Re: Comments, suggestions and problem reports
 

Well ... damn ...
I see the problem.
I was originally using a 6-man "Company HQ" unit but changed to a standard 13-man rifle squad to make it compatible with WinSPMBT standards, and yeah ... that won't fit.

For now just buy a separate helo to carry the HQ.

Re: Comments, suggestions and problem reports
 

Yeah there's plenty of carry capacity in that formation but only if the A0 could divide up into smaller groups and that's not the way the game works so we'll need to add an Osprey after the Hvy sniper team then move everything else down one and it will all fit. For now, do as Suhirr suggests and buy a separate helo or Osprey to carry the HQ when using that formation

Don

Re: Comments, suggestions and problem reports
 

It looks like there are no helicopters added to the coy to deal with the support weapons teams (mortars etc). In early years with the larger sea knights etc, not a problem. The later helos are smaller though.

In that case - use the helos in the rifle platoons to move the troops in lift #1, then go back and move the support weapons in lift #2. Simples.


There is no such thing as a dedicated lift transport helicopter inside an infantry formation in reality, bar a very few USA air cavalry items. these integrated helo, or glider or transport plane formations are mainly provided for convenience, or the AI's use on the occasion it buys an airmobile group.

I myself never use them since the helicopters are tied to the rifle platoon HQ for command and control, in any formation that uses that style (rather than using helo platoons at coy level). Therefore once they have dropped the riflemen, they will tend to be out of command (from the rifle platoon HQ) once you fly about and attempt to move other units than the original passengers.

I always buy my transport helos separately as stand-alone air formations, therefore. Helos "belong" to your brigadier (and he only has them on loan from corps or army) - and not to some spotty 2nd Lt ;).

Leave those integrated H formations to the AI, or just use them for para drops or glider landings - since the transports in that case have no need to worry about command and control as they disappear after the insertion.

Andy

Re: Comments, suggestions and problem reports
 

Yup I agree with Andy, personally I think of those formations as "AI only".

Re: Comments, suggestions and problem reports
 

the turkish leo1A1T1 have vision 30 that is correct for starting year? (1975)
Thx

Re: Comments, suggestions and problem reports
 

That might be a bit early. 20 might be better

Re: Comments, suggestions and problem reports
 

Yes Don would be correct and I bounced it off the German OOB to be sure. But the real issue is that the Turkish tank situation is still a mess. A failed attempt to fix this is posted in the FB Patch Page Thread Page 7 Post #65. I wondered why I didn't have notes on this that's because I never printed out the Word document for that patch input. The turkish system of designating their import tanks didn't help any some early U.S. imports retained their names such as the M-48 (And this is a good example of the process.) that was fielded in 1964 of which they received 3000+ units. Of these they would upgrade 180+ of the M-48 and upgrade it with a 105mm in 1982 and call them the M-48T5. To close out the M-48 series; in 1984 they would field 1262 units of the M-48A5T1. Are you ready for the twist? They took 170/180 M-60 units gave it a 120mm/L44 and completely RESET the tank from the ground up and called it the M-60T (Alls good with this tank.) starting in 2006. The "T" must've seemed too plain for them (:rolleyes:) so between 2006-09 they took 171 LEOPARD A1A1 (Fielded in 1991.) and 1A3T1 units to develop the first testbed tank of the ALTAY program and designated them the LEOPARD-1T. Somehow this makes more sense to me now then it did on "Monday, 05 September, 2011 23:47:48" and edited again on "Last edited by FASTBOAT TOUGH; September 6th, 2011 at 02:09 AM." No wonder Don pretty much let this alone it was confusing to me earlier this evening. I must've had several :confused: :pc: moments while working that up. I think the Turkish TANK SITUATION IS AS EASY AS THIS when I've gone back over the years a handful of times to look into this whole mess:
Attachment 13009
Along with the following from FB Patch Page Thread Page 7 Post #65...
"Pic is posted here as a reference which I came across while researching the LEOPARD-2T. Also from the Undersecretariat for Defence Industry, responsible for procurement, R&D and the coordination of government. private and joint defence industry companies. This shows not only accurate dates (HIZMETE GIRIS TARIHI = SERVICE ARRIVAL DATE.) but also the unit designation within the Turkish military. Note the date of MAY 2010 Rev. 2. As you'll see the 2T below does not match the picture here."

I should've left out the "Also" from the start of the second sentence.

And again yup, that vision should be 20. ;)

Regards,
Pat