obat59 - Chile

Pats · #1 July 7th, 2007, 05:05 PM

Weapon designation must be wrong:
No 009 SG-510 AR, as far I can tell should be SIG-510
No 010 SG-540 AR, and here shouldn't it be SIG-550?

Those facts lead me to some wrong Pictures showing the wrong Rifle! And some unit having Weapon 010 (SIG 550) far to early.

Units 345 and 346 showing M16 instead of SIG-510
Unit 377 has the SIG 550 Picture, instead of the SIG-510 one (or the Weapon must be SIG-550).

Units 340, 341, 342 they have Weapon No 010 (SIG-550)should be 009 (SIG-510; Weapon 010 wasn't build before 1990, export was even later)

The Picture (LBM 25087) showing the SIG-550 is the right one for that rifle.
The Picture (LBM 00097) showing the SIG-510 is wrong; should be LBM 25086

You might ask why I know that; this are the Swiss aussault Rifles (57 and 90)

RecruitMonty · #2 July 9th, 2007, 10:46 AM

Hi Pats,

Firstly, "AR" could stand for Assault Rifle.

Secondly, you make some good points. However, if I were you I would word things a little more diplomatically. These forums are littered with examples of people saying that "X is wrong!" and "Y needs changing!" and so on. The problem is that the Devs don't like that. Not because they don't like seeing their own mistakes but because they
don't like the way people charge in and say this and that are "WRONG" etc.

My advice is to change the OOB yourself, and then phrase your problems as questions. "Is X wrong? Is Y in need of a change?" Obviously you also need to say why you think it needs changing too, but again diplomatically.

Don't take offence, this is friendly advice.

Pats · #3 July 9th, 2007, 02:53 PM

Let's say my English isn't that good to say it diplomaticly ok?

If the Developers decide not to change anything that's absolutly fine with me. I just say here what's WRONG in my opinion

(straight forward)

PlasmaKrab · #4 July 10th, 2007, 03:19 AM

Pats, just one more piece of friendly advice

.
Look at this thread where Don explains how to report OOB errors.
You aren't far from it, so if Don and Andy want to take account from your corrections (which they'll certainly do once they are back on the job in one or two months), they should have most of the data they need (OOB number, unit number, value involved, corrected value).
Once again, don't expect a positive feedback if you just say "some units" are wrong, better list the unit numbers yourself and better still, find a date of introduction of the SIG-550 in the Chilean forces, or Swiss forces at least (I know you have that one).

Just a thing about SIG rifles. Isn't "SG" the standard naming for them? I have often seen them called "SIG SG-5xy", probably for Sturmgewehr?
If I'm not grossly mistaken, it could be what it is about.
And what about the SIG-510 and 540? As far as I know the 540 series are a totally different thing from both the 510 and 550 series, and I've never heard of SIG-550s in Chilean service. Looks like the 540 (license-produced by FAMAE so more adequately called "FAMAE-540"?) is still the main assault rifle of the Chilean army.

Thanks for the indexes of SIG rifle LBMs, I hadn't found these yet!

Pats · #5 July 10th, 2007, 12:00 PM

I had:
Nation,
OOB number
Unit number
The problem
so what's not right?

Yes it could be: SIG SG xxx; but def. 550 not 540...
Have a look at Swissarms

PlasmaKrab · #6 July 10th, 2007, 01:24 PM

OK, forget about the correction format, I think we've been overdoing it a bit, this should be just right

I was talking about the SIG-540 series, the ones that weren't in service in Switzerland but that were license-built in Chile by FAMAE.
Definitely not the same as the 550 (Stg.90, right?), largely older design, so 1981 as IOC sounds about good to me.
I have heard no news about any SIG-550 in Chilean service anyhow (FYI the latest weapon considered seems to be the FN-2000, but nothing confirmed yet).
Is that right?

Pats · #7 July 10th, 2007, 03:31 PM

ok, you got me there. I didn't know the 540 version.
But the Issue is, the Picture LBM 25087 shows the 550 and is used by several units (e.g. Unit 377)
So that brings up the Question what else is "not so right".
What I could imagine; the original designer of the oob might been right using only 510 and 540 versions (but both then with not the exact pictures) for the Chilean army. As far I can tell they using today (or in close future; Chile ordered them, but it could be only for special forces) the 550 version as well (!) LBM 25087.
So, Units 340, 341, 342 could have the 540 version and the later Units could effectively having the 550.

Just a suggestion.

Any hint which LBM might be the 540?
(Maybe LBM 36240?)