Miniature Painting Videos
Miniature and Military Model Painting Techniques Guide
Basic Model Painting Guide For Wargames
Miniature Model Basing Techniques
Here are some other videos by this guy.
A blog for the modern miniatures wargame "A Fistful of TOWs".
"Kind of dreadful"...I love it. Hat tip to Bob Mackenzie.
Scotia Micro Models
What they make: Virtually everything. They have, far and away, the most comprehensive range of modern micro armor of anyone out there.
Quality: Mixed. Some pieces, such as their UK Saxons, are very good. Other, such as some of their French engineering vehicles, are a bit rough. Additionally, Scotia models seem to run small. Scotia models have also been manufactured by SimTac in Connecticut and possibly by New England Hobby Supply. It does not appear that any new models have been added in the last two years, although they are still in production and their customer service is excellent. They also sell a good line of neutral equipment, such as generic towed 120mm mortars and 20mm Oerlikon AA guns.
Pricing: Typically about 60 cents a model, with large ones a bit more. Shipping from Scotland is surprisingly reasonable.
Favorite Models: Various UK Saxons, French Trucks
Least Favorite Models: Their M113s are kind of dreadful.
December 25, 2004: One of China’s primary military weaknesses is a lack of modern ATGMs (Anti-Tank Guided Missiles) because of the obsolescence of their current light anti-tank weapons. Over the last decade or so, China has been aggressively attempting to modernize its armed forces to become a regional superpower. Much of this money goes towards obtaining new combat aircraft, air defense equipment, and armored vehicles. As a result, China’s air force and armored corps have improved significantly, due to the increased attention they have received. Like in many countries, small arms and infantry weapons are way down the list.
However, China has long been completely self-sufficient in infantry weapons and continues to develop more high-tech equipment. China has thus attempted to solve their problem with a lack of anti-tank missiles in an interesting way: they’ve developed two new anti-tank systems without using missiles.
The first two of these systems is basically a cheaply-made domestically-produced LAW (Light Anti-Tank Weapon). For years, the primary light anti-armor weapon for the PLA (People’s Liberation Army) Ground Forces was the Type 69, which was a Chinese copy of the Soviet RPG-7 rocket propelled grenade launcher. The Type 69 fired the standard 85mm rocket with an armor piercing capability of about 300mm. During its heyday, this weapon was actually very good, being extremely cheap, reliable, and powerful enough to pierce most light armored vehicles at the time. The millions of RPG-7s scattered around the globe attest to its usefulness. However, the first-generation RPGs are now obsolete without more powerful warheads and, when up against a well armed and armored forces, only good for attacking vehicles with little to no armor protection. The Type 69 is still in widespread service, as each Chinese infantry squad has two RPG operators each with three rockets, giving small units a substantial amount of anti-armor power.
The Type 69 is gradually being replaced by the PF89 80mm Light Anti-Tank Weapon. The Chinese claim that it is comparable to the American AT-4. The weapon weighs about 6-7 pounds as opposed to the Type 69’s 12 pounds and penetrates about 400mm of armor, 100mm more than the Type 69. Like the AT4, the PF89 is a self-contained anti armor weapon, with a disposable launcher. The PF89 is probably not as high-quality as the similar AT4, but it’s a big improvement over the obsolete RPG. [In FFT2 terms, this system would be 8h-1-2]
Of course, a man-portable light anti-tank weapon doesn’t solve the problem of not being able to take out main battle tanks. Instead of developing anti-tank missiles from scratch or buying them in bulk from Russia, the Chinese have developed an anti-tank rocket, the PF98, to deal with heavy armor on the battlefield. Gradually replacing the older Type 65 and 78 recoilless rifles, the 120mm PF98 is intended to be a cross between an anti-tank missile and an individual anti-tank rocket. Like an individual weapon, the PF98 is lightweight, man-portable, and self-contained and consists of a reusable launcher tube, aiming sight, and a tripod for stabilization. For ammunition, the weapon fires two types of projectiles: a tandem HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) round and a High Explosive Multipurpose round. The HEAT round penetrates explosive reactive armor and has penetration capability of 800mm. The High Explosive Multipurpose rounds consist of high explosives and 120 steel ball bearing for use against hostile infantry.
