APC Development and related topics.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Was just going through my main sources to see if there was any news for "my" threads when I came across this update
(see Post #1 for background.), my feeling is that BAE is going to win this contract with the British MOD under the FRES program. The modified CV9035 MKIII has just proven it can easily handle the additional 15 tons put on it from added protection and the new turret with the CTWS 40mm. It's been awful quite from General Dynamics concerning their modified ASCOD (Which will carry the same turret.). But you decide:
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_1628.html
Pic from article:

[jp10]

Originally Posted by Imp

...Slightly off topic I see US modified Phalanx ship missile defence system for ground use, recalibrated to intercept incoming mortar rounds, would assume cant cover much of an area.

Many of these concepts are driven by current problems on the battlefield. IFV's that are used as close support against urban defenses more than anti-vehicle, single shot anti-ambush RPG protection...etc. A Phalanx type anti-artillery defense is probably a Fire Base, fixed point smaller area type of concept. Put it in the center of a FOB and let it worry about the random mortar attack.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

General info "cheat" article as already posted on the MRAP and MBT threads.
http://www.army-technology.com/features/feature90405/

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

This is another recognition guide as taught by the USA. This one dealing with NATO APC's. Again this should be of some value like the one I posted to the MBT thread to developers etc. it's very through.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...in0535/ch2.htm

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

I am interested in these deletions

Don

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Don,
DELETE/USA/Mercenary Group/UNITS 725 & 726/ They have to go! Maybe being a little sensitive here but, thinking back on my understanding of history in the modern era the peak interaction of mercenaries per say was in the period of the late 40's - early mid 80's focused in Africa, SE Asia (Malaysia comes to mind.) and parts of South and Central America. Most came from Germany(s), UK, France, Belgium, Holland and the U.S. after the war. The two most notable leaders came from the UK and France if I recall correctly and had the books "The Wild Geese" and "The Dogs of War" (Later movies; Wild Geese with the late great Richard Burton in it.) based on their exploits in Africa (Congo). Point being why is the U.S. the only country after using MobHack to have them from the samples looked at above? And in checking some of the African countries they have none in them where I would expect to see them as most of the mercenary actions took place there and in some respects today more, for security and training might still to a much lesser extent still be there today and again C. & S. America for the drug cartels (As a matter of conjecture for these if not material for action/adventure movies.)? Bottom line I accidentally stumbled upon them when I first started using MobHack a couple of weeks ago and saw it as an opportunity to clear some slots here and there from other European countries as well. All these years playing and I never noticed them there before. And I"m assuming when in MobHack and your looking at a country you're seeing all units from the start of WinSPMBT until the end unlike the Encyclopedia which looks at a certain time frame within the game.

Regards,
Pat

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

Don,
DELETE/USA/Mercenary Group/UNITS 725 & 726/ They have to go! Maybe being a little sensitive here but, thinking back on my understanding of history in the modern era the peak interaction of mercenaries per say was in the period of the late 40's - early mid 80's focused in Africa, SE Asia (Malaysia comes to mind.) and parts of South and Central America. Most came from Germany(s), UK, France, Belgium, Holland and the U.S. after the war. The two most notable leaders came from the UK and France if I recall correctly and had the books "The Wild Geese" and "The Dogs of War" (Later movies; Wild Geese with the late great Richard Burton in it.) based on their exploits in Africa (Congo). Point being why is the U.S. the only country after using MobHack to have them from the samples looked at above? And in checking some of the African countries they have none in them where I would expect to see them as most of the mercenary actions took place there and in some respects today more, for security and training might still to a much lesser extent still be there today and again C. & S. America for the drug cartels (As a matter of conjecture for these if not material for action/adventure movies.)? Bottom line I accidentally stumbled upon them when I first started using MobHack a couple of weeks ago and saw it as an opportunity to clear some slots here and there from other European countries as well. All these years playing and I never noticed them there before. And I"m assuming when in MobHack and your looking at a country you're seeing all units from the start of WinSPMBT until the end unlike the Encyclopedia which looks at a certain time frame within the game.

