systems (PD AWS), fielding, initial logistics support and mod- and inland waterways. The LSV is the pri- Product Manager Bridging, Product Man- ernization/modification of the Army’s mary joint logistics over-the-shore (JLOTS) ager Combat Engineer/Material Handling fleet of watercraft and associated support vessel. It also assists in unit deployment Equipment (PM CE/MHE), Product Man- equipment, all of which enable the war- and relocation. The LSV fleet will begin a ager Force Sustainment Systems (PM FSS), fighter to rapidly project and sustain the service life extension program this year, and Product Manager Petroleum and Wa- nation’s armed forces. which will include changes to command, ter Systems (PM PAWS). The Logistics Support Vessel (LSV) control, communication, computers, intel- With an understated motto of “Sail provides worldwide transportation of ligence, surveillance and reconnaissance October 2010 I ARMY 351 (C4ISR) and integrated bridge systems, from the centerline of the large, medium meet future force lift and access require- hull and engineering systems, and force speed roll-on/roll-off (LMSR) ships. ments by filling a capability gap to resup- protection upgrades as well as improve- ply deployed future brigade combat team ments to crew messing and living spaces Future Army Watercraft Systems (BCT) and joint forces rapidly. Future force and deck equipment. The future Army watercraft programs operational concepts dictate that these plat- The Landing Craft Utility (LCU) 2000 include the joint high speed vessel, harbor- forms need a bridging technology that en- provides worldwide transport of combat master command-and-control center and ables them to access any entry point, even vehicles and sustainment cargo. It also vessel-to-shore bridging. bare-beach environments. The new VSB supports intratheater and tactical resupply. The Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) is technology will enhance watercraft’s abil- The LCU 2000 has a length of 174 feet, a key element for transforming the Army’s ity to conduct self-supporting operations in beam of 42 feet and loaded draft of 9 feet. watercraft capabilities. The JHSV is the an austere operational environment. In- The LCU 2000 can carry 350 tons of deck Army’s next-generation self-deploying vesting in VSB will enhance fort-to-port cargo. The LCU 2000 fleet is nearing com- watercraft. It brings an entirely new capa- sustainment for the future force. pletion of a C4ISR upgrade, which provides bility set to the force by filling critical ca- state-of-the-art communication equipment, pabilities gaps in rapid, tactical response Product Manager Bridging navigational equipment and safety of life- and operational maneuver ability of expe- Product Manager Bridging interfaces at-sea electronics. ditionary and modular forces. The JHSV is with other defense organizations on a The Large Tug (LT) 128’ is used for an interoperable platform that can work in range of existing and emerging bridging transocean/coastal towing operations and tandem with the Navy and Marine Corps systems including the Armored Vehicle for assisting with the docking/undocking in any waterborne theater to deploy equip- Launched Bridge (AVLB), Improved Rib- of large ships. The LT 128’ is outfitted to ment, cargo and troops. The JHSV enables bon Bridge (IRB), Standard Ribbon Bridge provide salvage, rescue and firefighting units to maneuver into the battlespace (SRB), Bridge Erection Boat (BEB), Com- assistance to other vessels and shore in- with little to no reception, staging, onward mon Bridge Transporter (CBT), Rapidly stallations on a limited basis. The LT 128’ movement and integration in the forward Emplaced Bridge System (REBS), Dry Sup- fleet recently completed an extensive mod- area; it can also provide follow-on sustain- port Bridge (DSB) system, M3 Medium ification program, which included lower- ment through minor and degraded ports. Girder Bridge (MGB), Joint Assault Bridge ing the pilothouse and upgrading the fuel Leveraging technologies developed within (JAB), Assault Breacher Vehicle (ABV), Im- tank systems and bow fendering. the commercial sector and