The biggest advantage of this system is the weight. The entire system weighs about 20 pounds, and can be quickly transported from one place to another in a hurry. This is extremely light when compared to a Western anti-tank system like the US Javelin missile, which has a carry weight of almost 50 pounds (49.06). With these two system, China now has little need to produce or import large quantities of ATGMs. The PF-89 provides the infantry with enough firepower to deal with light armored vehicles and the PF98 is capable of killing most heavily-protected tanks. Also, both systems are simple and inexpensive to produce in large number, essential to a country that already has a stretched defense budget.
December 29, 2004: Who has the most effective tank in the world continues. The most likely candidates are western tank designs (the M1 Abrams, the Challenger, the LeClerc, and the Leopard 2), which are much better on a tank-for-tank basis than Russian designs like the T-64 and its descendants (the T-72, T-80 and T-90).
Which of these four Western tanks is the best? Websites like globalsecurity.org or recognition guides from Jane’s can give basic specifications. Added to combat records, one can see that the French LeClerc drops back on one major issue: It has an autoloader – which is much slower and maintenance-intensive than a 19-year-old private.
That leaves the Big Three of Western tanks. The Challenger is slow, but heavily armored. It also has a gun with a longer range (in Desert Storm, a Challenger killed an Iraqi tank five kilometers away) than either the M1A2 or the Leopard 2. That said, it is much slower than the other two (56 kilometers an hour vs. 72 for the Leopard 2 and 67.6 for the Abrams), and it is arguably at its best on defense.
The Leopard 2 and Abrams are very similar tanks. The major difference is in the type of engine used. The Leopard 2 uses a diesel engine, while the Abrams used a gas turbine. Each engine has its advantages and disadvantages. The Leopard 2’s diesel is more efficient, giving the German tank more range (550 kilometers to 426 kilometers for the Abrams). That said, the gas turbine on the Abrams is quieter, meaning that opponents without infrared systems will have a harder time detecting the Abrams at night, which can mean their only warning an Abrams is around could be when the Abrams sends a 120mm candygram their way – most of the time, the result will be a direct hit.
There are smaller differences. The Leopard 2 has two 7.62mm machine guns – one anti-aircraft gun, the other a coaxial machine gun. The Abrams has three: One 12.7mm machine gun for anti-aircraft work (also very useful against infantry and unarmored vehicles), a 7.62mm coaxial machine gun, and a second machine gun mounted near the loader’s hatch. The Abrams has an edge here, since the loader can cover a sector in addition to the coaxial machine gun and the commander’s machine gun. This means it is that much harder for infantry to sneak up on the Abrams than it would be to sneak up on a Leopard.
The matter of auxiliary power is another thing not always mentioned in the specs. The Leopard 2 has none. The Abrams features an auxiliary power unit, which allows it to shut off the turbine in some instances, allowing it to conserve fuel. In situations where the Abrams is on defense, this is a huge advantage – not only because the Abrams saves fuel, but because infrared sensors have a harder time picking it up. Again, the first indication the Abrams is there will be when it fires – and well-trained Abrams crews are very accurate. If you see an Abrams firing at you, it is probably the last thing you will see.
Finally, there is another item that doesn’t show up in the specs: Internal arrangement. The Leopard stores some of its main gun ammunition in the crew compartment, and uses steel as its liner. While the steel can keep something out, it also creates nasty spall fragments when a sabot or HESH (high-explosive squash head) round strikes the tank. The Abrams keeps its main gun ammo in a separate compartment and has a spall liner while using aluminum, reducing casualties when an Abrams is hit. This is important – an uninjured crew can fight back even if the tank is damaged. This was proven In Desert Storm, when an Abrams stuck in the mud continued fighting despite taking three hits from the main guns of Iraqi T-72 tanks – and promptly dispatched the offending T-72s. The tank defied American efforts to destroy it in place, and after being recovered had the turret replaced and was back with its unit in 24 hours. The damaged turret was sent back to the United States for analysis.
