Jump to content
NEWS
  • In Universe Dateline: Febuary 14th 2023
  • Tensions rise in South Africa after no clear winner in Presidential election
  • Bomb in Tehran café kills three IRGC members, separatists suspected
  • Dominican Republic government on verge of collapse as gang violence escalates in Santa Domingo
  • Russia claims successful test of nuclear-powered cruise missile, experts remain skeptical
  • Man claims he was acting under Taylor Swift's secret orders after being arrested at NATO summit
  • Livonia detains 12 over suspected coup attempt
  • Sahrani troops disperse protest with gunfire, 8 reported dead
  • Hurricane rips through Florida Cemetery; Hundreds reported Dead
  • THESE HEADLINES ARE WORKS OF FICTION INTENDED TO SUPPORT THE STORYLINES OF THE 3d MRB REALISM UNIT

MAJ Carrera

General Aviation
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    911

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    25

Posts posted by MAJ Carrera

  2. Posted

    32 minutes ago, CW2 Waller said:

    Transport: Dropping off a sniper team with an AH-6 on an elevated position for instance.

    We did do this during this last deployment, but only once; would like to see this more often. +1

     

    32 minutes ago, CW2 Waller said:

    CAS:

    +1

     

    32 minutes ago, CW2 Waller said:

    Air-to-Air Combat:

    the last time we did this regularly was our deployment on Taunus which someone correct me if I'm wrong; was about a year ago. Would like to see more. +1

     

    32 minutes ago, CW2 Waller said:

    Resupply/Reinsert:

    +1

    • Thanks 2
    • Upvote 2

  3. Posted

    15 minutes ago, GySgt Hito said:

     

    Is your retention problem related to the scope of missions or it was more related to other circumstances outside of this?

    Not certain, if i knew for sure, we would have fixed this long ago I think it is a number of factors including the scope of the missions not being involving enough. Fixed wing does not have these problems. Could be the higher level of difficulty and added responsibility (killing an entire TF from one little mistake) of flying a helicopter over a jet that scares people away.

    • Thanks 1

  4. Posted

    28 minutes ago, Capt Kardnal said:

    If I could play a negative card here,

     

    I try as much as possible to utilize whatever I have given to my JTAC, and I still find the supply of air traffic available to be a bit lacking. I understand the issue of COIN was that we couldn't utilize our heavier combat frames such as the Apache or the A10 so often, but the light to medium frames like the little bird, DAP and the F16/15 would have been welcomed with open arms. I recall as Alp had chosen an Apache for a very low intensity combat mission, and the Apache was used minimally. He later made a statement that the mission was not fun. I think this is not so much a mission fault as a bad choice of planning. Utilizing a pair of single seat light frames with guns and rockets would have vastly increased Aviations' fun AND utility in this scenario. I don't bring this up as a catchall endall, but as a learning example. Can't always BRRRRT every problem to ash, and I think that statement is perfectly fine with me, as long as I can have everyone playing and giving them something to accomplish. :)

     

    I do agree that COIN was a limiting factor in aviation's effectiveness. As for utilizing the light to medium frames we have been doing that more as of late, we haven't used the Apache for several cycles at this point. We had issues with pilots not respecting the air-frame requests from the JTAC's and just took what ever they wanted which lead to using the Apache to much because it does everything the AH-6, and the DAP does but better.

     

    Rotary's recruitment and retention has been less than stellar... Especially since most of us are Zues operators and battle captains; which leads to the air-frame shortages that we have. We have tried to combat this by broadening our scope of jobs (IMO 5 rotary pilots are to many slots for a single TF) by subtracting the pilot slots per TF to 3 and adding Crew Chiefs or PJ's but was "shot down" due to fear that would pull potential SARC fill ins away from the teams on the ground.

     

    I have gone a bit off topic here so as for the OP I liked the multiple AO's on the same server it pushed our ISR skills to to the max especially if we were short on pilots. I disliked the COIN aspect, it was not a situation that put enough emphasis on combined arms scenario.