DoD, the JHSV proved Boat Cradle (IBC), Bridge Adapter The 900 Class Small Tug mission is will be faster, more capable and more sur- Pallet (BAP) and Line of Communication moving logistical supplies and equipment vivable than current-generation water- Bridge (LOCB). The Dry Support Bridge in harbor and inland waterways. The craft. The first JHSV is currently under system and the Improved Ribbon Bridge small tug also provides the capability to construction with delivery planned for De- provide representative examples. assist larger tugs in docking and undock- cember 2011, after which the vessel will The Dry Support Bridge (DSB) pro- ing all types of ships and watercraft and undergo post-delivery test and trials for vides the Army with assault and support can be used in routine harbor utility work. approximately 10 months. The Army plans bridging for gaps of up to 40 meters. The The Landing Craft Mechanized (LCM8), to procure five JHSVs. DSB replaces the outdated, manpower- used in utility work, features a specialized The Harbormaster Command and Con- and time-intensive medium girder bridge Mod 2 program. This provides additional trol Center (HCCC) will provide 24-hour (MGB) with a mechanical system capable capabilities of command and control, per- real-time vessel tracking, in-transit visibil- of emplacing a 40-meter bridge with 14 sonnel transfer and light salvage. ity, movement tracking, full joint interop- soldiers in 90 minutes or less. In addition, The Modular Causeway System (MCS) erability, secure and nonsecure communi- the DSB will improve current bridge load- provides a means to move cargo from ship cations, and real-time meteorological and carrying capacity, moving it up to military to shore across unimproved beaches in ar- bathymetric data. It will be fully digitized. load classification (MLC) 96 for wheeled eas of the world where fixed port facilities The Vessel-to-Shore Bridging (VSB) ca- traffic, such as an M1 tank uploaded on a are unavailable, denied or otherwise unac- pabilities are key enablers for the JHSV and heavy equipment transporter. The DSB is ceptable. The sections are made from mod- current fleet vessels in meeting assured ac- designed for transportation as a palletized ular, ISO-compatible modules. The four cess requirements. In addition, VSB will load by the CBT, palletized load system systems are configured from basic modules in various configurations: roll-on/roll-off discharge facility; causeway ferry; floating causeway (FC); and warping tug. The Barge Derrick (BD) Crane 115 Ton is used primarily in discharging heavy loads beyond the capacity of the ship’s gear and assisting in salvage operations. The crane provides the lift and reach needed to discharge the heaviest of the projected Army cargo—the M1A2 main battle tank— Joint high speed vessel (JHSV) 352 ARMY I October 2010 (PLS) trailers or by service support units equipped with PLS trucks. The Improved Ribbon Bridge (IRB), which was fielded beginning in 2004, im- proves mobility by providing a continuous roadway or raft capable of crossing MLC 96 (wheeled)/80 (tracked) vehicles over nonfordable wet gaps. M9 armored combat The Product Manager Combat Engi- earthmover (ACE) neer/Material Handling Equipment (PM CE/MHE) coordinates and supports a wide range of compaction equipment, quarry and asphalt equipment, rough terrain con- tainer handlers, cranes, dozers, excavators, forklifts, graders and scrapers, loaders and airborne/air assault equipment. Program examples include new systems like the high-mobility engineer excavator, engineer used on the ground as a batch plant; and management responsibility for cargo aerial mission module-water distributor, paving the M6 dump body, which has a capacity of delivery equipment, field feeding and field machine, backhoe loaders, hydraulic exca- 12 to 14 cubic yards. Currently under devel- services systems, force provider base vators, light and heavy dozers, light and opment are the XM9 2,000-gallon water dis- camp, and shelter systems consisting of heavy loaders, heavy grader, asphalt mix- tributor for use with the Heavy Expanded shelters, heaters and camouflage netting.
