Anomaly reports

[Richard_H]

Class 111 – Rangers

Poland 255-259 have 10 Weapon 3 (Hand Grenade) rounds, with Crew 9.

ARVN 52 have 14 Weapon 4 (Hand Grenade) rounds, and Crew 9.

Pakistan 508-512 have 24 Weapon 3 (Hand Grenade) rounds, and Crew 10.

Greece 327 has 16 Weapon 3 (Hand Grenade) rounds, and Crew 12.

Nigeria 483 have Speed 1, all others have 6 or 7.

Finland 474 have 5 Weapon 2 (Hand Grenade) rounds, and 4 crew.


Class 246 – Ranger Light Infantry

Italy 335 is the only unit with Speed 7. Even other Lagunari are 6.


Class 247 – Ranger Heavy Infantry

Turkey 317-319 – I wonder whether these would be better as Class 114 (which Turkey doesn’t have at the moment), and perhaps then keep Formation 237 for the LMG, and 238/239 for the AT/ATGM. If you do take that route, relevant sub-formations would also need to be added to Formations 233 & 234.

Richard H

[Suhiir]

OOB #13 (USMC)

For some reason
Unit #284 Predator Team
and
Unit #288 Predator Team
are both 3-man teams, they should be two.

As a guess I'd say this was done because if it is a two-man team then the cost calculator makes it cost less then Unit #413 SMAW Team (which is two-man) even tho the Predator is superior anti-tank weapon to the SMAW (in both real life and game terms).

[dmnt]

Originally Posted by Richard_H

Class 111 – Rangers

Finland 474 have 5 Weapon 2 (Hand Grenade) rounds, and 4 crew.

I find the Finnish Sissi troops odd as well.

First of all, Apilas: The troops that want to be as mobile as possible do not carry such a big and cumbersome weapon. Also, they would not engage in direct combat with MBTs. More so, I'd guess they prefer LAW for engaging APCs and satchel charges / AT/AP mines.

Second, I think that 4 crew is way too small, but perhaps justified with the dispersive tactics. They're for reconnaissance and sabotage and I understand that they'll prefer to stay out of firefights whenever possible.

The wikipedia article is quite a nice read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sissi_%...ht_infantry%29

[Richard_H]

@ Suhiir - haven't got to that class yet (I don't think!). But my main concern this time around is whether or not all Predator teams agree with each other. Whether or not they agree with RL is not (yet) something I'm addressing. But I shall

@ dmnt - the Finnish oob has been the subject of so much faffing around, corrections from one Finn to another etc etc, that I'm not sure it knows where it is. But as I've just said, how the game stats stack up to RL is not my concern this time around - Don & Andy know how the game works far better than we do, and if we're going to mess with stats outside the given parameters, then we'd better have 1) some sourced evidence and 2) some considerable playtesting to make sure the new ideas work. There are lots of areas where I don't necessarily agree with them, but I'm not going to publish anything unless I'm damn sure I can back it up.

Richard H

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by Richard_H

@ Suhiir - haven't got to that class yet (I don't think!). But my main concern this time around is whether or not all Predator teams agree with each other. Whether or not they agree with RL is not (yet) something I'm addressing. But I shall

Richard H

My apologies, I was just thinking "anomaly" and failed to consider the the purpose ("agree with each other").

[Richard_H]

@ Suhiir - not a problem. i've put it on my "to do" list (P.196 )

@ Andy - even without my written sources, I'm entering the joust here. First, I haven't seen a single web source (and yes, I read Russian, albeit slowly!) that suggests that the PK version accommodated anything less than 20 pax. Secondly, I've attached a photo of the hatches on a PK - if one thinks about this logically, what can adding armour do to reduce troop capacity? Answer - not a lot. I've also attached (and I know this is iffy, but I Googled it in cyrillic characters, so presumably it's authentic) a photo of a modelled interior of a PK. Now, if the bank of 4 seats on the left take 2 bums each, far right takes 3 and near right takes 4, you end up with 15 - which agrees with nobody! However, if the bank of 4 takes 3 bums each, plus 4 plus 5, you're pretty close to 20 (plus 1 guy saying 'spasibo Tovarishch' for the extra room).

However, the seating layout is nowhere near what Michal suggests. I await a proper shot of the interior of a PK.

My 2 cents worth.

Richard H

[Pibwl]

Originally Posted by Richard_H

However, the seating layout is nowhere near what Michal suggests. I await a proper shot of the interior of a PK.

The layout of benches in this model agrees with a drawing in manual (eg. here http://army.lv/ru/btr-50/2054/3827 ). Unfortunately, there is no information how many troops should seat on one bench. I wrote, that side benches were for 4 troops, which is the only information "officially" given, but it was about BTR-50P, and a specific arrangement might differ. Considering different length of benches in BTR-50PK, I'd say, that 3 troops seat on each side bench, 5+5 troops on longer benches on the left, and 4 troops on somewhat shorter bench on the right. In front, apart from driver's seat, should be seats for vehicle's commander and section commander.

Regards,
Michal

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by Pibwl

The layout of benches in this model agrees with a drawing in manual (eg. here http://army.lv/ru/btr-50/2054/3827 ). Unfortunately, there is no information how many troops should seat on one bench. I wrote, that side benches were for 4 troops, which is the only information "officially" given, but it was about BTR-50P, and a specific arrangement might differ. Considering different length of benches in BTR-50PK, I'd say, that 3 troops seat on each side bench, 5+5 troops on longer benches on the left, and 4 troops on somewhat shorter bench on the right. In front, apart from driver's seat, should be seats for vehicle's commander and section commander.

Regards,
Michal

there are a couple of pics of the open-top early version here
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...tr-50-pics.htm

It's fairly packed, and the guys are in parade dress - so no field packs and stuff etc. But I can only make perhaps 12 (3 rows of 4) or maybe 14 in back on trying to count noses in these lo-res shots.

So, I really doubt 20 in the early open top, myself - unless some were supposed to hide in the engine bay ?

They were used in the early 2-vehicle platoon as half-platoon carriers though, but not for very long apparently. "20" was probably a theoretical number (and 3 rows of seats does not divide easily into 20) - unless they were jam-packed in like sardines with one row of 6 in between 2 of seven?.

So - the BTR 50 carry capacity can remain as we have ATM.

Andy

[Pibwl]

You'll do what you wish. I only say, that the official manual clearly states, that BTR-50P/PK is fit to transport 20 armed soldiers. It's obvious, that in normal service it carried actually less, depending on organization, and for all 20 it sure wouldn't be comfortable. I can't imagine travelling long on benches without backrests even for half of that... 14 + commander travelled normally in the Czechoslovak army. Note, that photos show parade configuration, with standing soldiers (or seating on some higher transversal benches), and they are meant to represent only its section, not full capacity. Five longitudinal benches were a fact - if four soldiers sat on each, it makes 20 (or 3+5+5+4+3).

I can't see a reason, why don't we change a capacity of this APC to real guaranteed one, even, if only 12 or so troops will be normally packed into it. But, as I've said, you do what you wish.

Regards.
Michal

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by Richard_H

Secondly, I've attached a photo of the hatches on a PK - if one thinks about this logically, what can adding armour do to reduce troop capacity? Answer - not a lot.

Richard H

Not entirely true.
If a vehicle is amphibious (or an aircraft/helo for that matter) adding armor can decrease the potential cargo load thus troop carrying capacity.

My irrelevant to the discussion 2 cents

As Mobhack pointed out, the manufacturer often base troop carry capacity on troops no field gear, thus the "real" carry capacity is often less.