ATGM availability

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by Imp

Cheers Suhiir again nice & clear. I agree with your later comments that in a lot of cases to reasonably represent a force you often have to go big. I presume what you are saying is you are making date specific pre tailored combat formations if so great looking forward to.
If possible the odd note on expected use or a doc outlining would also be great if have the time.

Yes, the OOB revision is date specific pre tailored combat formations (platoon and company level).
Due to the numerous reogs and changes in equipment between 1946 and 2020 it's been a "lot" of fun. And I fully understand why the official design staff wouldn't touch a project like this with a 10 foot pole
Due to this I also have to revise the AI picklists (of course) and that's a major pain in the tush.
As to documentation...
I have a dozen books, five zillion web sites, discussions on blogs, a couple letters, and a few dozen scraps of paper with notes scribbled on them. So I'm afriad providing any worthwhile documentation would be more work then the OOB reorg has been.
Sorry.
I've been working (on and off) for over a year now so I wouldn't suggest holding your breath for it.
If you have specific questions however I'll try to answer them.

[narwan]

For cold war years don't forget that the armies weren't general all-purpose but often tailored to a specific task. Take the dutch for example; they'd be defending the area south of Hamburg against an expected onslaught of WP armor. The make up of dutch formations was heavily geared towards defensive operations against large numbers of AFV's. In the 80's a typical dutch mech infantry battallion had a huge amount of AT capacity: usually 2 dragon ATGM's per platoon or 18 per battallion and from 12 to 16 TOW-SPATGM's per battallion. Add to that law's and carl-gustav's on squad level and IFV's with chainguns to take on light armor and you have a very big AT capacity for just 3 mech companies.
But as they were the main defenders of one of the primairy WP attack routes they were organised for just that purpose.

Btw, the dutch TOW-SPATGM is one of my favorite units; not in the game unfortunately as it's special ability is hard to translate into the game. It's launch installation could be elevated into the air up to such a height it could fire over walls, trees, buildings and other obstacles. That way it could fire without exposing the vehicle itself but due to the height it would fire from still have a great field of view and make optimal use of the high range of the TOW.

[thatguy96]

Originally Posted by narwan

Btw, the dutch TOW-SPATGM is one of my favorite units; not in the game unfortunately as it's special ability is hard to translate into the game. It's launch installation could be elevated into the air up to such a height it could fire over walls, trees, buildings and other obstacles. That way it could fire without exposing the vehicle itself but due to the height it would fire from still have a great field of view and make optimal use of the high range of the TOW.

Yes, this launcher (often referred to as the "Hammerhead" and I'm sure I have a designation lying around somewhere) was used on the US M901 first I believe. It was also used on the Marine's LAV-ATs, and a variant without the missile hardware was used for the same reasons, but in a purely observational role on the M981 FIST-V. It got passed along to the Dutch YPR-series and I believe others as well. The unit on the Stryker AT vehicle I believe is closer to the unit used on the Norweigan NM142, which does not have the variable height function of the unit in question. I believe it was produced by Emerson Electric, but I could be completely wrong about that. It really is too bad there's no way to represent this functionality in game.

[Imp]

Okay I am getting some nice trafic now, Cheers all

[Griefbringer]

Originally Posted by Koh

12 launchers in a platoon? That sounds pretty high. Are you sure you didn't mean to say company? I mean, I can understand the need to be ATGM heavy if you are low on tanks, but wouldn't 12 launchers in a platoon form at least some leadership problems?

As said previously, you simply structure them into suitably sized sub-units (say, section/squad of three launchers). Then assign a capable NCO to lead every such sub-unit, and detach the sub-units to support other formations like individual infantry companies.

If a USMC sergeant can direct a squad consisting of three fireteams of four men each, then directing a missile section of three missile teams should not be too much harder.

And for those interested in seeing how much stuff you can bang into a platoon, I would recommend checking out the TOEs for such things as USMC infantry company weapons platoon in the 60's, or US army cavalry units from WWII or Vietnam.

Griefbringer

[PlasmaKrab]

Originally Posted by thatguy96

Yes, this launcher (often referred to as the "Hammerhead" and I'm sure I have a designation lying around somewhere) was used on the US M901 first I believe. It was also used on the Marine's LAV-ATs, and a variant without the missile hardware was used for the same reasons, but in a purely observational role on the M981 FIST-V. It got passed along to the Dutch YPR-series and I believe others as well. The unit on the Stryker AT vehicle I believe is closer to the unit used on the Norweigan NM142, which does not have the variable height function of the unit in question. I believe it was produced by Emerson Electric, but I could be completely wrong about that. It really is too bad there's no way to represent this functionality in game.

According to GlobalSecurity, the ATGM turret on the Stryker is made by GDLS. The one on the NM-142 (named ALT) is from Kvaerner Eureka (Norway) and is also used on the Canadian LAV-III TUA (hence the confusion?). Canada also uses this turret on an M-113/MTVL hull, not sure if this is still in service or was replaced by the LAV version. For information, the Stryker ATGM turret is entirely remote-controlled (hence the thin base) while the NM-142 turret is manned.
Apparently the Emerson TUA is the "Hammerhead" actually mounted on the M-901.

Not that it adds anything to the debate

[thatguy96]

Originally Posted by PlasmaKrab

According to GlobalSecurity, the ATGM turret on the Stryker is made by GDLS. The one on the NM-142 (named ALT) is from Kvaerner Eureka (Norway) and is also used on the Canadian LAV-III TUA (hence the confusion?). Canada also uses this turret on an M-113/MTVL hull, not sure if this is still in service or was replaced by the LAV version. For information, the Stryker ATGM turret is entirely remote-controlled (hence the thin base) while the NM-142 turret is manned.
Apparently the Emerson TUA is the "Hammerhead" actually mounted on the M-901.

Yeah, I completely blew it on the Stryker turret. I didn't remember that it had both tubes on one side. Totally different setup. I did remember the Emerson bit hehe, so I'm not totally off on my trivial military knowledge.