Recommended publications
  • THE FEASIBLITY of the OVER-THE-HORIZON AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT for U.S. NAVY and MARINE CORPS FORCES a Thesis Presented To
    THE FEASIBLITY OF THE OVER-THE-HORIZON AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT FOR U.S. NAVY AND MARINE CORPS FORCES A thesis presented to the Faculty of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff Colege in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE STEPHEN L. GOERTZEN, LCDR, USN B.S., U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, 1982 Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 1993 Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE THESIS APPROVAL PAGE Name of Candidate: LCDR Stephen L. Goertzen, USN Thesis Title: The Feasibility of the Over-the-Horizon Amphibious Assault for the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps Forces Approved by: u , Thesis Committee Chaiman LTCOL W. A. Sp , Member Accepted this 4th day of June 1993 by: , Director, Graduate Degree Philip J. Brookes, Ph.D. Programs The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student author and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to this study should include the foregoing statement.) ABSTRACT THE FEASIBILITY OF THE OVER-THE-HORIZON AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT FOR U.S. NAVY AND MARINE CORPS FORCES: An analysis of the doctrine, equipment, and technology contributing to the feasibility of the over-the-horizon amphibious assault. By Lieutenant Commander Stephen L. Goertzen, USN, 128 pages. This study is an analysis of the tactics,techniques, procedures, doctrine, equipment, and technology utilized in over-the-horizon amphibious assaults. The study examines the issues surrounding current feasibility of the assault, as well as future feasibility of the assault.
    [Show full text]
  • Oshkosh Corporation
    CHARLES L. SZEWS WILSON R. JONES Chief Executive Officer Chief Executive Officer (through 12/31/15) (effective 01/01/16) LEADING THE MARKET Oshkosh Corporation is a leading designer, manufacturer and marketer of a broad range of access equipment, specialty military, fire & emergency and commercial vehicles and vehicle bodies. Oshkosh’s products are valued worldwide by rental companies, defense forces, concrete placement and refuse businesses, fire & emergency departments and municipal and airport services, where high quality, superior performance, rugged reliability and long-term value are paramount. Oshkosh Corporation partners with customers to deliver superior solutions that safely and efficiently move people and materials at work, around the globe and around the clock. In short, we are Moving the World at Work. Our top priorities are to serve and delight our customers as well as drive superior operating performance to benefit our shareholders. We do this while leveraging our strengths and resources in engineering, manufacturing, purchasing and distribution across our four business segments. Founded in 1917, Oshkosh Corporation has manufacturing operations in eight U.S. states and in Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, France, Mexico, Romania and the United Kingdom. The company currently employs approximately 13,000 people worldwide. OSHKOSH CORPORATION 2015 FORM 10-K UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended September 30, 2015 or TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Commission file number: 1-31371 Oshkosh Corporation (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Wisconsin 39-0520270 (State or other jurisdiction (I.R.S.
    [Show full text]
  • About This Template
    Oshkosh Corporation Investor Presentation March 2021 Forward-looking statements This presentation contains statements that the Company believes to be “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. All statements other than statements of historical fact, including, without limitation, statements regarding the Company’s future financial position, business strategy, targets, projected sales, costs, earnings, capital expenditures, debt levels and cash flows, and plans and objectives of management for future operations, are forward-looking statements. When used in this presentation, words such as “may,” “will,” “expect,” “intend,” “estimate,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “should,” “project” or “plan” or the negative thereof or variations thereon or similar terminology are generally intended to identify forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to risks, uncertainties, assumptions and other factors, some of which are beyond the Company’s control, which could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. These factors include the overall impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Company’s business, results of operations and financial condition; the duration and severity of the COVID-19 pandemic; actions that may be taken by governmental authorities and others to address or otherwise mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic; the negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on global economies and the Company’s customers, suppliers and employees; the cyclical nature of the Company’s access equipment, commercial and fire & emergency markets, which are particularly impacted by the strength of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 1377849762021.Pdf
    In the crowded streets of Mogadishu sits a downed Blackhawk surrounded by a tyrannical warlord and his drug-crazed warriors. In the villages of Iraq lurk insurgents led by the ruthless al-Qaeda. In the arid desert of the Bakaw Valley is a terrorist training camp. In the mountains of Tora Bora lurks Osama bin Laden and his fanatical followers. Against these desperate foes are the most advanced armies ever created. But after the smoke from the smart bombs has cleared, it’s the infantry who must go in and finish the job. These are today’s threats. These are Modern Ops. Modern Ops lets you recreate the battles of the modern world, from regular mili- tary operations to special forces actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Soviet Union, and more. You’ll find complete troop lists for today’s combat- ants, including vehicles and aircraft, as well as our trade- mark Savage Tales and random Events that make every battle a surprise. Modern Ops is a complete miniatures skir- mish game. The Savage Worlds roleplaying game is NOT required. Written by James Houlahan Editing by Paul “Wiggy” Wade-Williams and Teller Layout by Paul “Wiggy” Wade-Williams and Zeke Sparkes Proofing by Dennis Mohr and William Littlefield Graphic Design by Zeke Sparkes Cover & Logo Design by Zeke Sparkes Back Cover Art by James Dietz Art: Mini photos © Jeff Valent. Photographs courtesy of the US Army, US Marine Corps, and US Navy. Special Thanks to Burkhard Shulze Dedicated to the brave men and women of the Armed Forces who risk their lives every day to make the world a safer and more free place for everyone.
