military binoculars in silent hunter - Page 2

greyrider · 07-05-17, 03:48 PM

@CaptBones greyrider is famous for posting "evidence" which does not back his claims. In this case his "evidence" is entirely irrelevant, as you establish. Interestingly, the very text he quoted and you explained was proof that my Dick O'Kane manual targeting method isn't merely plausible, as we thought when we developed it, it was actually used by Dick O'Kane and the Tang during the war. It was a pure surprise when I read that for the first time and realized that Dick O'Kane liked to use constant bearing attacks in the war.

well well....the mouth opens up again

so you developed the dick okane method, thats funny, let me ask you a question rr, in your so called dok method, and all those who are using "his"
method, let me ask you, are you shooting from aft to forward?
if your not, then your not using the dick okane method, becuse okane
always fired from aft to forward, because the contant bearing method is the only one of the 3 methods explained in the TFCM, that allows for that type of shooting.
it took a while for me to figure out the constant being method, but i got it !
and i can shoot from aft to forward, are you rr?

would you like me to prove it? im certainly game if you are, but that will debunk your arcade method for what it really is, arcade
im still willing to prove the constant bearing method

just like your corruption mod, at first you called it multi sh4,
when i saw that i said, hmmm...where did i hear that before,
another show of something plagiarized by rr, and then i remembered, it was from sh3,
and the mod was called multish3, i read your read me file that came with it, never mentioning the real author of that mod, passing it off as something you made when in fact it belonged to someone else
i will get the link to multish3 in a sec, but theres meds available for people like you rr, you really need to take them, klonopin and wellbutrin wont help you if you dont take them as your doctor prescribed

the real author and his mod

authors name:Potoroo

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/down...o=file&id=4411

also any moderator, you see for yourself, rr comes in here to troll........and troll only, im not looking for a fight, but im not backing down from one either

BigWalleye · 07-05-17, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptBones

I want the relative bearing compass to be displayed. Why? Well, in the real world on the bridge of my ship, I know where I am, which way I'm facing/turning and the approximate relative bearing of my field of view. Sitting in a chair at my computer desk, I have no relevant frame of reference and will rapidly get "lost" when I make even the slightest turn in any of the binocular views. It's a PITA to have to constantly switch views back and forth to "keep the picture" in my head.

CaptBones, I faced this quandary a couple of years ago with my own heavily home-brewed SH3. I hated that Luke Skywalker Gyrostabilized Binocular. But how to live without some indication of which way I was looking? Now, I'm a small-boat sailor, nothing bigger than 50-60 feet, so my RL experience may be a lot different than that on a real ship. But when I am on the boat amd looking at something through binoculars, in RL I have to keep dipping the glasses now and then. I know whether I'm looking fore or aft, port or starboard, but for more accurate tracking than 45 degres or so, I continually have to orient myself by sneaking glimpses of the boat I'm on. Maybe my SA just isn't that good.

So I finally took off the gyrocompass RO, and found myself "sneaking" glimpses of my near surroundings, just as I do on a boat. Flick the mouse wheel up, then down. Lift the glasses, then dip them just for a second to orient myself. It "feels" like I am looking through binoculars on a not-too-stable small vessel. And it doesn't feel like I've borrowed Luke's future-binocs.

YMMV.

greyrider · 07-05-17, 05:15 PM

Have you ever tried to do that? I have…it is impossible with hand-held binoculars aboard a ship.

capt

yes i have done that, in the army, i had 2 MOS and 1 qualifier,

11b1p- "11 bravo 1 parachute"
13f- "13 fox
c2 "charlie 2

13 fox is artillary forward observer, it was my job to take out anything with a call for indirect fire.

plz look at the pic

do you know what that is?

its the fulda gap in germany, this is just one of three invasion routes into western europe, this gap is where the soviet tank and infantry armies would come from to attack us and allied forces.
we, were trained in an arty simulator, that works just like rl, to attack the incoming armies and armour, it was my job and everyones elses job to stop
them.

take a look at the distances of the gap, what do you think a tank would look like at thoses ranges, yet the army expected me to take out those tanks with just a map, compass and binoculars and a radio, thats all we would have, its different now, they have laser range finders, but they will never replace human forward observers, now you dont think i could take out a ship as long as its within range of the guns?

just a note, the fulda gap was the border of east and west germany, germany has since reunited, so now us and allied forces are now much more forward, heck even to poland now

razark · 07-05-17, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greyrider

yes i have done that

I looked on your pretty little picture. Can you please be more specific as to where your ship was at the time?

