Land Warrior Soldier System (why team tags and minimap should stay)

Post by **GeZe** » 2006-05-25 02:01

Why should team tags and mini-map stay? Becuase it's more realistic.

US: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/land_warrior/

...The helmet carries a Head-Mounted Display (HMD), which is positioned over the soldier's dominant eye and provides command and control information and situational awareness. The display shows the video from the daylight video scope or the infrared thermal weapon scope mounted on the soldier's weapon. The display also shows satellite and topographical maps with friendly positions, updated every 30 seconds...

And for the Brits:
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/fist/

six7 · Post by **six7** » 2006-05-25 02:05

doesnt explain nametags though...

Post by **GeZe** » 2006-05-25 02:16

what? danm. oh well.

trogdor1289 · Post by **trogdor1289** » 2006-05-25 02:26

Wouldn't want to have my life dependent on Eletronics anyway.

six7 · Post by **six7** » 2006-05-25 02:26

'[R-PUB wrote:Cerberus']Land Warrior program was scrapped.

ummm, dude...
http://realitymod.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6449
One of you is wrong...

trogdor1289 · Post by **trogdor1289** » 2006-05-25 02:29

I would say that the person who said it was scrapped is wrong.

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2006-05-25 02:31

I was thinking of the OICW.

Deuce6 · Post by **Deuce6** » 2006-05-25 03:15

Yea the land warrior system is still going. And they are soon deploying units to Iraq with the system. I've been trying to get onto the program for awhile now. But no one is testing the system close to me.

Dandy · Post by **Dandy** » 2006-05-25 11:31

Dam that's kind of cool

MrD · Post by **MrD** » 2006-05-25 11:40

no real point sticking any british army links in there to expensive technology when they can't even guarantee the current troops have enough working gear as it is!

and I'm afraid that technology only goes so far. If something can be transmitted then it can be blocked or even spoofed to confuse troops and get them killed.

Working as a team is the answer!!!!

continual training in a group so you know each others capabilities and preferences in tactics will result in a better combat force.

Gee, sounds a bit like the cries for teamwork in this game

Copy_of_Blah · Post by **Copy_of_Blah** » 2006-05-25 14:48

Can't we just have the MEC troops all have crappy equiptment and the Allies have state of the art arms?

Then we could make a trade off . Hmm, let's say that MEC couldn't be spotted; simulating the enemy posed as civilians and in hiding.

Oh, and they could have IEDs that look like rocks! YEA.

Please don't confuse this with my other valid ideas

Post by **Fullforce** » 2006-05-25 15:04

Copy_of_Blah wrote:Can't we just have the MEC troops all have crappy equiptment and the Allies have state of the art arms?

Because then everyone would go USMC. I mean everyone. With bold.

Copy_of_Blah · Post by **Copy_of_Blah** » 2006-05-25 15:06

That's the beauty of auto-balance

Andrew_Kirk_25 · Post by **Andrew_Kirk_25** » 2006-05-26 08:48

'[R-PUB wrote:Fullforce']Because then everyone would go USMC. I mean everyone. With bold.

But it would be realistic.

Obviously there wouldn't be as drastic a difference as outlined above, but there certainly would have to be some kind of advantage for the USMC/British.

And no IEDs, the MEC are an army, not insurgents.