US Army AAA in T2K

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I'm personally mystified by the decision to withdraw the Linebacker. I'd love to hear the thinking at the top on that decision. It seems like the perfect vehicle for its mission, since it's almost entirely a Bradley except for its mission fit and fits in perfectly with a mechanized or armored division.

Indeed, they went with us (3d ACR) for the invasion/OIF1 and they made a very effective regimental fire brigade/reserve manpower pool that the regiment was able to flex where-ever and however when needed. True, not much need for the stingers, but the 25mm was still able to shoot stuff up just fine.

The Avenger on the other hand... What good can be said of it other than it exists so the Army can claim they have an AA platform. At 40k a missile, and assuming only 1 miss out of the 8, its a hell of lot more expensive than say, a 40mm cannon would be for the same level of effectiveness. Sure, it can be said that the stinger can reach out farther than a gun, but outside of the open desert, or down into mountain valleys from ridge line firing positions, not going to be much chance for that, for I think most shots will be hip shots at a threat that pops out of (relatively) nowhere. So, give a SPAAG platform a good gun system: 30mm, 40mm, 25Gat, 30Gat (Ohh... GAU8 anyone?) or whatever and tack on a brace of missiles for when you do have those money shots presented to you.

*edit*

More I think about it, the more I like the idea of mounting (if possible, I don't know for sure) a goalkeeper system on a tank chassis, add in a four cell stinger box, do a little tweaking to the programing for a logic circuit to decide if its a missile engagement or gun for effectiveness, and you get something that *I* don't want to get in the same zipcode with.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Seems the Pentagon ponies should ask some of the British veterans of the Falklands War.
Ask them how they learnt to operate Argentinian AA guns they'd captured so they could fire back at the aircraft strafing them.

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

More I think about it, the more I like the idea of mounting (if possible, I don't know for sure) a goalkeeper system on a tank chassis, add in a four cell stinger box, do a little tweaking to the programing for a logic circuit to decide if its a missile engagement or gun for effectiveness, and you get something that *I* don't want to get in the same zipcode with.

Funny you should say that. As soon as this thread started up, I was thinking about other hypothetical stopgap AAA systems from the 1996-1998 period and immediately turned to a Phalanx bolted to a Bradley or Abrams chassis.

- C.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

Indeed, they went with us (3d ACR) for the invasion/OIF1 and they made a very effective regimental fire brigade/reserve manpower pool that the regiment was able to flex where-ever and however when needed. True, not much need for the stingers, but the 25mm was still able to shoot stuff up just fine.

The Avenger on the other hand... What good can be said of it other than it exists so the Army can claim they have an AA platform. At 40k a missile, and assuming only 1 miss out of the 8, its a hell of lot more expensive than say, a 40mm cannon would be for the same level of effectiveness. Sure, it can be said that the stinger can reach out farther than a gun, but outside of the open desert, or down into mountain valleys from ridge line firing positions, not going to be much chance for that, for I think most shots will be hip shots at a threat that pops out of (relatively) nowhere. So, give a SPAAG platform a good gun system: 30mm, 40mm, 25Gat, 30Gat (Ohh... GAU8 anyone?) or whatever and tack on a brace of missiles for when you do have those money shots presented to you.

*edit*

More I think about it, the more I like the idea of mounting (if possible, I don't know for sure) a goalkeeper system on a tank chassis, add in a four cell stinger box, do a little tweaking to the programing for a logic circuit to decide if its a missile engagement or gun for effectiveness, and you get something that *I* don't want to get in the same zipcode with.

Interesting set up.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yeah that is one of the down falls. I think for most part, US Troops haven't come under constant enemy aircraft since Korea. Yeah, ask the veterans who have been under fire and it doesn't take an genius to figure out after 6 weeks of constant bombing, why so many of the Iraqi Army just gave up in 1991.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I think part of the problem is that the USAF assures the Pentagon that it is more effective at getting the job done than putting troops on the ground is. They point to their success in Gulf War 1 & 2 conveniently forgetting that they didn't face a foe on the same level as Korea, Europe or the Pacific in the 1950s & 1940s respectively. They assume that they will always have air superiority.