In short, the Abrams still takes the title overall, despite arguable deficiencies in range (which careful logistics planning can overcome), as its combat record proves. The Leopard 2 is a close second, and the Challenger 2 isn’t far behind the Leopard. – Harold C. Hutchison (firstname.lastname@example.org)
I think I agree with Harold, but I'd hasten to add that there is very little material diference (in FFT terms anyone) between these tanks. It will all boil down to troop quality, in my opinion.
The Leopard-2S (aka Strv 122)
China and Russia will hold their first joint military exercise next year, the Chinese government said Monday, as President Hu Jintao called for an expansion of the rapidly growing alliance between the former Cold War rivals.While I'm not particularly worried about a Sino-Russian alliance, it does offer rich inspiration for FFT scenarios.
The announcement came during a visit to Beijing by Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, who was expected to discuss expanding the Kremlin's multibillion-dollar annual arms sales to China.
The exercises are to take place on Chinese territory, the official China News Service said. But that report and other government statements didn't say when they would take place or what forces would be involved. "We want ... to promote the development of the two countries' strategic collaborative relationship in order to safeguard and promote regional and world peace," CNS quoted Hu as telling Ivanov.
Beijing and Moscow have built up military and political ties since the Soviet collapse in 1991, driven in part by joint desire to counterbalance U.S. global dominance. They are partners of the six-nation Shanghai Cooperation Organization, formed to combat what they consider the common threat of Islamic extremism and separatism. The other members are the former Soviet republics of Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.
The announcement of military exercises comes two months after Beijing and Moscow settled the last of their decades-old border disputes that led to violent clashes in the 1960s and '70s.
The agreement was signed during an October trip to Beijing by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who said relations had reached "unparalleled heights." That visit also produced a pact to jointly develop Russian energy resources - an urgent issue for Beijing, which is trying to avert fuel shortages in its booming economy.
The frontier where at one point 700,000 Soviet troops faced 1 million Chinese soldiers is now a bustling cross-border market.
China has become the Russian arms industry's No. 1 customer, and is expected to buy $2 billion in weapons this year.
Russia is a key supplier for the Chinese military's effort to modernize its arsenal and back up frequent threats to invade Taiwan, the self-ruled island that Beijing claims as its territory.
The United States and the European Union have banned weapons sales to China since its bloody 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy protesters. But Moscow has supplied Beijing with high-performance Su-27 fighters and other top-of-the-line arms.
Ivanov also met with Defense Minister Cao Gangchuan and Guo Boxiong, deputy chairman of the Communist Party commission that runs China's military, the official Xinhua News Agency said. Hu is chairman of the commission. Hu is to visit Moscow in May during festivities commemorating the end of World War II.
Vs a C-in-C M1A1
Rocket propelled grenades (RPGs) have long been the typical weapons of choice when someone wants to attack trucks and armored vehicles in Iraq. RPGs are cheap, simple to operate, and if used properly can inflict significant damage on Stryker and Bradley armored vehicles. Unarmed and armored Hummers are especially vulnerable, since the various armor kits for the Hummer are designed to protect occupants from small arms and machine gun fire, not anti-tank grenades.
One quick fix to protect the Hummer is a unique airbag system developed by a small California company that deploys a "curtain" down outside the side of the vehicle being attacked. Four bags are needed to protect all quadrants and are held in place with simple Velcro straps. A small radar detects the incoming RPG or RPGs and inflates the airbag with a carbon dioxide gas cartridge. The RPG is literally "caught" by the airbag like a pillow and slowed enough so the nose-mounted fuse doesn't detonate the warhead. Instead, the RPG ends up collapsing upon itself, shredding the secondary self-destruct fuse and looking like a stomped-on beer can. Currently, the airbag and cartridge have to be replaced after one use, but the designers are working on a reusable airbag that can simply be rolled up and put back into place.