    [Show full text]
  • National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 Conference Report H.R. 1119
    105TH CONGRESS REPORT 1st Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 105±340 "! NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 CONFERENCE REPORT TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 1119 OCTOBER 23, 1997.ÐOrdered to be printed NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 1 105TH CONGRESS REPORT 1st Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 105±340 "! NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 CONFERENCE REPORT TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 1119 OCTOBER 23, 1997.ÐOrdered to be printed U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 44±180 WASHINGTON : 1997 C O N T E N T S Page JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CON- FERENCE ............................................................................................................. 465 Summary Statement of Conference Action .................................................... 465 Summary Table of Authorizations .................................................................. 465 Congressional Defense Committees ................................................................ 472 DIVISION AÐDEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS ................. 472 TITLE IÐPROCUREMENT .......................................................................................... 472 Funding Explanations ...................................................................................... 478 UH±60 blackhawk .............................................................................. 478 Kiowa warrior ..................................................................................... 478 Aircraft survivability equipment modifications
    [Show full text]
  • Mg 34 and Mg 42 Machine Guns
    MG 34 AND MG 42 MACHINE GUNS CHRIS MC NAB © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com MG 34 AND MG 42 MACHINE GUNS CHRIS McNAB Series Editor Martin Pegler © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 4 DEVELOPMENT 8 The ‘universal’ machine gun USE 27 Flexible firepower IMPACT 62 ‘Hitler’s buzzsaw’ CONCLUSION 74 GLOSSARY 77 BIBLIOGRAPHY & FURTHER READING 78 INDEX 80 © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com INTRODUCTION Although in war all enemy weapons are potential sources of fear, some seem to have a deeper grip on the imagination than others. The AK-47, for example, is actually no more lethal than most other small arms in its class, but popular notoriety and Hollywood representations tend to credit it with superior power and lethality. Similarly, the bayonet actually killed relatively few men in World War I, but the sheer thought of an enraged foe bearing down on you with more than 30cm of sharpened steel was the stuff of nightmares to both sides. In some cases, however, fear has been perfectly justified. During both world wars, for example, artillery caused between 59 and 80 per cent of all casualties (depending on your source), and hence took a justifiable top slot in surveys of most feared tools of violence. The subjects of this book – the MG 34 and MG 42, plus derivatives – are interesting case studies within the scale of soldiers’ fears. Regarding the latter weapon, a US wartime information movie once declared that the gun’s ‘bark was worse than its bite’, no doubt a well-intentioned comment intended to reduce mounting concern among US troops about the firepower of this astonishing gun.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Army Board Study Guide Version 5.3 – 02 June, 2008
    U.S. Army Board Study Guide Version 5.3 – 02 June, 2008 Prepared by ArmyStudyGuide.com "Soldiers helping Soldiers since 1999" Check for updates at: http://www.ArmyStudyGuide.com Sponsored by: Your Future. Your Terms. You’ve served your country, now let DeVry University serve you. Whether you want to build off of the skills you honed in the military, or launch a new career completely, DeVry’s accelerated, year-round programs can help you make school a reality. Flexible, online programs plus more than 80 campus locations nationwide make studying more manageable, even while you serve. You may even be eligible for tuition assistance or other military benefits. Learn more today. Degree Programs Accounting, Business Administration Computer Information Systems Electronics Engineering Technology Plus Many More... Visit www.DeVry.edu today! Or call 877-496-9050 *DeVry University is accredited by The Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association, www.ncahlc.org. Keller Graduate School of Management is included in this accreditation. Program availability varies by location Financial Assistance is available to those who qualify. In New York, DeVry University and its Keller Graduate School of Management operate as DeVry College of New York © 2008 DeVry University. All rights reserved U.S. Army Board Study Guide Table of Contents Army Programs ............................................................................................................................................. 5 ASAP - Army Substance Abuse Program...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Just Another Truck?