CaptBones · 07-05-17, 06:35 PM

Well, I'm not going to get in the middle of any peeing contest that might take place here...so I'll avoid any comments relative to that unfortunate situation.

But, in regard to the 3:10 PM post...

In the beginning, my Navy wasn't much different at all from the WWII USN; I served from the mid-'60s to the mid-'90s, and not once on a "missile ship" (except for the OHIO SSBN 726). Oh we certainly had guns and did conduct gunnery exercises, anti-aircraft, surface-to-surface and ship-to-shore. Not to mention that I was involved in the only ship-to-ship gun battle in the Vietnam War (you can call a 600ton trawler a "warship" if it sports, and uses, a 40mm gun). We also did SHOBOM (shore bombardment) along the coast up to the DMZ, to support our Army and Marine Corps brothers in need.

But the reason nobody, not just me, but nobody, used or uses binoculars with reticles at sea is just what I wrote before...the reticles aren't useful. The distances involved, the basic environment and the ship's installed equipment for performing the same functions, only better, just make it pointless to have the reticles in hand-held binoculars.

Now, as to the second approach you've proposed. Every USN ship has "Equipage"...sort of like a TOE. "Equipage" is serialized, signed for and regularly inventoried; the binoculars used by the lookouts and deck watch officers are "Equipage" and are issued to the Department responsible for the Watch, Quarter and Station Bill for the Bridge and the lookout positions (e.g., the signal bridge & etc.). The binoculars are handed-off from one watch-stander to another as the watch sections rotate. Nobody gets to "keep" a pair of binoculars for their own use and nobody (well, lookout watch-standers anyway) is allowed to use their own personal pair of binoculars. Getting caught doing so might even end up with that man going to Captain's Mast (Article 15 NJP), depending on how much of a stickler for Regs the deck watch officers and XO might be. "Why" you ask.

Well, uniformity with respect to the individual's performance after training provided for use of the equipment and with respect to the "product" obtained through use of said equipment. If I, as the OOD/JOOW and CO/XO know that my lookouts are trained in the proper use of Navy Standard 7X50 binoculars and are using same, then I am most likely confident that they are performing their duties as expected. They should all be equally able to visually detect a ship, an aircraft, a periscope, or even a torpedo wake at about the same distances under the same environmental conditions and etc. If some cowboy is up there with his own favorite non-standard pair of commercial or non-Navy binoculars, I have no idea if he's trained in the proper use of them and even more important, I don't know how that equipment functions in comparison to the Navy-issued gear that he's supposed to be using.

To be specific in one respect...the light-gathering capability, magnification and the field of vision of the 7X50 binoculars is very different from a pair of 6X30 or 10X40 or other configured glasses. I don't want that kind of variability between/among my lookouts and/or deck watch officers.

Also, to be direct regarding your postulated scenario of the "wanna have it" brother requisitioning a neat-o pair of reticle equipped binoculars like his Army bro is using...even if the bro' could submit a Requisition and get it through his own Division Officer/Dept. Head and through some miracle it got past the Supply Dept. Leading Storekeeper, the Supply Officer would never approve it. Plus, if somehow it did get off the ship, the Supply Center would reject it and send it back to the ship, because it wasn't on the ship's Equipage list to begin with.

Then again, we get back to the basic matter...reticle equipped binoculars don't work well at sea; they just aren't really useful.

Oh...yes I do recognize the Fulda Gap...been there during a stint in NATO War Planning. I had an Uncle who was an Artillery Forward Observer with the 8th Army in Korea...during the war. He had a pair of 6X30 field glasses and he loved 'em (I have them now and I love 'em too)...for use on land. He went to sea with me once and discovered they were not the best thing for use at sea...switched to a pair of 7X50's and was very happy the rest of the trip.

Peace...and Thank You also for your service.