They overlook the fact that the Russians have fielded the ZSU-23-4 for decades and partially replace/supplemented it with the 9K22 Tunguska and then gone further and supplemented/replaced the Tunguska with the Pantsir S1 because they (the Russians) aren't assuming they'll always have air superiority.

The Tunguska is in service with a handful of countries outside Russia (Belarus, the Ukraine, India and Morocco) but the Pantsir is in service with Syria who apparently sold approximately ten units to Iran.

[Legbreaker]

And of course ten units don't make an air defence network...

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

Funny you should say that. As soon as this thread started up, I was thinking about other hypothetical stopgap AAA systems from the 1996-1998 period and immediately turned to a Phalanx bolted to a Bradley or Abrams chassis.

- C.

No doubt that the thought would have hit: We are from what I read doing just that with the 20mm Phalanx mounted on a Himmit in Iraq for inbound artillery/mortar/rocket interception. That could use some fact checking, but if thats the case... I could *very* easily see it happening in the TW as ships become laid up due to parts/fuel.

The Goalkeeper is a similar setup using the GAU-8 gatling off of the A10. According to NAH, you are looking at a range of 450, with a ROF of 135 and a pen of 18/12/5. Not too shabby. With Ammo, just over 1800kg. So... I can see it happening.

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

No doubt that the thought would have hit: We are from what I read doing just that with the 20mm Phalanx mounted on a Himmit in Iraq for inbound artillery/mortar/rocket interception. That could use some fact checking, but if thats the case... I could *very* easily see it happening in the TW as ships become laid up due to parts/fuel.

Yup. I believe the system you're thinking of is Centurion C-RAM. It's what got me thinking about a Phalanx Bradley. I wasn't sure of that proposal's plausibility for AAA, though, because one of the ostensible goals behind DIVAD was to produce a gun with longer effective range than the 20mm. On the other hand, it has some story potential as a stopgap solution thrown together in my hometown...

The Goalkeeper is a similar setup using the GAU-8 gatling off of the A10. According to NAH, you are looking at a range of 450, with a ROF of 135 and a pen of 18/12/5. Not too shabby. With Ammo, just over 1800kg. So... I can see it happening.

I'm a long-time Warthog fan and, having looked at the GAU-8, I've always considered Goalkeeper mildly terrifying (you want to put a what on a ship?). The suggestion of putting it on an MBT chassis is awe-inspiring in a truly disturbing way, and that'd certainly solve the range problem.

- C.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

And of course ten units don't make an air defence network...

Well, thats the thing:

NATO on the whole doesn't go for networked defense. Thats a Russian thing.

Russians (Or Soviets to be accurate) came up with the whole, for a lack of a better term, Zone Defense strategy using a broad spectrum of guns and missiles of various capabilities, each of which supported the other with the mission of making the air above the battlespace a no fly zone, even for themselves, as they clearly stated that it was impossible for air defense to do a adequate job of preventing friendly fire. As to how well it works, ask the Israeli's, there is a reason that they don't have very many aircraft that predate 1973. And that was a Arab manned Soviet Air Defense Net (Again, I'll grant that there was more than a few "advisors" present). One guy I know whose job was to simulate russian air defense nets in a opfor role for the airforce likened it to a arial no-mans land mentality from the first world war. He was somewhat known for the nastiness he could achieve with the lowly SA2 - everyone he said always looked out for the newer, better, stuff. Spent all the time countering it: By the time they did so, the telephone poles have snuck through is how he put it - Too stupid and primitive to be vulnerable to current ECM.

We never felt much need for the same: NATO Air Forces was assumed to have total domination of the air, at worst, the soviets might achieve local air neutrality. Because of this, the doctrine was for Point Air Defense, where a handful of vehicles, sent to the most vulnerable point.

[Panther Al]

In the timeline I use, the Twilight War kicks off in 2016, hence TW2020. This thinking and chat has inspired me, so I bring you the first draft of the M73 Eaton SPAAG.