    JUST ANOTHER TRUCK? A Monograph by Major Daniel V. Sulka Transportation Corps School of Advanced Military Studies United States Army Command and General Staff College Fort Leavenworth, Kansas Fit Term AY 91-92 SWOL OF ADVANCED MILITARY STUDIES MONCGRAPH APPROVAL Student: Major Daniel V. Sulka. US Army Title of Monograph: The Palletized Load System.... Just Another Truck? Approve by: Monograph Director Director, School of es R. McDonough, Advanced Military Studies Director, Graduate Philip J. Brookes, PHD Degree Program Accepted this &fP day of -&Zfdk-, 1991 ABSTRACT THE PALLETIZED LOAD SYSTEM.. .. JUST ANOTHER TRUCK? by Major Daniel V. Sulka, USA, 61 pages. This monograph examines the Palletized Load System to determine if it will effectively support the transportation requirements of current and evolving doctrine. The PLS, a self loading and unloading truck and trailer system, will be fielded in the near future. This technology represents a significant investment in addressing shortfalls in ammuni- tion distribution under the Maneuver Oriented Ammunition Distribution System (MOADS). To assess the impact of the Palletized Load System on logisticians' ability to support AirLand Battle doctrine and and the evolving AirLand Operations doctrine, the monograph first traces historical and theoretical influences on the system. These include the evolution of truck technology, the impact of mechanized transport and mobility on doctrine, and the development of unit load devices and containerization. The monograph briefly addresses current transportation chal- lenges, the design of the Palletized Load System, and its planned use. The monograph concludes that the Palletized Load Sys- tem is a natural confluence of the evolution of transporta- tion technologies and the demands of highly mobile forces.
    [Show full text]
  • Acquisition of the Palletized Load System
    OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL" ACQUISITION OF THE PALLETIZED LOAD SYSTEM Report Number 92-003 October 9, 1991 Department of Defense INSPECTOR GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 400 ARMY NAVY DRIVE ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22202-2884 October 9, 1991 MEMORANDUM FOR ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT) SUBJECT: Audit Report on the Acquisition of the Palletized Load System (Report No. 92-003) We are providing this final report for your information and use. Comments on a draft of this report were considered in preparing the final report. We performed the audit from September 1989 through January 1991 as part of our continuing review of major acquisition programs. The Army had not accurately quantified the acquisition requirements for the PLS program and had not determined the cost­ effectiveness of all planned uses of the PLS. As a result, the acquisition requirements for the PLS were misstated by about $653.8 million. Also, the Army could unnecessarily spend at least $279.8 million by using the PLS to support Multiple Launch Rocket System units. DoD Directive 7650.3 requires that all audit recommendations be resolved promptly. Therefore, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management) must provide final comments on the unresolved recommendations by December 9, 1991. The courtesies extended to the audit staff are appreciated. If you have any questions on this audit, please contact Mr. Rayburn H. Stricklin at (703) 614-3965 (DSN 224-3965) or Mr. Verne F. Petz at (703) 693-0388 (DSN 223-0388). Copies of this report are being provided to the activities listed in Appendix H.