    • Thanks 1

  6. Posted

    ACRE2 Release 2.6.0

    This update brings the following features to ACRE2, with a strong focus on vehicle gameplay that includes vehicle racks and an overhauled intercom system emulating VIC-3 functionality.

     

    Vehicle Racks (requires ACE3 Interaction Menu)

    Vehicle racks are back to ACRE2. The use of racked radios translates into longer transmission ranges due to their increase in power and the use of larger antennas. The current system supports the following racks:

    • AN/VRC-103 for the AN/PRC-117F
    • AN/VRC-110 for the AN/PRC-152
    • AN/VRC-111 for the AN/PRC-148
    • AN/VRC-64 for the AN/PRC-77
    • SEM90 for the SEM70 (with GUI interface)

    TFMIFV9.png

     

    Overhauled Vehicle Intercom (requires ACE3 Interaction Menu)

    The new intercom system integrates with the vehicular radios, allowing transmit and receive functionality to seats without physical access to the racks. In addition, it brings support for multiple intercom networks and the ability to tweak intercom volume among other features.

     

    Together with intercom, comes the infantry phone feature, which allows members of mechanized infantry to communicate through the intercom system with the crew inside an armored vehicle. 

     

    External/Shared Radios (requires ACE3 Interaction Menu)

    It is now possible to share radios with other comrades without the need of giving them. This works for personal, backpack radios and vehicular radios.

  17. Posted · Edited by CW4 Carrera

    9 minutes ago, Cpl DelPercio said:

    The biggest thing we could try and introduce is medevacs, some of the injuries we sustain in the field would not be treatable in the field. While this would make for a massive logistical undertaking, I think it would be interesting to employ medevacs and maybe even sarcs or other personnel that could fill in and act as medical crew onboard. Two ways we could utilize it is have a medical helicopter fly in and stay until wounded are treated, which is dangerous, but faster. Or like a traditional medevac and take the wounded back to base. I think this would be interesting and include some more realism but also maybe making people think about how they operate. 

    Literary typing this as you posted... pilot slots are already medics via ACE so we could incorporate crew chief slots which is already being talked about and they can act somthing like a PJ.

     

    6 minutes ago, WOC Derr said:

    That’s not how splints work bro. Yes if you wish to make one out of some tourniquets and twigs you could probably reuse one.  the splints we use are mailable and you fit it to fit the specific wound. I’m not a medic and it’s been a minute since I prepped one so I could totally be wrong. Just have the SARCs carry multiple splints, they should be pretty light.

    41KgNKLvEcL._SX355_.jpg

     

    yes they are light they are a pliable metal sheet with foam glued to the sides probably about 3-4 ounces each dont think you would be able to use it as a  tourniquet.

    • Upvote 2

  23. Posted · Edited by CW3 Carrera

    index_04.jpg

     

    Maybe something along the lines of what Karem offered during the Armys now defunct Joint Heavy Lift Program. possibly a way to revive the same idea under a new title. Picture is from Karems website.

  24. Posted

    10 hours ago, LCpl G. Miller said:

    Is this the very same one?

    yes

    good to see someones taking initiative but my money is on the defiance; smaller, holds about the same amount of troops and much faster.

  25. Posted

    3 hours ago, Capt Koch said:
    • It's PVP, so it may or may not have insta-death on
    • Basic Medical instead of Advanced - what do you guys think about this?
    • Blufor is capped at 4, we thought of a ratio of 1 BLUFOR for every 4-5 OPFOR (not GREENFOR)
    • Darker maps, but we offset this by limiting tech at BLUFOR level. They get the monocular NVG only (no fullscreen), and any camera etc. like NVG or TI is disabled on helos. In addition this forces OPFOR and GREENFOR to use lights and cities.
    • GREENFOR gets a couple of vics so they can mix things up - that means they can have multiple vics with the "hostage" going around to distract BLUFOR for instance

    +1

    3 hours ago, Capt Koch said:

    We'll try to add random air and ground traffic going around to add even more confusion for BLUFOR

    -1 I dont know that seems a bit over kill..

     

    also not being able to see the other teams base locations would be a great thing

     

    adding a small civi prop plane for greenfor? And Russians not having TOW missiles like they had in the second game.

×