Cost for the system is expected to run between $5,000 to $7,000 dollars and weighs around 50 pounds. The Army is in the process of awarding a contract with the goal of getting systems to Iraq within 6 months, at a initial product rate of 25 systems per month. Other systems are being refined for use on canvass-topped vehicles and the Stryker. The system has the potential to replace both the current Stryker "RPG" fence standoff metal framework as well as reactive armor systems and has the twin advantages of being lighter and less expensive than reactive armor. It's also safer around infantry than reactive armor. Multiple tests of the airbag system have been run using RPGs, with one test managing slow down an RPG enough to stop it relatively intact – forcing a stop to the tests until range safety could come out and blow it up in place.
Over the longer term, the Army is looking towards electronically "charged" armor protection. The protection scheme would be composed of an outside armored plate, a spaced gap, and an inner charged plate. Shaped charges are essentially hot streams of metal traveling at (very) rapid speed to penetrate armor. A shaped charge from an RPG or other antitank weapon would detonate, penetrate the outer armor plate, and the hot metal stream would make contact with the charged inner plate, forming an electrical circuit that ends up splattering the metal across the inner plate rather than breaking through into the hull of the vehicle.
Charged armor is a better solution than reactive armor, as it is both lighter than reactive and also non-threatening to nearby infantry. At least two manufacturers have successfully demonstrated charged armor solutions, one retrofitting a Bradley AFV with a large capacitor to charge the inner hull plate. One manufacturer has demonstrated that the Bradley charged armor can take multiple RPG hits onto the same section of the hull without penetration and was willing to show a short demonstration film to those of the proper security clearance. In theory, charged armor should work equally well against weapons with larger shaped charge warheads, but the manufacturer would not comment on any tests done in that area. Ideally, charged armor would be an integrated solution as a part of a hybrid-electric vehicle. Power would be available from the vehicle to charge the armor for protection and installing the equipment would not require an expensive rebuild from the ground up. – Doug Mohney
The U.S. Marine Corps is buying 522 diesel powered motorcycles for battlefield use. These are the first diesel powered motorcycles to enter military service. Diesel power means better reliability, and much greater fuel efficiency; up to 175 kilometers per gallon of fuel. This is about twice the range of a conventional motorcycle engine. The cost of the diesel powered bike is about 25 percent higher, but the greater reliability, and range, is worth it for a troops operating in the combat zone. The marine bike is based on the Kawasaki KLR650 trail bike, and weighs about 350 pounds, has a six gallon fuel tank (good for about a thousand kilometers) and 28 horsepower. The marines will use the bike mainly for scouting.
[B]ody armor on the battlefield...may soon be challenged by a new breed of armor-piercing bullets. Over the last few year Russia...has developed and marketed several different types of armor-piercing rifle rounds that are specifically designed to penetrate high-quality body armor. The secret of the new ammunition’s penetration power is...the material that is used to produce the bullet’s core. The ammunition developers have been using a number of different materials, including steel, tungsten, and even uranium alloys. ... A good example ...includes the 7N10 Armor-Piercing Round, in 5.45x39, which is capable of penetrating a steel slab 16mm thick from 100 meters. The 5.45mm is the round used in the AK-74, the standard infantry weapon in Russia [which include the ubquitous AK-47].I believe that this is the reason the US is developing a .280 caliber round.
Another round known as the 7N13, chambered for 7.62x54R, is especially effective when fired from the Dragunov SVD sniper rifle. Armor penetration is the same as the 7N10 at 100 meters. Originally these bullets were designed to be used against both armored infantry and light armored vehicles, and test firings have proven that many of these rounds are quite effective at piercing the armor on BTRs and BMPs (which are about 5 and 10mm thick). However, the results against Western-style armored vehicles are not known since Western vehicles have not been used as test subjects, nor have they been encountered in combat. One thing is certain, though, any hostile force with access to this ammunition would make life extremely difficult for troops wearing even high-quality body armor like the Interceptor. Most small arms still in production by the Russian Federation have some sort of armor-piercing ammunition made for them. The Russians have hinted that they might try to issue the new ammunition to regular soldiers and not just special forces.
