APC Development and related topics.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

You probably won't need any what ifs, as this article from DOD reports the CORPS is essentially updating all the current EFV prototypes to improved designs, increased reliability, fire control systems and weapons etc. based on lessons learned to date.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/15615/
Good Night and have a Great Weekend all!!
Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

You probably won't need any what ifs, as this article from DOD reports the CORPS is essentially updating all the current EFV prototypes to improved designs, increased reliability, fire control systems and weapons etc. based on lessons learned to date.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/15615/
Good Night and have a Great Weekend all!!
Regards,
Pat

Yeah saw that, basically they've decided the current design was a great test bed now they're going to design the "real" EFV

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Just a handful of "bullets" out here from sources I trust without "overloading the system" (That's me.) with additional sources for now.
1. BAE & IVECO to submit the following for the USMC MPC Program. The MPC Program will fill the CORPS requirement for a medium class vehicle that'll essentionally fit in between the EFV and JLTV Programs currently going through revision and or evaluation.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_1794.html

2. Otokar of Turkey launches new AV 6x6 ARMA.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_1792.html

3. Ukrine to suply Iraq with 420 BTR-4 APC of all types after some bugs are worked out.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_1775.html

4. And finally for you weapons guys a new (I think impressive...)record set in the 40mm weapons world by Metal Storm.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_1793.html

Regards,
Pat

[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

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

As promised in my last white paper post, some of you might remember I came across some info that lead me to throw out that the French were in "cahoots" with the British MOD in the broader use of the CTWS 40mm when I was posting on the FRES program.
1. I give you the SPHINX from Panard a long time leader in armored recon and scout vehicles.
http://defense-update.com/products/s..._08072010.html

Pic:

2. Background on the French SCORPION Modernization Program that Panards SPHINX is in competition for in one segment of.
http://www.defence-update.net/wordpr..._scoprion.html

3. For you German and Dutch BOXER fans the long awaited IFV turret was finally unveiled also @ EUROSATORY 2010 (End of June first half of July.) it will mount the MK44 Bushmaster 30mm AC (Auto Cannon.)
http://www.defence-update.net/wordpr...expanding.html

Pic:

Also of interest some you might remember in one of my first posts on the "SPA SPAA" thread the Swedish SKYRANGER. I came across a picture of a BOXER with the SKYRANGER turret on it, though I believe it's still in development/evaluation stage with Germany and Sweden (Using the PIRANA IV APC.).

Pic:

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I'm now satisfied as far as the MERKAVA is concerned the amount of troops carried is dependent on the number of rounds stowed in the rear compartment please note the last para of this good source I believe one other was bold enough to state this as well. Seems if you want 8 troops you carry one in the breech and 10 in "revolver" as I posted on the MBT thread earlier. It seems we have "one foot in the box and one out of the box" now. Give me my Sniper (Or team.) and a full load of ammo. I'm convinced from a lay mans (Software code.) point of view anything more would be a headache. Comment made here because after all the article is about an APC and increased engine performance might translate to game performance as this is a "fleet" wide upgrade (Or not.).
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...vy-IFVs-06399/

Pic:


Regards,
Pat

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

I'm now satisfied as far as the MERKAVA is concerned the amount of troops carried is dependent on the number of rounds stowed in the rear compartment please note the last para of this good source I believe one other was bold enough to state this as well. Seems if you want 8 troops you carry one in the breech and 10 in "revolver" as I posted on the MBT thread earlier. It seems we have "one foot in the box and one out of the box" now. Give me my Sniper (Or team.) and a full load of ammo. I'm convinced from a lay mans (Software code.) point of view anything more would be a headache. Comment made here because after all the article is about an APC and increased engine performance might translate to game performance as this is a "fleet" wide upgrade (Or not.).
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...vy-IFVs-06399/

Pic:
Attachment 10471

Regards,
Pat

It is a total and utter pain to do from any POV.

Tanks don't have protected carry, APCs do. Simply giving the merkavas a 2 carry would have the guys shot off the back decks as tank riders (which is what all tank carry is).

Thus if the merkava is given protected carry, it has to be an APC class.

So - it is then either removed from the MBT category, or a complete set of merkava (APC) duplicates need to be provided for the player (filling up OOB slots and needing synchronisation if any change is done to the base template model).

If it is removed from the MBT category, then the things have to be put into separate formations, and the AI pick list completely rewritten, even supposing that it has enough room to do so (there may be e.g. reserve tank formations already there).

Whether all that sheer kerfuffle is really necessary so that one or 2 guys who just think it may be a nice to have on occasion the facility to carry 2 scouts 'protected' can be satisfied is really a moot point.

So - if I put this in then I think it will have to be the duplicate "Merkava APC" with 6 carry as an APC class, in a new platoon in MISC, to allow carry of Sayeret scouts and with the main gun ammo load suitably reduced to 12 or so main gun rounds to accommodate it. For human player use only in special circumstances, and in reality probably not worth the bother (I would always pay the extra points for a proper heavy APC platoon as a companion to the tank platoon, as I prefer the tanks to have all the main gun ammo they can eat, and the ability for the infantry to deploy tactically slightly separately from the MBT as required. The MGs on the HAPC are a not negligible bonus, too).


Andy

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I know Kevin (And others to include myself.) would be disappointed, but I'd rather see the issues of an up armored, new 120mm, LAHAT and TROPHY with the MERKAVA IV being addressed as was displayed at EUROSTATY 2010 and is in production now to include back-fitting all fielded MERK IV tanks as they now come into the maintenance depots. A tank is a tank and I say this to agree, OOB slots for some countries are getting tight. I'd rather have the improved up gunned NAMER too support my MERKs as they can keep up or are even faster. I was for this but the clock is running on the game as are slots, I fear with some countries it's really coming down to picking and choosing the "best bang for the buck". I'd rather have space for the new equipment and or major improvements to existing as discussed above as an example or quickly the ARJUN MKII as another.

Regards,
Pat

[kevineduguay1]

The Merkava can be classed as a "Gun APC (Tracked)" Class # 127. They can stay in the armor recruitment area as they are armor.
Making some that carry 2 men and some that carry 4 men and even some that carry a full load of 8 men is not a problem with the Israeli OOB. There are 415 Unit slots open and no less than 780 Formation slots open. Fitting them into the OOB is not a problem, the will to do so is.

A weapons system should be portrayed with as many of its capabilities as can be simulated in the game. It should be up to the player how to use those capabilities.