I'm considering running some original Twilight 2000 material but using the Twilight 2013 rules.

I can easily research which weapons were available by about 1997 but when did Reflex Sights start being issued to soldiers? For example if you take the SUSAT sight (which I believe is a Reflex Sight - please correct me if I'm wrong) on the L85 that has been standard issue to British soldiers since the late 1980's.

Thanks for any help people can give me.

Mahatatain.

Red dot sights were around in the early nineties.
Watch "Blackhawk Down".

Ummmm....not a great reference for authenticity....

Red Dot sights didn't start propagating into the Army's inventory until the late 90s, circa '99.

Prior to that, even SOCOM was rolling with iron sights and ACOGs only. Except for snipers, of course.

You've been docked -10 Cool points for using Hollywood as a reference.

SUSAT is, as I recall, a 4x tritium scope as was the L2A2 SUIT on the L1A1 SLR.

Closer to a reflex sight was the 1.5x Swarovski sight on the AUG, starting back in the late 1970s.

The US was a relative latecomer to widespread issue of optics.

The first red dot contract for the US Army was let in 1997 to Aimpoint, but as Eddie says it was a few years before they showed up in numbers. FWIW, Aimpoint marketed the first red dot in 1975.

Even as late as OIF I, many non-infantry soldiers did not have optics. I had only iron sights while I was in the 82nd, as part of Division's MI Battalion. When I left in late 2004, we had just gotten some lasers for our Voice Intercept teams to use (by then, everyone in the GSR sections had already begun moving forward on getting new jobs), but I don't think anyone had any optics.

So remember that support soldiers always get stuff later then the grunts, as it should be.

Hey, all I'm saying is that they've been around for a while, and the ones used in "Blackhawk Down" were 90's era red dots, a little bigger and blockier than the ones we have now.
And since we're dealing with an alternate timeline anyway, why not get them adopted earlier? Wars do tend to advance the development and adoption of equipment that gets the job done better.

Dude, I was in 3rd Ranger Battalion in '96. I can definitively say that there were no red dot sights in Somalia on any Ranger's weapon. Nor the D-Boys. There weren't even a lot of telescopic optics at that time.

The timelines broke apart, IIRC, in 2008. Prior to that, they're the same.

Well, the first post was about running original Twilight 2000 material using the new rules. So he's using the old timeline or one of his own design.

The original timeline would slow the procurement process even further as the government puts more resources into manning the weapon systems they have as opposed to making new ones.

What is the profile for combat optics, nowadays? ACOGs seem like the wise-issue standard. Who gets more sophisticated red-dots. Do POGUEs get sights as standard?

ACOGs, EOTechs, and M68 CCOs are pretty much standard across the combat arms professions. CCOs and ACOGs are true Army-issue optics. EOTechs are usually purchased by the BNs/BDEs for their personnel. Who gets what though, is really up to the unit. It depends on numbers, etc.

For me, as a PL I started with an EOTech, didn't like it, switch to and carried an M68 on my M4 for the first 1/3 of my deployment, then I switched to the ACOG to cut down on having to carry binos and such.

I've seen BNs with ACOGs on SAWs and M240s, as well as EOTechs.

I'll poke a junior enlisted REMF tonight who got back from deployment, and edit this comment... I think they had red dots, but can't recall.

Red dots are the M68 CCO.



Then you have the ACOG, of which there are two types in use.

This is the one we had back in the '90s, the TA01NSN:



These are the most common now, the TA31F:



And here is the EOTech:

The M68 is by the far the most prevalent one now because the Army bought them as the original optic with the intent of providing everyone with one (we never got that many in the inventory, but that was the goal). Then guys saw Regiment with the TA01 and said, let me have one! So the Infantry started getting some and then the whole school of thought with the "reflex" sight came into proliferation and all of the shooting courses like Barnhart's started making the rounds and the fanboys jumped on the wagon.

As a guy that has used all four of the optics, I gotta say, I found very little difference between the two red-dot sights. In fact, I liked the CCO better. Broader knowledge base with it, more familiar, and you could be the glare reducers on it (and the knob was a lot easier to manipulate than the two buttons on the EOTech!).