In the US and Western Europe, similar developments are underway since developed militaries are finally beginning to realize that their military forces’ (especially infantry) may have a high chance of encountering hostile forces equipped with body armor. One of the best innovations in small arms, as far as armor-piercing ammunition is concerned, is the Heckler & Koch MP7 rifle. ... In addition to its compact size and light weight, the weapon is unique is that it is specifically designed to penetrate body armor. H & K specifically designed the specialty ammunition to penetrate Russian body armor, since this has become the NATO standard target when developing armor penetrating ammunition. ...[But] Russia currently markets a wide range of body armor, called the KIRASA series, whose protection levels vary from very low to very high. The lowest form of KIRASA armor incorporates Level I protection, which guards against pistol ammunition from .22LR to .38 caliber. The highest form of KIRASA body armor, and the one that NATO should be most worried about, is the KIRASA-D Model I. This KIRASA-D is a ballistic vest intended for ground troops that incorporates ceramic plates on the torso section that raise its protection level to Level IV (the same as the US military’s Interceptor). The problem with this is Russia has a history of selling weapons to whomever can pay for them and the potential for these vests to fall into the hands of potential enemies is no small matter. Unless NATO develops ammunition to penetrate Level IV vests in the future, it may have a serious problem on its hands in a potential conflict. The AK-74 is widely distributed is the Former Soviet Union and is used by a number of insurgent groups, especially the ones in Chechnya (who constitute one of the most well-equipped insurgent groups in the world) and US troops is very likely to encounter it in the hands of enemy troops in a future conflict. The MP7 has less of a chance of being encountered by US troops, but the possibility that it could fall into hostile hands, like the MP5, is very real.
The Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection System, or SWORDS, will be joining Stryker Brigade Soldiers in Iraq when it finishes final testing...
“We’re hoping to have them there by early 2005,” Tordillos said. “The Soldiers I’ve talked to want them yesterday.”
The system consists of a weapons platform mounted on a Talon robot [which] began helping with military operations in Bosnia in 2000, deployed to Afghanistan in early 2002 and has been in Iraq since the war started, assisting with improvised explosive device detection and removal. Talon robots have been used in about 20,000 missions in Iraq and Afghanistan...
Different weapons can be interchanged on the system – the M16, the 240, 249 or 50-caliber machine guns, or the M202 –A1 with a 6mm rocket launcher. Soldiers operate the SWORDS by remote control, from up to 1,000 meters away. In testing, it’s hit bulls eyes from as far as 2,000 meters away, Tordillos said. The only margin of error has been in sighting, he added.
“It can engage while on the move, but it’s not as accurate,” Tordillos said.
There are four SWORDS in existence; 18 have been requested for service in Iraq, Tordillos said. So far, each system has cost about $230,000 to produce, said Bob Quinn, lead integrator for the project. When they go into production, Quinn estimates the cost per unit will drop to the range of $150,000 to $180,000.
The reason they 'look like paper' is not because they are paper, but because of the lack of relief detail.
Overhanging eaves are necessary to look like a building, yet many don't have them.
Having separate window sills, easy to cut out as just a sliver from a single sheet of card, can make all the difference by introducing some low relief. Thin wire for down pipes for guttering takes almost no effort, and can transform a building.
A judicious wash of very diluted brown or grey paint over the surface of the paper soo it looks slightly weatherw orn will vastly aid appearence.
But the most frequently seen problem is people failing to colour the edges of cut sheets, so corners and roof edges look horribly bright. Take a felt pen to the damn things so the edges don't stand out! It's bad enough with railway modeller's buildings in 1/76 scale - in 1/300 it looks plain awful.
Hunting for guerillas, handling roadside bombs, crawling across the caves and crumbling towns of Afghanistan and Iraq -- all of that was just a start. Now, the Army is prepping its squad of robotic vehicles for a new set of assignments. And this time, they'll be carrying guns.