M73 Eaton SPAAG

Developed in 2014 by the US Army, this vehicle was introduced for three main reasons: One, it was determined that a dedicated gun based air defense system was needed; Second, that any system adopted had to use off the shelf equipment as much as possible. The Eaton achieved that by using up surplus M1 hulls released by the drawdown in armored forces, and by using the gun system off of the recently retired Air Force A10 Thunderbolts. With the addition of the already developed Goalkeeper fire control system, and the incorporation of a four-cell slammer launch module, this was accomplished. The finished product served admirably, it was well liked by the crews who felt that not only was the missile system good at its job, the gun itself allowed them to project a no fly bubble in excess of its actual capabilities due to the legend of the GAU-8. When the Twilight War began, these expectations were met in spades, causing the US to start production of new systems, although few were actually built before the TDM. The reputed third reason, though never officially acknowledged by anyone, was that the adaptation and naming of the system after the then currently sitting President (A former Sergeant in the 3d ACR) was in order to shut him up and get his nose out of meddling with the way the Army was doing things – especially after his direct meddling with the make up of the reestablished 1st, 2nd, and 3rd ACR’s.



Stats:

Same as M1A2 except as following:

Armament 4 AIM120 Slammers, GAU-8 30mm Gatling, M240 ( C ).
Ammo: 4 AIM120, 1178rd 30mm, 800 7.62
Price: 550,000
Veh Wt: 52 Tonnes
Crew 3
MNT 14
Fuel Cons 520
TF 40, TS 20, TR 12.


Flame away!

[pmulcahy11b]

Sounds good -- keep the capacious ammunition stowage for the 30mm rounds. However, I thought the AIM-120 was called the Rattler and not the Slammer. Although...SLAMRAAM -- Slammer -- makes sense for the ground-launched version.

[Panther Al]

I've no idea what the ground launched version of the AMRAAM is called, so Slammer it is. I decided on 1178 as the fluff says the system was ripped out of retired A10's, so for cost savings they just used the same drum. I personally would have more, but, fluff won out here.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

I've no idea what the ground launched version of the AMRAAM is called, so Slammer it is. I decided on 1178 as the fluff says the system was ripped out of retired A10's, so for cost savings they just used the same drum. I personally would have more, but, fluff won out here.

They're called the SLAMRAAM (Surfaced-Launched AMRAAM), so Slammer for the SAM version sounds good. Can anybody on the boards draw good enough to make a sketch?

Would the Goalkeeper's radar be modified to be able to track land-based surface targets?

[Panther Al]

Dunno. I would say no though. But thats a easy fix, repurpose the existing FC system, and bobs your uncle, since its all software based these days.

As to art, Not I. I wish I could though as I think this vehicle is about to make its appearance in the game I've got sorta going. But will it be in the hands of the good guys or bad guys... muahahaha

*edit*

While you could drop in the Goalkeeper turret, its not as big as I thought it turns out, just tall, I am thinking more along the lines of a fairly boxy, but lower profile turret, more along the lines of Gun on Centre line, the round dish (I think its tracking) radar to the left, the Slammers to the right, and the search radar mounted on the back topside of the turret - perhaps on a mast?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

While cruising the web for info on SPAAG systems, I've found some interesting bits & pieces that I'd like to post up here.

A conversation from worldaffairsboard.com that discusses some US SPAAGs (other contenders for the DIVAD project) link here
Scroll down about half the page, I think some people will be happy to see that the rotary cannon, i.e. Gatling Gun was well represented. I tend to disagree with many of the posters there about their definition of a white elephant though.

Phalanx systems on HEMTT platform (although I think we've seen this somewhere before, Antenna I think it was had some artwork of a HEMTT mounting two Phalanx systems. Link here.

Finally, I think if you want some artwork (mostly top-down stuff) for a gun system, the people at RPGMapShare might be able to help. They do a lot of artwork for gaming and have a modern section here.
Considering that some of their modern military vehicles are done as hull and turret seperate, you might be able to mix & match for some hybrid vehicles (although I have no idea what scale these guys work at but with 61 pages of 1940s to 2000s vehicles, this site could be a big help for making your own maps for the next RPG session.).