Rockin Robbins · 07-05-17, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greyrider

@CaptBones greyrider is famous for posting "evidence" which does not back his claims. In this case his "evidence" is entirely irrelevant, as you establish. Interestingly, the very text he quoted and you explained was proof that my Dick O'Kane manual targeting method isn't merely plausible, as we thought when we developed it, it was actually used by Dick O'Kane and the Tang during the war. It was a pure surprise when I read that for the first time and realized that Dick O'Kane liked to use constant bearing attacks in the war.

well well....the mouth opens up again clear personal attack in violation of Subsim rules

so you developed the dick okane method, thats funny, let me ask you a question rr, in your so called dok method, and all those who are using "his"
method, let me ask you, are you shooting from aft to forward?
if your not, then your not using the dick okane method, becuse okane
always fired from aft to forward, because the contant bearing method is the only one of the 3 methods explained in the TFCM, that allows for that type of shooting.
it took a while for me to figure out the constant being method, but i got it !
and i can shoot from aft to forward, are you rr?

would you like me to prove it? im certainly game if you are, but that will debunk your arcade method for what it really is, arcade
im still willing to prove the constant bearing method

Since Dick O'Kane himself covers my defense I can only direct you to read and understand "Clear the Bridge." He totally covers constant bearing attacks better than I ever have. The Dick O'Kane technique was developed not knowing the details of how Dick O'Kane actually formulated his attacks. In fact, we went WAY beyond any reasonable explanation that this was a historically plausible attack method which was named after Dick O'Kane and never made any representation that it reflected the exact way Dick O'Kane would conduct an attack.

The Dick O'Kane method has been examined by submariners from World War II through the Cold War and been pronounced sound by all who have examined it. I have dozens of testimonies from SH4 players thanking me from changing their experiences from frustrated and unable to hit targets to deadeye shots who put lots of targets on the bottom. I don't accept criticism from someone who has nothing to say. You don't understand what you read and you have proved that over and over. You'll not get the opportunity to embarrass yourself again. I'll not play your silly game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by greyrider

just like your corruption mod, at first you called it multi sh4,
when i saw that i said, hmmm...where did i hear that before,
another show of something plagiarized by rr, clear personal attack in violation of Subsim rules
and then i remembered, it was from sh3,
and the mod was called multish3, i read your read me file that came with it, never mentioning the real author of that mod, passing it off as something you made when in fact it belonged to someone else clear personal attack in violation of Subsim rules

i will get the link to multish3 in a sec, but theres meds available for people like you rr,clear personal attack in violation of Subsim rules
you really need to take them, klonopin and wellbutrin wont help you if you dont take them as your doctor prescribedclear personal attack in violation of Subsim rules

the real author and his mod

authors name:Potoroo

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/down...o=file&id=4411

also any moderator, you see for yourself, rr comes in here to troll.clear personal attack in violation of Subsim rules
.......and troll only, im not looking for a fight, but im not backing down from one either

SH4CMS (Silent Hunter 4 Corruption Managerment System) has nothing to do with MultiSH4 except that it can make game directories for MultiSH4 by Potoroo to use. It will also restore game installations in the MultiSH4 directories to certified original game files. SH4CMS is a collection of batch files, and nobody has ever written a mod or utility for SH4 in batch language but me. In the installation is MultiSH4, JSGME and Large Address Aware, by other people and fully credited, as is proper. I dont steal others' work. I don't permit anybody on my mod team to steal others' work (they wouldn't do it anyway). I insist that any time others' work is used I have permission and give full credit. But you know that. You know that SH4CMS is entirely my own work and nothing similar to it has ever appeared for SH3 or SH4. And the truth just doesn't seem to make much of an impression. In case you haven't got the message, your statements above are lies.

If you have even bothered to look at SH4CMS and the credits contained you wouldn't embarrass yourself by spouting foolishness. Keep it up and you'll get yourself banned like last time.

greyrider · 07-06-17, 12:18 PM

'SH4CMS (Silent Hunter 4 Corruption Managerment System) has nothing to do with MultiSH4 except that it can make game directories for MultiSH4 by Potoroo to use"

so why not mention his name?

i dont buy in to your explanation rock

i dont care what you added, you took potoroo's idea, made something without giving him credit.
thats plagiarism.......stealing.

@CaptBones greyrider is famous for posting "evidence" which does not back his claims

that wasnt a personal attack?

"And the truth just doesn't seem to make much of an impression. In case you haven't got the message, your statements above are lies."

yep, and the cow jumped over the moon

The Dick O'Kane method has been examined by submariners from World War II through the Cold War and been pronounced sound by all who have examined it.

prove it!

and no where in your reply did i see you take me up on proving the constant bearing method, which is the real method used by okane,

missed the meds this morning again rock?

greyrider · 07-06-17, 12:28 PM

captB, your missing the point entirely, and my point in this argument is not whether
the navy used bino's with reticules, if that was the issue here, then the tread has been hijacked
my argument is the method, and the scale of the method, if they did, they did, if they didnt, they didnt,
i could care less really, but any gun firing at range will need to be directed.
thats why in a call for fire, the call doesnt go to the guns first, it goes to the FDC first,

the fire direction center

and after the solution is figured at FDC, then FDC calls the guns with the information for the guns,

but before FDC figures the solution, it calls the guns and gives them a warning order
for a fire mission to have them alerted and standing by for the information coming.

