USGS Map, White areas?

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

[QUOTE=Diablo Blanco;214912]Board Answer is "Areas where the vegetation has no significant military value" QUOTE]

That is a pretty "broad" answer. Lack of vegetation does not just mean lack of concealment, it also means good visibility and good fields of fire, both of which have significant military value. It can also be of "significant military value" for landing zones and drop zones. Lack of vegetation can also have "significant military value" when planning avenues of approach, analyzing the other sides options for trafficability that can be concealed for short time by the use of smoke or other obscurants. No, I would say that the there is no piece of terrain that has "no" significant military value as it depends on the situation and the mission as well as capabilities and limitations of both the friendly and enemy forces.

[kgoerz]

I thought it was Snow....another interesting note. Years ago some of the Guys who made or printed the Maps got busted sneaking their initials and curse words into the smaller Grid lines. Those Maps are considered collector items. They actually did a recall of certain Map series because of this.

[Diablo Blanco]

[QUOTE=Jack Moroney;214920]

Originally Posted by Diablo Blanco

Board Answer is "Areas where the vegetation has no significant military value" QUOTE]

That is a pretty "broad" answer. Lack of vegetation does not just mean lack of concealment, it also means good visibility and good fields of fire, both of which have significant military value. It can also be of "significant military value" for landing zones and drop zones. Lack of vegetation can also have "significant military value" when planning avenues of approach, analyzing the other sides options for trafficability that can be concealed for short time by the use of smoke or other obscurants. No, I would say that the there is no piece of terrain that has "no" significant military value as it depends on the situation and the mission as well as capabilities and limitations of both the friendly and enemy forces.

Very true. I suppose I could clarify the answer to mean the white areas lack vegetation with no significant military value to units platoon size or above. Of course smaller sized units could use them for cover, even several vehicles.

Perhaps it is decided by the Height of the vegetation. Take for example marsh areas with the dotted lines.

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

Originally Posted by Diablo Blanco

Perhaps it is decided by the Height of the vegetation. Take for example marsh areas with the dotted lines.

Actually you need to add in the variables such as the type of unit, the mission, weather, and the enemy capabilities to mention a few. I am sure you can think of any number of scenarios where vegetation or lack there of has a positive or negative impact depending on those variables and others. As far as vegetation providing cover, unless you are talking about something that is going to absorb the impact of a round, I think you mean concealment. You are looking at this one sided, vegetation or lack there of, is always significant when it comes to terrain analysis. Go back to your initial entry training and recall what the acronym OCOKA represented. Vegetation plays a role in each of those letters-be it positive or negative-and that is just the simplistic view.

[OpForKorn]

Not trying to be funny, but here in Pineland it means an area that has been logged, and has grown into something only a tank could penetrate..

[SF_BHT]

Originally Posted by OpForKorn

Not trying to be funny, but here in Pineland it means an area that has been logged, and has grown into something only a tank could penetrate..

OK Stop Posting and Re-Read your welcome e-mail and Post the Intro you should have done 3 Post ago.