Although I love the work that the guys at gunpoint-3D.com do and would love to see them work their magic on a Gatling armed M1 SPAAG, I think they only do commission work and they'd be a bit beyond my price range. Their example of the M1 AGDS is here.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

Yup. I believe the system you're thinking of is Centurion C-RAM. It's what got me thinking about a Phalanx Bradley. I wasn't sure of that proposal's plausibility for AAA, though, because one of the ostensible goals behind DIVAD was to produce a gun with longer effective range than the 20mm. On the other hand, it has some story potential as a stopgap solution thrown together in my hometown...



I'm a long-time Warthog fan and, having looked at the GAU-8, I've always considered Goalkeeper mildly terrifying (you want to put a what on a ship?). The suggestion of putting it on an MBT chassis is awe-inspiring in a truly disturbing way, and that'd certainly solve the range problem.

- C.

Something to remember about Phalanx/Goalkeeper, is that during the time period we are talking about, both systems were in very short supply with the Navies, for the USN they were actually RV with a home-bound ship, transferring the Phalanx to the out-going ship. SO as far as them being available for a US Army unit to "borrow"...I'd have to say that it would be a R roll!

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Something to remember about Phalanx/Goalkeeper, is that during the time period we are talking about, both systems were in very short supply with the Navies, for the USN they were actually RV with a home-bound ship, transferring the Phalanx to the out-going ship. SO as far as them being available for a US Army unit to "borrow"...I'd have to say that it would be a R roll!

There you had to go and throw a plausibility wrench in my writeup...

- C.

[Tegyrius]

Ah, screw it. I had to write this to get the image out of my head; might as well post it.

- C.

------

XM2A61

Following the failure of the U.S. Army's DIVAD program, a number of experimental and interim AAA platforms arose. One such vehicle was the XM2A61, the result of a collaboration between the Armor School at Fort Knox, Kentucky, and the nearby Naval Ordnance Station Louisville. The latter facility was the engineering and overhaul center for the Navy's Phalanx CIWS system. Several General Dynamics employees on NOSL's engineering team had previously worked on the company's own entrant in the DIVAD competition, which used the existing Phalanx radar in conjunction with a pair of Oerlikon 35mm autocannon. Their experience had led them to believe that the DIVAD requirement for larger-caliber guns was misguided: the existing VADS system's range limitations were due to its target acquisition systems, not the ballistics of the 20x102mm Vulcan. In mid-1991, from this starting point, they began exploring the feasibility of converting the naval Phalanx system to an AFV mount.

With the aid of Armor School officers who were intrigued by the concept, the General Dynamics engineers examined a variety of AFV chassis in the inventories of both the Armor School and Fort Knox's Patton Museum of Cavalry and Armor. They concluded that the current M2 Bradley could be adapted to carry a Phalanx mount, its secondary control console, and auxiliary power and cooling units. NOSL technicians fabricated a new Bradley turret basket to accommodate a CIWS, while the Armor School's maintenance shop tackled the job of fitting the other equipment. One wag commissioned "XM2A61 Development Group" patches from a local embroidery shop. Over the 1992 Christmas holiday, the ad hoc project team surreptitiously tested the components' mating on an engineless Bradley hull and proved that the hardware configuration was physically feasible.

Frustratingly for the participants, that successful trial marked the end of their experiment. Further progress, particularly with the critical reprogramming of the Phalanx control computer, would have brought official scrutiny and questions about misappropriation of resources. The CIWS unit and the engineering drawings returned to NOSL's inventory and the other parts were quietly hidden in the Patton Museum's restoration shop.

The Bradley/Phalanx pairing remained secret until mid-1996, when the Army's AAA deficiency was becoming painfully obvious. The Armor School's commandant was in the office of one of his subordinates, discussing an unrelated matter, when his attention fell on the officer's "I Love Me" wall. One framed patch bore what appeared to be R2-D2 brandishing paired revolvers and riding a Bradley hull. Perplexed, the commandant inquired; his subordinate confessed. The conversation ended with, "Major, get your band back together. I know people who'll want to see this thing."