unfortunately, alot of people on here say "i cant" or "it cant".
but innovative people always prove them wrong time and again.

take dick okane for example, to keep pace with his targets propellers,
he used a Metronome, now the "i cants" and the it cants" out there will start stomping around
holding thier breath until they turn blue, saying you cant use a Metronome to keep time with a propeller, it was made to keep time in music,
you cant and it cant be done.

yea.

or take okanes device he used in running simulated target exercises, where he used an electric razor against a mic hooked
up to the hydrophones to simulate target propellers.

i can hear it now, the "i cants" and the "it cants" will be hitting the roof,

YOU CANT USE AN ELECTRIC RAZOR TO SIMULATE A TARGETS PROPELLERS, IT WAS MADE FOR SHAVING,
AND ITS ONLY PURPOSE IS FOR SHAVING AND THATS IT.

yea.

but! people like okane prove the i cants and it cants wrong every time.

you dont say i cant or it cant to people of ingenuity, you could never say that to someone like patton
without getting a dressing down badly, and then you get the proof that says it can.

my whole point in this is innovation and adaptation, and thats all, as commander, i would use anything
and everything that would help me do my job better, destroy the enemy, and save my troops lives and my own life to, as best as a could
accomplish that, and nothing more.

Rockin Robbins · 07-06-17, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greyrider

'SH4CMS (Silent Hunter 4 Corruption Managerment System) has nothing to do with MultiSH4 except that it can make game directories for MultiSH4 by Potoroo to use"

so why not mention his name?

i dont buy in to your explanation rock

i dont care what you added, you took potoroo's idea, made something without giving him credit.
thats plagiarism.......stealing.

@CaptBones greyrider is famous for posting "evidence" which does not back his claims

that wasnt a personal attack?

"And the truth just doesn't seem to make much of an impression. In case you haven't got the message, your statements above are lies."

yep, and the cow jumped over the moon

The Dick O'Kane method has been examined by submariners from World War II through the Cold War and been pronounced sound by all who have examined it.

prove it!

and no where in your reply did i see you take me up on proving the constant bearing method, which is the real method used by okane,

missed the meds this morning again rock?

I'm not buying anything from the likes of you, greyrider and nobody else at Subsim is either. You are talking to yourself, entertaining some but not convincing any. I have nothing to prove. You do. How about contributing one thing of lasting value to the Subsim community? The door is open but I can't make you walk through it.

If you think I've made personal attacks you know where to take your case. Make it good. Remember statements of fact are not attacks. If you think I've plagiarized, then you can get me kicked off Subsim permanently. Make your best case. If you think I've used materials without proper attribution then I can be permanently kicked off Subsim. I wish you well. But all you are doing here is making yourself look like a fool. You are doing a very good job of that, I must say.

That's all I have to say to you. You are on ignore, ranting to yourself.

Onkel Neal · 07-06-17, 09:33 PM

This thread needs a time out. Gentlemen, please.

07-05-17, 03:48 PM	#16
greyrider Watch Officer Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: massachusetts Posts: 334 Downloads: 237 Uploads: 0	@CaptBones greyrider is famous for posting "evidence" which does not back his claims. In this case his "evidence" is entirely irrelevant, as you establish. Interestingly, the very text he quoted and you explained was proof that my Dick O'Kane manual targeting method isn't merely plausible, as we thought when we developed it, it was actually used by Dick O'Kane and the Tang during the war. It was a pure surprise when I read that for the first time and realized that Dick O'Kane liked to use constant bearing attacks in the war. well well....the mouth opens up again so you developed the dick okane method, thats funny, let me ask you a question rr, in your so called dok method, and all those who are using "his" method, let me ask you, are you shooting from aft to forward? if your not, then your not using the dick okane method, becuse okane always fired from aft to forward, because the contant bearing method is the only one of the 3 methods explained in the TFCM, that allows for that type of shooting. it took a while for me to figure out the constant being method, but i got it ! and i can shoot from aft to forward, are you rr? would you like me to prove it? im certainly game if you are, but that will debunk your arcade method for what it really is, arcade im still willing to prove the constant bearing method just like your corruption mod, at first you called it multi sh4, when i saw that i said, hmmm...where did i hear that before, another show of something plagiarized by rr, and then i remembered, it was from sh3, and the mod was called multish3, i read your read me file that came with it, never mentioning the real author of that mod, passing it off as something you made when in fact it belonged to someone else i will get the link to multish3 in a sec, but theres meds available for people like you rr, you really need to take them, klonopin and wellbutrin wont help you if you dont take them as your doctor prescribed the real author and his mod authors name:Potoroo http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/down...o=file&id=4411 also any moderator, you see for yourself, rr comes in here to troll........and troll only, im not looking for a fight, but im not backing down from one either Last edited by greyrider; 07-05-17 at 05:43 PM.