Regards,
Pat

deleting these would save 2 slots - which is useful, given the squeeze on the USA OOb.

They were probably added in as "contractors" or somesuch. But that sort of thing could be done in the scenario editor, as they are most likely to be "scenario only" interest. (I have much the same opinion about other tertiary stuff, like (say) the military police. Again - if a scenario designer needed such, they could edit a regular infantry element. Players are rather unlikely to want them, methinks !).

If necessary - the level bomber population could be pruned (who really uses these in regular battles - and there are 20 slots used of these) - to just a representative item per era (B52 with 750lb bombs would cover it IMHO 195X-202X). The COIN Bombers (6 slots used) could go completely - just a relabelled bomber class, and only used by the human player or a scenario designer (perhaps) for an initial bombardment.

Cheers
Andy

[Marcello]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

Don,
DELETE/USA/Mercenary Group/UNITS 725 & 726/ They have to go! Maybe being a little sensitive here but, thinking back on my understanding of history in the modern era the peak interaction of mercenaries per say was in the period of the late 40's - early mid 80's focused in Africa, SE Asia (Malaysia comes to mind.) and parts of South and Central America. Most came from Germany(s), UK, France, Belgium, Holland and the U.S. after the war. The two most notable leaders came from the UK and France if I recall correctly and had the books "The Wild Geese" and "The Dogs of War" (Later movies; Wild Geese with the late great Richard Burton in it.) based on their exploits in Africa (Congo). Point being why is the U.S. the only country after using MobHack to have them from the samples looked at above? And in checking some of the African countries they have none in them where I would expect to see them as most of the mercenary actions took place there and in some respects today more, for security and training might still to a much lesser extent still be there today and again C. & S. America for the drug cartels (As a matter of conjecture for these if not material for action/adventure movies.)?

I just noticed this now. It seems pretty obvious to me that these "Mercenary Group" units are not representing Mike Hoare or Bob Denard style mercenary; rather they are a stand in for Blackwater and comparable security contractors.
We are talking about ex US servicemen, armed with american weapons and used for convoy/facility protection duties, VIP details and similar tasks. It makes some sense to have them in the US OOB as armament/training/morale is compatible with the US OOB, they and US troops have occasionally fought side by side and last but not least they have been employed in sizable numbers. That said they are obviously a "flavor" unit, not inherently more valuable than an additional F-4 with a different loadout or whatever; they could be easily shifted to the green OOB with some tweaking.

[DRG]

Mercs already have a home in the Red and Green OOB's so they don't need one in the US OOB. However, IF there is a legitimate reason for deleting a unit I will do so but we don't have a line up of new units to go in that don't have a slot available so I don't need to start culling units like level bombers "just because" as long as we all stay away from the temptation to add the pentagons latest "kewl weapon" that just came off the drawing board and *might* make it to troop trials....maybe sometime, maybe not sometime.

I am more than a little tired of adding things then taking them out then putting them back in then adjusting the dates they are available. The M25 is a good example. This next release will be the third time their introduction dates have been changed and at least this time they were not intertwined with two other weapons systems that never made it past trials.

Don

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

A couple of helos I'm looking to add on my next list are coming on line within the next two years are just such an area to economize I feel without getting into an anti-air, personnel and tank specialty variations within those categories. As an example one carries (2) Sidewinders, (2) 19 shot 76mm rocket pods, (8) TOW msls. and of course it's AP/HE firing cannon, do we need more then that? I understand the need to modify when significant new weapons come along such as the new HELLFIRE II which I've reported on already is testing on track. I wonder if this might not be a legitimate area for cutting slots for 6.0+
(2012) beyond types that have new/improved weapons. As a player give me the one that has "all the bang for the buck" if you want more buy ammo for resupply (That's how I keep mine fighting.), anti-air, arty, tanks and or ATGW units, that's why they're in the game! My general feeling as player again is we need to sacrifice (economize) a little to get the new units in the game. Slots represent money, look at what your country is doing now in the area of defence it's no different right now in WinSPMBT, I would respectfully submit to every one now. I hear my own words and will get back on topic.
Thank you for your time here.

Regards,
Pat