With quasi-official sanctioning, the resurrected project quickly moved ahead. Many of the original General Dynamics conspirators remained at NOSL, and the Army arranged transfers back to Fort Knox for several of its own former participants. The 1992 efforts had solved the majority of the physical engineering challenges, though a substantial amount of polishing remained to convert a kludge to a usable weapon system. The greatest obstacle was adapting naval point defense control software to land-based anti-aircraft employment. Lacking the necessary in-house programming resources, General Dynamics hired a team of graduate students from the University of Louisville's J.B. Speed Scientific School, promising student loan repayment and employment opportunities if they could deliver the software on time.

The first prototype rolled onto Fort Knox's training fields on January 17, 1997. Its ground clutter filtering was marginal and the only manual control for the gun was a large red kill switch, but target acquisition was a qualified success. Live-fire tests the following month were sufficient proof of concept for the Army to authorize funding for five more vehicles, as well as two dozen refit kits intended for existing Bradley hulls with damaged turrets. Improvements in the final deliveries included fully debugged software (contrary to later claims, not adapted from a computer game), sound dampening for the gun, and a crude CCTV gunsight and manual aiming system (more for self-protection against enemy ground forces than any hope of crew-directed AAA engagement).

The Army's construction goals ran into a roadblock when the Navy protested the misappropriation of so many CIWS systems. Throughout the spring of 1997, NOSL and the Armor School continued building the remainder of the vehicles and refit kits while generals and admirals wrangled over gun procurement. A congressional hearing in May finally established that the Navy actually had a small surplus of Phalanx units, thanks in part to the loss of hulls that otherwise would have mounted them. The Navy reluctantly released enough CIWS to satisfy the initial order. The refit kits arrived in Europe in mid-July, with the five production vehicles following in August.

Throughout the remainder of the war, units that received the vehicles and refit kits regarded them as a mixed blessing. The auxiliary power unit, added to provide electricity for the Phalanx system without the use of the Bradley's engine, frequently vented exhaust inside the hull. Likewise, firing the gun a was a choking and deafening experience, thanks to propellant fumes and a 3,000 round/minute cyclic rate. The Army had no parts or technicians for the CIWS radar and computers, creating a dependency on the Navy that most units circumvented in a variety of creative manners. A two-man crew was hard-pressed to keep up with vehicle maintenance requirements, let alone the electronics' specialized needs. The Army lacked paint of a formula appropriate for the radar housing, leading to the oft-mocked (and tactically unsound) image of a woodland-camouflage Bradley sporting a towering, haze-gray sore thumb. Aviators loathed the system, as the only provision for IFF discrimination was a radio call to the crew prior to flying into the gun's engagement envelope. Fratricide was not an unknown occurrence; nor was overly-enthusiastic engagement of non-targets such as migratory birds and rain squalls. In one notorious incident filmed by a German news crew, an MLRS battery found its outbound rockets under fire from a nearby CIWS.

For all its faults, the Bradley/Phalanx was an effective AAA platform when employed as intended. In fully autonomous mode, the gun swiftly and reliably killed targets out to 4 km, even attack helicopters executing pop-up attacks. The vehicle was able to keep pace with Abrams and Bradley forces, as the original DIVAD program had intended. The CIWS' innate stabilization, designed to handle heavy seas, enabled the gun to engage targets even while the vehicle was bounding over rough terrain. In the latter months of the war, a dearth of air targets brought the surviving units into ground support use, where 20mm Vulcans proved messily lethal against infantry and soft-skinned vehicles. Though no records of such incidents exist, numerous apocryphal stories claimed that the system was capable of interdicting incoming ATGMs.

Due to the project's irregular nature, the XM2A61 designation was well-established by the time the Army procurement system tried to standardize the system. After a months-long battle to assign the Bradley/Phalanx the M2A4 number, Army officials conceded defeat and codified the mock designation. They did attempt to formalize a nickname of "Hoplite," playing on the "Phalanx" motif, but this appeared only in official documentation. To its designers and crews, the XM2A61 was the Louisville Slugger.