07-05-17, 05:15 PM	#18
greyrider Watch Officer Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: massachusetts Posts: 334 Downloads: 237 Uploads: 0	Have you ever tried to do that? I have…it is impossible with hand-held binoculars aboard a ship. capt yes i have done that, in the army, i had 2 MOS and 1 qualifier, 11b1p- "11 bravo 1 parachute" 13f- "13 fox c2 "charlie 2 13 fox is artillary forward observer, it was my job to take out anything with a call for indirect fire. plz look at the pic do you know what that is? its the fulda gap in germany, this is just one of three invasion routes into western europe, this gap is where the soviet tank and infantry armies would come from to attack us and allied forces. we, were trained in an arty simulator, that works just like rl, to attack the incoming armies and armour, it was my job and everyones elses job to stop them. take a look at the distances of the gap, what do you think a tank would look like at thoses ranges, yet the army expected me to take out those tanks with just a map, compass and binoculars and a radio, thats all we would have, its different now, they have laser range finders, but they will never replace human forward observers, now you dont think i could take out a ship as long as its within range of the guns? just a note, the fulda gap was the border of east and west germany, germany has since reunited, so now us and allied forces are now much more forward, heck even to poland now Last edited by greyrider; 07-05-17 at 05:55 PM.

07-06-17, 09:33 PM	#25
Onkel Neal Born to Run Silent Join Date: Jan 1997 Location: Cougar Trap, Texas Posts: 21,283 Downloads: 534 Uploads: 224	This thread needs a time out. Gentlemen, please. __________________ SUBSIM - 26 Years on the Web

07-05-17, 06:35 PM	#20
CaptBones The Old Man Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Rockton, IL Posts: 274 Downloads: 208 Uploads: 0	Well, I'm not going to get in the middle of any peeing contest that might take place here...so I'll avoid any comments relative to that unfortunate situation. But, in regard to the 3:10 PM post... In the beginning, my Navy wasn't much different at all from the WWII USN; I served from the mid-'60s to the mid-'90s, and not once on a "missile ship" (except for the OHIO SSBN 726). Oh we certainly had guns and did conduct gunnery exercises, anti-aircraft, surface-to-surface and ship-to-shore. Not to mention that I was involved in the only ship-to-ship gun battle in the Vietnam War (you can call a 600ton trawler a "warship" if it sports, and uses, a 40mm gun). We also did SHOBOM (shore bombardment) along the coast up to the DMZ, to support our Army and Marine Corps brothers in need. But the reason nobody, not just me, but nobody, used or uses binoculars with reticles at sea is just what I wrote before...the reticles aren't useful. The distances involved, the basic environment and the ship's installed equipment for performing the same functions, only better, just make it pointless to have the reticles in hand-held binoculars. Now, as to the second approach you've proposed. Every USN ship has "Equipage"...sort of like a TOE. "Equipage" is serialized, signed for and regularly inventoried; the binoculars used by the lookouts and deck watch officers are "Equipage" and are issued to the Department responsible for the Watch, Quarter and Station Bill for the Bridge and the lookout positions (e.g., the signal bridge & etc.). The binoculars are handed-off from one watch-stander to another as the watch sections rotate. Nobody gets to "keep" a pair of binoculars for their own use and nobody (well, lookout watch-standers anyway) is allowed to use their own personal pair of binoculars. Getting caught doing so might even end up with that man going to Captain's Mast (Article 15 NJP), depending on how much of a stickler for Regs the deck watch officers and XO might be. "Why" you ask. Well, uniformity with respect to the individual's performance after training provided for use of the equipment and with respect to the "product" obtained through use of said equipment. If I, as the OOD/JOOW and CO/XO know that my lookouts are trained in the proper use of Navy Standard 7X50 binoculars and are using same, then I am most likely confident that they are performing their duties as expected. They should all be equally able to visually detect a ship, an aircraft, a periscope, or even a torpedo wake at about the same distances under the same environmental conditions and etc. If some cowboy is up there with his own favorite non-standard pair of commercial or non-Navy binoculars, I have no idea if he's trained in the proper use of them and even more important, I don't know how that equipment functions in comparison to the Navy-issued gear that he's supposed to be using. To be specific in one respect...the light-gathering capability, magnification and the field of vision of the 7X50 binoculars is very different from a pair of 6X30 or 10X40 or other configured glasses. I don't want that kind of variability between/among my lookouts and/or deck watch officers. Also, to be direct regarding your postulated scenario of the "wanna have it" brother requisitioning a neat-o pair of reticle equipped binoculars like his Army bro is using...even if the bro' could submit a Requisition and get it through his own Division Officer/Dept. Head and through some miracle it got past the Supply Dept. Leading Storekeeper, the Supply Officer would never approve it. Plus, if somehow it did get off the ship, the Supply Center would reject it and send it back to the ship, because it wasn't on the ship's Equipage list to begin with. Then again, we get back to the basic matter...reticle equipped binoculars don't work well at sea; they just aren't really useful. Oh...yes I do recognize the Fulda Gap...been there during a stint in NATO War Planning. I had an Uncle who was an Artillery Forward Observer with the 8th Army in Korea...during the war. He had a pair of 6X30 field glasses and he loved 'em (I have them now and I love 'em too)...for use on land. He went to sea with me once and discovered they were not the best thing for use at sea...switched to a pair of 7X50's and was very happy the rest of the trip. Peace...and Thank You also for your service.