Between the two ACOGs, no significant difference in performance between them either, but I liked the TA01 better because of the peep sight when it came to room clearing.

Are red-dots significantly better then irons when shooting out to the edge of the M4's envelope? I would imagine a sight is always better then no sights at all, but hey.. some people swear by their irons, right?

In my experience, both as a shooter and as an evaluator, except in outlier cases, any optic is better than no optic.

Eddie and I have argued in the past whether red dots (particularly unmagnified red dots) make for better accuracy. What I took from it was it depends on how you define accuracy: match accuracy against a fixed target at a known distance or practical accuracy against targets at varying distances, maybe moving or only presented for a short period?

Most of the red dot sights aren't really intended for long range, target use: I don't think you'll see people making 1000 yard shots using a red dot like the competitors at Camp Perry do regularly with irons (granted, with smaller posts an apertures than on an issue M4/M16), even on a match rifle. There's no range adjustment on most of them or BDC reticle (some models of ACOG and EOtech are the main exceptions) and the dot on even the EOtech (the smallest I know of) covers about 10", the size of the X ring, at that range.

Now, that said, on a flat top M4 a 50 yard zero with a red dot will put the point of impact within a couple inches of point of aim out to about 225 meters or so. With the 2 MOA dot on the latest Aimpoints, you might not get match accuracy at 200-300 meters but certainly effective practical accuracy.

And, what red dots really excel at, especially the effectively parallax-free designs, is allowing you to bring the rifle to bear on the target quickly compared to irons (not that you can't use irons quickly with practice). This is, in large part, because you're really lining up only two points in your field of view: the dot and the target. This is simpler than irons, which require three points aligned: the rear sight, the front sight and the target. IMO, a good, flat zero, combined with this speed, results in better practical accuracy for quick shots even if the absolute best accuracy may not be as good as is achievable with irons; here a two to four inch group is pretty much as good as a half inch.

Now of course, I've made some generalizations. I've seen some pretty darned good groups from red dots. I've seen people pretty darned fast with irons.

Red dots were privately aquired for the Son Tay raid in Vietnam, but I believe issue didn't occur until the turn of the millenia. I'll ask all the guys who were in later. Most every one forgets that it took decades to convince the "powers that be" soldiers can use optics.

Do you have any sources for this info? Looking at the pictures on sontayraider.com, they did have telescopic optics, but I don't see any red dots.

Aimpoint AB is generally regarded to have produced the first commercially available red dot sight in 1975. A little late for Son Tay.

As maybe one of the older folks here that has been shooting for a long time I can at least say that an optic really works better for me than iron's. I think its a big difference for guy's that have eyes that are starting to head south. I can still shoot well with iron, but optics really help me stay up to speed. I use the EOtech though and I like it a lot. For longer range stuff I also have a Leupold Mark 4 CQ/T that I can get 3X magnification out of, but at the ranges that I play at the EOtech works well for me.

Talked to a friend that was involved with the Son Tay job and he did confirm that they did purchase a very early version of the Armson OEG called the single point. As far as he knows that was the first time that anything like a red dot was used.

Also found this. http://www.allbusiness.com/public-admin ... 808-1.html

Interesting. That's the first time I've heard of that. When I was in OCS and IOBC we had the leader of the Redwine Element come in and talk to us in both courses (for the life of me I can't remember his name). It was hinted that he'd be speaking to us in the Career Course as well. So far he hasn't materialized. If we do get a chance to talk to him again, I'll make sure and ask.

I think this is your guy.

http://militarytimes.com/citations-meda ... entid=4673

Nope, not him. I may be wrong on the Redwine Element thing. I went through OCS and IOBC 3+ years ago. Well, I'm obviously wrong about it. I'll find out on Tuesday what that guy's name is.

When all else fails, go the OCS Hall of Fame.

MAJ Dan Turner.

Unfortunately, I can't get to the blurb of why he was inducted to find out what role he played.

http://www.laoveterans.com/photo5.html

This has Turner as commanding the Redwine Element as well. I don't know what the confusion is. I'm thinking that he may have been the PL role essentially and the other guy the Company Commander type role.

Page 42, MAJ Dan Turner.