2.0 Traits

As per donor Bradley hull (either M2 or M2A2), except:

Price: $150,000 (R/-)
RF: None.
Stabilization: None.
Armament: Vulcan 20mm ADA autocannon
Ammo: 2,100x20mm (989 rounds ready in ammo drum, remainder stowed as cargo)
Crew: 2
Mnt: 11
Turret armor: TF 2, TS 2, TR 2

Activating or deactivating the CIWS system's autonomous air defense mode requires an action on the part of the vehicle commander. In this mode, which requires a working radar and targeting computer, the Vulcan's Range is doubled to 900 and it has good stabilization and a +4 rangefinder. No character attack actions are possible; the system functions as its own gunner with Initiative 6 and Heavy Weapons 6. The only action it may take is an attack, it may attack only airborne targets, and it must attack any such target within the Vulcan's maximum range. If presented with multiple valid targets, it will attack the closest. If two or more are at roughly equal range, it will first attack the one whose current flight path is most closely pointed at the vehicle.

[Panther Al]

I love it.

"nor was overly-enthusiastic engagement of non-targets such as migratory birds and rain squalls."

I can sooooo see that happening with a kludged up system like that.

But on a more serious note, Engaging ATGM's? I can buy that, the system was designed to shoot down missiles after all. I can easily see a commander placing one in and armoured assualt with a mission of intercepting incoming missiles, at least till the sovs learned that the slugger needs to be struck out asap.

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

I love it.

Thanks! This was fun to write. Just barely plausible enough to work, I think.

"nor was overly-enthusiastic engagement of non-targets such as migratory birds and rain squalls."

I can sooooo see that happening with a kludged up system like that.

The mental image of it interdicting outbound friendly MLRS rounds was what sold me on this.

But on a more serious note, Engaging ATGM's? I can buy that, the system was designed to shoot down missiles after all. I can easily see a commander placing one in and armoured assualt with a mission of intercepting incoming missiles, at least till the sovs learned that the slugger needs to be struck out asap.

*nod* I gave that some serious though, and I might yet update the writeup. I didn't want it to come across as too uber a system, though, particularly with its drastically shortened development cycle. On the other hand, I have to admit that one of these providing ATGM interdiction for a whole armor platoon on the move is the sort of thing that would look really good on film. I don't know how well it'd handle ground clutter that close, though - what's the usual flight altitude of an ATGM (prior to popping up for top attack)?

- C.

[Legbreaker]

That is just AWESOME!!!

I can sooooo see it being a double edged sword though, potentially attacking even fast moving ground vehicles within it's line of sight. Perhaps the fix for this was a minimum firing angle of say 20 degrees above the horizontal in automatic?
That would prevent automatically firing on friendly forces, but also prevent attacks against most incoming missiles. :/
Manual control wouldn't have the depression restrictions, but would loose the high tech target aquisiton (and still prevent accurate firing at missiles - could get lucky though...).

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

Yeah that is one of the down falls. I think for most part, US Troops haven't come under constant enemy aircraft since Korea. Yeah, ask the veterans who have been under fire and it doesn't take an genius to figure out after 6 weeks of constant bombing, why so many of the Iraqi Army just gave up in 1991.

Past history shows that once you lose air superiority (or never had it), your ground troops are in for a world of hurt. Mobile AAA systems won't stop your ground forces from being destroyed, only delay it.

[Mohoender]

Nice, real nice

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by copeab

Past history shows that once you lose air superiority (or never had it), your ground troops are in for a world of hurt. Mobile AAA systems won't stop your ground forces from being destroyed, only delay it.

Sadly almost everyone realizes this. As well as the other axiom that Air Superiority doesn't mean squat until you put boots on the ground.

[Targan]

Great work Tegyrius, and very entertaining to read. That kind of crazy firepower would have fit in so well with my last campaign.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

Sadly almost everyone realizes this.

Sorry, didn't mean to state the obvious

[Abbott Shaull]

With the lack of interest of have AAA units the US Army loses some of it abilities of using them against ground targets. It was one of the ideas that I always found fascinating the effect of them being turned on ground targets....

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

With the lack of interest of have AAA units the US Army loses some of it abilities of using them against ground targets. It was one of the ideas that I always found fascinating the effect of them being turned on ground targets....

Always heard that the ADA people didn't want to train for thier guns being used in ground combat.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Always heard that the ADA people didn't want to train for thier guns being used in ground combat.

Yeah who could blame them, the ammo they use/waste trying to shoot down aircraft would pale in compared to what they could expend on ground combat....