07-06-17, 12:18 PM	#22
greyrider Watch Officer Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: massachusetts Posts: 334 Downloads: 237 Uploads: 0	'SH4CMS (Silent Hunter 4 Corruption Managerment System) has nothing to do with MultiSH4 except that it can make game directories for MultiSH4 by Potoroo to use" so why not mention his name? i dont buy in to your explanation rock i dont care what you added, you took potoroo's idea, made something without giving him credit. thats plagiarism.......stealing. @CaptBones greyrider is famous for posting "evidence" which does not back his claims that wasnt a personal attack? "And the truth just doesn't seem to make much of an impression. In case you haven't got the message, your statements above are lies." yep, and the cow jumped over the moon The Dick O'Kane method has been examined by submariners from World War II through the Cold War and been pronounced sound by all who have examined it. prove it! and no where in your reply did i see you take me up on proving the constant bearing method, which is the real method used by okane, missed the meds this morning again rock?

07-06-17, 12:28 PM	#23
greyrider Watch Officer Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: massachusetts Posts: 334 Downloads: 237 Uploads: 0	captB, your missing the point entirely, and my point in this argument is not whether the navy used bino's with reticules, if that was the issue here, then the tread has been hijacked my argument is the method, and the scale of the method, if they did, they did, if they didnt, they didnt, i could care less really, but any gun firing at range will need to be directed. thats why in a call for fire, the call doesnt go to the guns first, it goes to the FDC first, the fire direction center and after the solution is figured at FDC, then FDC calls the guns with the information for the guns, but before FDC figures the solution, it calls the guns and gives them a warning order for a fire mission to have them alerted and standing by for the information coming. unfortunately, alot of people on here say "i cant" or "it cant". but innovative people always prove them wrong time and again. take dick okane for example, to keep pace with his targets propellers, he used a Metronome, now the "i cants" and the it cants" out there will start stomping around holding thier breath until they turn blue, saying you cant use a Metronome to keep time with a propeller, it was made to keep time in music, you cant and it cant be done. yea. or take okanes device he used in running simulated target exercises, where he used an electric razor against a mic hooked up to the hydrophones to simulate target propellers. i can hear it now, the "i cants" and the "it cants" will be hitting the roof, YOU CANT USE AN ELECTRIC RAZOR TO SIMULATE A TARGETS PROPELLERS, IT WAS MADE FOR SHAVING, AND ITS ONLY PURPOSE IS FOR SHAVING AND THATS IT. yea. but! people like okane prove the i cants and it cants wrong every time. you dont say i cant or it cant to people of ingenuity, you could never say that to someone like patton without getting a dressing down badly, and then you get the proof that says it can. my whole point in this is innovation and adaptation, and thats all, as commander, i would use anything and everything that would help me do my job better, destroy the enemy, and save my troops lives and my own life to, as best as a could accomplish that, and nothing more.