    [Show full text]
  • GAO-06-160 Defense Logistics: Several Factors Limited The
    United States Government Accountability Office GAO Report to Congressional Committees March 2006 DEFENSE LOGISTICS Several Factors Limited the Production and Installation of Army Truck Armor during Current Wartime Operations a GAO-06-160 March 2006 DEFENSE LOGISTICS Accountability Integrity Reliability Highlights Several Factors Limited the Production Highlights of GAO-06-160, a report to and Installation of Army Truck Armor congressional committees during Current Wartime Operations Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found In April 2005, GAO reported on The Army expects to have met its current requirements for the production factors affecting the timely and installation of truck armor by the end of January 2006 except for fuel production of up-armored high- tankers. Completion of armor kit installation for tankers is expected by mobility multi-purpose wheeled January 2007. Although the Army first identified a requirement for 3,780 vehicles (HMMWV) and add-on truck armor kits for five types of trucks in November 2003, it did not armor kits for HMMWVs, as well as other items critically needed by produce all of the kits until February 2005 and did not install the kits to fully deployed forces during Operation meet the requirement until May 2005 – 18 months after the initial Iraqi Freedom. Due to high interest requirement was identified. However, by that time, requirements had by Congress and the public increased substantially. As subsequent requirements for an additional 7,847 regarding vehicle armor, GAO kits, excluding tankers, were identified, the time lag to meet them lessened. initiated this subsequent engagement to examine issues Time to Meet Initial Truck Armor Requirements by Truck Type affecting the production and Date required Date required Total months to installation of armor for medium Initial November quantities quantities fully meet initial and heavy trucks.
    [Show full text]
  • Weapons D6 / M460 Automatic Grenade Launcher (M460 AGL
    Weapons D6 / M460 Automatic Grenade Launcher (M460 AGL) M460 AUTOMATIC GRENADE LAUNCHER Model: Misriah Armory M460 AGL Type: Automatic grenade launcher Scale: Speeder Skill: Missile weapons: M460 AGL Fire Control: 2D (when mounted) Rate of Fire: -Semiautomatic: 1 -Automatic: 2 Ammo: 24 (40mm grenades) Cost: -Launcher: 800 cR -Grenades: 70 cR -Drum (24): 1,050 cR Availability: 2, R or X Range: 5-10/20/50 Range Difficulty: Easy/Moderate/Difficult Damage: 4D/3D/2D Blast Radius: 0-1/2/4 Special: Automatic; EMP; Manual detonation GAME NOTES: -AUTOMATIC WEAPON: This weapon has an automatic fire (autofire) option and can increase its Rate of Fire with the flip of a switch to a higher number (listed above), at +1 Range Difficulty. The benefit of this is that the gunner can increase the Rate of Fire further, at +1 shot for every +1 Range Difficulty level. If the attack misses the intended Range Difficulty but hits the normal Difficulty, then one shot hits and the others miss and are wasted. --Optional: The GM can require a player to call how many shots they wish to fire, with a missed attack losing all intended grenades. Otherwise, only 1 round will be lost. -EMP: If Manual Detonation is used, the Damage inflicted ALSO counts as Ion Weapon Damage. -HEAVY: If used without a mount, the operator's Speed is half (or less); Dodge is -4D, or can immediately drop the weapon to make a full dodge. -MANUAL DETONATION: This weapon has an alternate fire mode to detonate grenades manually, instead of on impact, and can only be used in Semiautomatic Rate of Fire.
    [Show full text]
  • Donald Smith Vietnam When Did You Enter the Military?
    Donald Smith Vietnam When did you enter the military? “ December 7 1967” How old were you when you entered? “ 21 years old” How long were you in the military? “ 2 years” What boot camp did you go to? “Fort Dix N.J.” Did you go to a second boot camp? “Yes, I went to advanced training at Fort Polk Louisiana” What advanced training did you go for? “Advanced infantry training” Did you join voluntarily or were you drafted? “Actually, I decided to take a semester off from college. That turned out to be a mistake, I got drafted.” What branch of the military were you in? “I was in the United States Army” What part of the Army? “I was with the 4th infantry division” What equipment did you use on a daily basis? “When I arrived in Vietnam, initially I was assigned to a right weaPons infantry comPany. I carried an M16 initially. Then after I was there about a month or two I was assigned to an M79 grenade launcher. I carried that another thirty- forty days and I became a machine gunner. I carried an M60 machine gun the rest of the time that I was in Vietnam. I advanced in rank uP to squad leader, a sergeant, and I carried the M60. I had one other infantry man assigned to me as an assistant gunner. Three other men were ammo bearers. They carried boxes of 250 rounds belted ammunition for the M60 machine gun. Back during that time light weaPons Infantry ComPany, the heaviest weaPon, most powerful weaPon we had was the M60.
    [Show full text]