As early as March or April, 18 units of the Talon -- a model armed with automatic weapons -- are scheduled to report for duty in Iraq. Around the same time, the first prototypes of a new, unmanned ambulance should be ready for the Army to start testing. In a warren of hangar-sized hotel ballrooms in Orlando, military engineers this week showed off their next generation of robots, as they got the machines ready for the war zone.
"Putting something like this into the field, we're about to start something that's never been done before," said Staff Sgt. Santiago Tordillos, waving to the black, 2-foot-six-inch robot rolling around the carpeted floor on twin treads, an M249 machine gun cradled in its mechanical grip.
For years, the Pentagon and defense contractors have been toying with the idea of sending armed, unmanned ground vehicles, or UGVs, into battle. Actually putting together the robots was a remarkably straightforward job, said Tordillos, who works in the Army's Armaments Engineering and Technology Center.
Ordinarily, the Talon bomb-disposal UGV comes equipped with a mechanical arm, to pick up and inspect suspicious objects. More than a hundred of the robots are being used in Iraq and Afghanistan, with an equal amount on order from the UGV's maker, Waltham, Massachusetts-based firm Foster-Miller.
For this new, lethal Talon model, Foster-Miller swapped the metal limb for a remote-controlled, camera-equipped, shock-resistant tripod, which the Marines use to fire their guns from hundreds of feet away. The only difference: The Marines' version relies on cables to connect weapons and controllers, while the Talon gets its orders to fire from radio signals instead.
"We were ready to send it a month ago," Tordillos said. Navigating the Pentagon bureaucracy and putting together the proper training manuals are what's keeping the Talon stateside, for now.
Back in December 2003, the Army's 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division tested an armed Talon in Kuwait. Now, the brigade wants 18 of the UGVs to watch the backs of its Stryker armored vehicles.
Four cameras and a pair of night-vision binoculars allow the robot to operate at all times of the day. It has a range of about a half-mile in urban areas, more in the open desert. And with the ability to carry four 66-mm rockets or six 40-mm grenades, as well as an M240 or M249 machine gun, the robots can take on additional duties fast, said GlobalSecurity.org director John Pike.
"It's a premonition of things to come," Pike said. "It makes sense. These things have no family to write home to. They're fearless. You can put them places you'd have a hard time putting a soldier in."
It's the same goal Army-funded researchers are keeping in mind as they develop an unmanned ambulance. The Robotic Extraction Vehicle, or REV, is a 10-foot-long, 3,500-pound robot that can tuck a pair of stretchers -- and life-support systems -- beneath its armored skin. The idea is for battlefield medics to stabilize injured soldiers, and then send them back to a field hospital in the REV. But the REV also carries an electrically powered, 600-pound, six-wheeled robot with a mechanical arm that can drag a wounded fighter to safety if there isn't a flesh-and-blood soldier around.
Ordinarily, it takes two to four men to get the wounded out of harm's way. Patrick Rowe, with Applied Perception of Pittsburgh, said he hopes the REV will cut that number, maybe by half. The firm is scheduled to show off prototypes of the robots to the Army's Telemedicine & Advanced Technology Research Center in March.
But this early version will be limited, Howe said. Ideally, the REV would drive around on its own, with no help from human operators. In practice, the robot would either be driven by a person with a joystick, or it would get around by itself by sticking to carefully preplanned routes. As the
limited performancesin the Pentagon's robot off-road rally in March showed, unmanned drivers are still pretty lousy at handling open, unknown terrain.
That's one of the reasons why iRobot's new UGV will still have a steering wheel inside, so it can be driven by a human, too. The company -- best known for its Roomba robotic vacuum cleaner and the PackBot UGVs that the Army has been using to clear bombs and explore suspected terrorist hideouts in the Middle East -- is now working with agricultural equipment manufacturer John Deere to build a cargo-hauling robot.
The M-Gator is a six-wheeled, diesel mini-Jeep that soldiers use to schlep about 1,400 pounds of gear. IRobot wants to have a robotic version ready by next year, so it can show it off to the Army and try to get funding for a full line of the vehicles, which would work as mechanical pack mules. The company hopes to be in production by 2006.
