MBT's

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

Since gunships (if I'm not mistaken) are not in the picklists and can only be purchased during scenario design I don't see a real problem with US and non-US gunships in the Green OOB.

Green is a non specific OOB and yes, Gunships are not a picklist item there is still the issue of all the known scenarios that currently use them from the USA OOB and an unknown number of campaign scenarios.

I know how much work is involved with this because we've already done it in the past when all the wonderful "future weapons" that had been added to the USA OOB back near the beginning had to be stripped out when most never made it past the field testing stage but in that case, there were few "what-if future" scenarios made that used them.

Gunships OTOH are used in scenarios that cover a number of years and it's not just a matter of repurchasing them from the Green OOB. Each scenario that uses them needs to be checked to see if they are set up to be available at the start of the game or are re-enforcements and if they have been targeted and if yes, at what turn and where so when they are re-bought from the Green OOB they can be set up the same way.

There is way more to this than simply copying all the gunship units and all their weapons and moving them to the Green OOB

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by DRG

There is way more to this than simply copying all the gunship units and all their weapons and moving them to the Green OOB

I never meant to imply it was easy, merely that mixing US and non-US units in the Green OOB shouldn't be an issue.

More then most around here I know how much "fun" OOB changes are.

For those interested it took probably 1000+ hours work on my part to rebuild the USMC OOB and picklists, and probably another 100 or more for Don to check and correct alredy existing scenarios.

Doable, yes.
Easy, hell no!

[DRG]

First the units need to be set up in Green, then the weapons if they are not already in the OOB and once that is done I can look at the scenarios that use them and it would be way easier if I could use Scenhack to do it and normally I could but changing aircraft units in Scenhack cancels any missions so each scenario needs to be checked to see if the SD planned a mission and the where and when.

Right now I have the units copied and when I have time for the next step I will get the weapons sorted out and then take a look at the scenarios so if any of the campaign designers reading this recall a campaign that had these things let me know or even if someone played a campaign and remembers seeing them it would save searching through all the campaign scenarios

[DRG]

An interesting video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHxGO9pTpw8

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

That was useful!

What I got from it was...

1. It's confirmed that LAHAT launcher system carries 12 missiles with a semi-carousal auto loader, the system is more compact then I thought and appears might not in fact impact other main gun ammo supply. This of course might affects in real terms the Indian ARJUN Mk-1A and certainly the most recent versions of the Israel's MERKAVA. At 4:05 point.

2. ABRAMs never has the armor penetrated by an ATGW. RPG's is another story, until TUSK came along.

3. CHALLENGER 2 are we possibly under representing it's armor? If I remember (Should've made a "real" note.) correctly one took 15 RPG hits with no armor penetrations' during Iraqi Freedom Ops.

4. Looks like from the video South Koreas K2 is also equipped now with the KASAM II Smart Top Attack ammo. I believe with the modifications we made last year to the K2 PIP we allowed for this ammo. The ref. last para offers some performance data...
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/re...e-cheap-173046

5. LeClerc is really fast!

Don't think I missed anything, but, I'm sure someone will tell me if I did.!?!

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

That was useful!
3. CHALLENGER 2 are we possibly under representing it's armor? If I remember (Should've made a "real" note.) correctly one took 15 RPG hits with no armor penetrations' during Iraqi Freedom Ops.

The questions are

1. which RPG
2. which part of the tank was hit

The way we have the Challenger II set up it has more than enough armour to take repeated hits with RPG-7 front and side. RPG-7 IIRC was the most common used by the Iraquis

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Don,
They had more of them then most others in Iraq, I believe it to have mostly been on the sides I read many years ago.

We're good then on CHALLENGER 2 then.

And you've just shown some in the community there's other factors in the testing of equipment before they get entered in the game.

More to it then, "I think we should have this in the game." lots more indeed.

Regards,
Pat

[Imp]

The questions are
which RPG
which part of the tank was hit

Take what that guy posts in videos with a pinch of salt.

Nowadays with add on armour packs its nearly impossible to estimate what package will be used in actual combat.
Modern vehicles with heavy packages seem virtually immune to RPG 7s.
Forget the Challenger this warrior took 12 RPG 7 hits

[DRG]

Johnson Beharry(VC)Good example

On approach to the beleaguered squad, the platoon noticed an unusual sight in front of them. The roads were clear of all traffic, all cars, and there was not a single civilian in sight. With the clear sign of an ambush ahead, the platoon commander ordered a halt of all vehicles to assess the situation. It was too late; they had already entered the kill zone. At that moment, Beharry’s lead vehicle was hit with multiple RPG strikes. In an instant, the platoon commander and the gunner in Beharry’s Warrior were incapacitated.

With the column taking heavy damage and completely on his own initiative, Beharry closed the driver’s hatch and decided to push through the ambush, freeing the rest of the platoon to follow behind him.

With no idea as to whether the rest of the crew was alive or dead, he continued to push until he hit a barricade placed on the road. At that point, his vehicle was hit again with multiple RPGs filling the cabin with thick smoke. Obligated to open the hatch and expose his head to the heavy rain of small arms fire, he continued to drive the column forward to safety straight through the barrier. At one point, Beharry himself took a 7.62mm bullet directly to the head which became miraculously lodged in his helmet.

Finally making his way to the outpost, he dismounted the vehicle still under heavy small arms fire and began to evacuate his crew. He then remounted his burning vehicle and moved it to a strategic position in order to defend against the enemy. Eventually collapsing from exhaustion, Beharry was done for the day, but not for the war.

One More Ambush

After returning from medical treatment, Beharry was back in action by June. On the 11th of that month, Beharry’s Warrior was called to cut off an enemy mortar team in the middle of the night. Winding his way through the dark city streets, he once again found himself in the one place he didn’t want to be. Another ambush rained down upon him from the rooftops and it was once again up to him to lead his men out of trouble. However, it was at this moment an RPG struck just six inches from his head resulting in a significant head injury. As rockets continued to strike the vehicle, his commander and crew were again out of the fight.

we might take a look at the Warriors numbers again though....

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

The below comes from those "rediscovered" folders that cover all the threads I started a longtime ago. These predate my current PC and when I was using Mozilla Firefox. I mentioned these not long ago because I found equipment that never got submitted for the game.

This ref. was written by then (Summer of 1980.) Paul F. Gorman Major General, USA. Released in March 2004 (Still redacted.) by whom not sure. And a final release by the CIA on July 29, 2014.

This assessment is from the prospective of the USA. It DOES NOT paint a "pretty picture" of our capabilities against Russian Armor. From similar documents on the topic from the CIA's own assessments (That I posted in the forum somewhere several years back.) one of the reasons the Soviets never attacked NATO was though they recognized their armor advantage, they felt it was negated by NATO's perceived advantage in high quality ATGW's.

We just did a good job of keeping our mouths shut.

The first ref. is a cleaner larger font article from the above mentioned 2014 release. Stay with this one, however, read the notes of the below one-please.
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingr...0000624298.pdf

The next is the 2004 release. It's the one I had in those files. Posting it because some of the graphs are easier to read i.e. Page 7 graphs are better here then in the above version.
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingr...0001066239.pdf

Notice the document numbers are different on reach release.

This is a very interesting read if you wish to do so.

Regards,
Pat