Suhiir's Revised USMC OOB #13

[thatguy96]

On 17 August 1964, HMX-1 is directed to begin work on what would become the TK-1 kit. The kit was developed it 2 weeks and a demo flight firing first occurred on 8 September 1964. The first kits arrive in Vietnam in November 1964. The TK-1 was officially canned in April 1965. There's probably some amount of overlap between this decision and their actual removal from the field, but the armed UH-34D was apparently not well received, it being decidedly underpowered for the role.

The fact that the TK-2 kits on the UH-1E appear in May 1965 mean that you could probably just exchange one for the other.

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by thatguy96

On 17 August 1964, HMX-1 is directed to begin work on what would become the TK-1 kit. The kit was developed it 2 weeks and a demo flight firing first occurred on 8 September 1964. The first kits arrive in Vietnam in November 1964. The TK-1 was officially canned in April 1965. There's probably some amount of overlap between this decision and their actual removal from the field, but the armed UH-34D was apparently not well received, it being decidedly underpowered for the role.

The fact that the TK-2 kits on the UH-1E appear in May 1965 mean that you could probably just exchange one for the other.

Thank you.

[Suhiir]

Just to make it clear.
I am actively soliciting comments on my OOB revision.

What's wrong?
What's good?
What's questionable?
Why the heck did you do X?

I've already pulled the early armed helos from it based on the comments here and hope to gather more such corrections for v1.1.

I really do want constructive criticism!

[redcoat2]

I have a small suggestion for Obat 13 in general: add a new LBM for Unit 4. The LBMs in the current and revised USMC OOBs are quite generic whereas the POA-CWS-H5 had a very distinctive appearance. It may deserve its own LBM. If that is possible?

A POA-CWS-H5 of the Marine 1st Tank Bn. during the Korean War (March 1951):



The icon in the revised OOB is more accurate than the one in the current OOB. It shows a M4A3 (105) as it should. I don’t know whether the POA-CWS-H5 flame tube could be added to the turret or not?

[DRG]

It'll be all fixed up for the next patch with a new Icon

Don

[Suhiir]

I could suggest a "few" more LBM additions.
But I tried to just use what already existed as best I could.
Nice pic BTW readcoat2.

[Suhiir]

Just a heads up.
Planning to release an updated OOB (squashed a few bugs, made many sound tweaks, removed the pre-Vietnam armed helos, etc.) late this week.
So if anyone has found any bugs etc. let me know.

[rfisher]

Hello, I have nothing clever or insightful to say about your OOB as I only have a casual interest in these things, but I am certainly enjoying it!
It really shows that you actually know what the guys are using and aren't simply having to rely on educated guessing.

So, could you humour a noob level question?
What do the acronyms SOC and CTJF stand for?

And also, the standard tank company (present day and near future) has roughly 50% close support tanks in it. I assume this is because that is the usual load-out for the sort of deployments the USMC sees in 'real life'.
However, if they were to be faced with a more armoured foe, would that change their load out to a more anti-armour role and if so should that therefore be an option in the game too?

That is a genuine question and not an opinion, in that for all I know about these things ATGMs are the future of anti tank warfare and therefore the load out would be the same for the tanks but they would bring more AT-LAVs?

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by rfisher

Hello, I have nothing clever or insightful to say about your OOB as I only have a casual interest in these things, but I am certainly enjoying it!
It really shows that you actually know what the guys are using and aren't simply having to rely on educated guessing.

So, could you humour a noob level question?
What do the acronyms SOC and CTJF stand for?

And also, the standard tank company (present day and near future) has roughly 50% close support tanks in it. I assume this is because that is the usual load-out for the sort of deployments the USMC sees in 'real life'.
However, if they were to be faced with a more armoured foe, would that change their load out to a more anti-armour role and if so should that therefore be an option in the game too?

That is a genuine question and not an opinion, in that for all I know about these things ATGMs are the future of anti tank warfare and therefore the load out would be the same for the tanks but they would bring more AT-LAVs?

SOC = Special Operations Capable
Marines assigned to these units (each Marine Division has one battalion) receive extra training in urban combat (and some special equipment) and are intended to support Special Operations by say US Army Green Berets, US Navy Seals, etc. They ARE NOT themselves trained or equipped to perform "super secret sneak in and grab/assassinate someone" jobs. They're intended to be the combat muscle that may be needed for such operations.

CJTF = Combined Joint Task Force
A normal (usually mech) USMC combat rifle company with one (or two) platoons exchanged for a SOC platoon. Such a unit would (and is) be used for something like "rescue US and allied civilians from a potentially hostile area". The normal combat units provide manpower and muscle and the SOC platoon(s) is better trained/equipped to deal terrorist/guerrilla forces that may attempt to disrupt the rescue operation.

You are correct, USMC tank units are generally loaded for infantry support not tank-on-tank battle.
Of course they could be given less HE and more AP ammo if needed. But keep in mind, the USMC has one tank battalion per division. The USMC is NOT intended, nor equipped, to fight in "armor heavy" environments. That's what we keep the US Army around for
If needed (as during the First Gulf War) a division can have a second tank battalion attached, and the USMC "borrowed" an armored brigade (Tiger Brigade 2nd Armored Division) from the US Army.
But, USMC doctrine is that the main anti-tank assets are aircraft, helicopters, and ATGMs.
Tanks are for infantry support!!!

[rfisher]

Brilliant! That explains everything perfectly!

Cheers!