By then, the armed Talon will have been in operation for about a year, if all goes according to plan. And for those of you who might be worried about the robot getting loose with a "runaway gun," Tordillos orders you to relax.
"The thing is not shooting on its own. You've got to have these," he said, waving a set of small, silvery keys, which fit into a lock on the Talon's briefcase-sized controller. A single switch causes the robot to reboot and return to safe mode.
GlobalSecurity.org's Pike isn't worried about the Talon going haywire. He's concerned about what the armed UGV represents for the future.
"This opens up great vistas, some quite pleasant, others quite nightmarish. On the one hand, this could make our flesh-and-blood soldiers so hard to get to that traditional war -- a match of relatively evenly matched peers -- could become a thing of the past," he said. "But this might also rob us of our humanity. We could be the ones that wind up looking like Terminators, in the world's eyes."
The Army's Tank-Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center, or TARDEC, is one of several Defense Department groups looking for a way to give those troops in Hummers another layer of defense. TARDEC's solution: blast the RPG in midair, before it gets a chance to hit.
In another few years, Hummers' roofs could be covered with a dozen tubes, each filled with a foot-long mini-rocket called the FCLAS -- short for Full Spectrum Active Protection Close-In Shield. Every FCLAS would have a pair of radio-frequency sensors inside. One in the nose would detect incoming RPGs and fire off a counterstrike. A second sensor, in the rocket's side, would go off when the RPG comes within range. The FCLAS would then detonate, letting loose a hail of explosive fragments, destroying the grenade in the process. The whole attack and response would take no more than a few seconds.
The Afghans have some of the same problems as the Iraqis, namely tribalism and a weak sense of nationalism. ... But European colonizers proved in the 19th century that, with good training and good NCOs and officers, you can produce combat units from tribal warriors that can match Western ones in effectiveness. The key problem is getting effective NCOs.
Professional NCOs have been the secret to success in Western armies. However, the NCOs must be slowly developed, by selecting recruits who have leadership and management skills, and training them, on the job, over several years. It takes 3-5 years to get a suitable recruit to the point where he can handle the job of the lowest level sergeant (in charge of a squad of 10-12 troops.) Another 3-5 years gets you an NCO that can handle a platoon (which is usually led by a lieutenant, who depends on the platoon sergeant a lot.) Another five years gets you a company 1st sergeant. This NCO assists the officer commanding the company, and supervises the other twenty or so NCOs in the company.
Of course, Western nations have, in major wars, had to develop NCOs a lot more quickly.
In Afghanistan, you had a lot of men who have been fighting for over two decades. Lots of good NCO material. But the concept of the Western NCO (a professional supervisor who is respected and well paid) is largely unknown in Afghanistan. The old Afghan army was based largely on the Soviet model, which treated most NCOs as “senior privates” and left most of the supervisory duties to officers. Most of the Afghan men with combat experience, however, were not in the army, but in tribal war parties (usually squad or platoon size). Here, many of them they gained good NCO type experience at the squad and platoon sergeant level. These men have been found and given some training for squad and platoon sergeant positions. Those that are at the platoon sergeant level, and are also literate, are being used as 1st sergeants (who have to handle some paperwork).
Another advantage the Afghans have over the Iraqis is a warrior mentality. It’s easier to make the Afghans understand that for an army to work, troops must learn how to use their weapons (and take good care of them), and stand and fight. While Iraq has produced some good soldiers, most Iraqis want nothing to do with fighting. However, with good training and NCOs, just about anyone can be turned into an effective soldier. Unfortunately for Iraq, most of the good NCOs and officers were Sunni Arabs. These men are vulnerable to Saddam’s enforcers, who are still around and either killing Sunni veterans who join the new army, or threatening those considering it. Thus the Iraqis have a hard time getting experienced Sunni Arabs to serve as NCOs. So in Iraq, NCOs must be developed the hard way, by taking men with potential and having them learn on the job.