Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

And a couple of years earlier, it was meant to enter service in 2003, 2000, and so on...

On the other hand, I heard (a couple of years ago too) that Finland was considering it as a contender for their future attack helo procurment, and maybe Sweden as well (?). Any new on how this has gotten forwards?

So, Kone, you mean that nearly all Hind versions up to present day have a vision of 30 or so? What about the Eastern Europe countries? Some were bound to upgrade theirs anytime.

And, yes, Mi-24 D carries YakB gatling, AT-2 missiles and generally S-5 rockets, Mi-24 V Hind E switches to AT-6 and S-8 as standard pack, but retains the YakB; only the Mi-24 P has the GSh-30 cannon.
Eyxports versions are another matter yet.

Now about bombs, I don't know what it would give to fit that on helos. Presumably it would work (as in "no game crash"), but I don't know if the helos would be able to handle that correctly. They tend to flee when tehey get too much hits, and any rifle squad can take on a Hind at 2 hexes. Besides, since the bombs range is 1 hex, I fear the helos will tend to consider them as any other weapon and fire the bomb on the hex in front of them, which would look quite silly.
Of course, you can always use Hind or Hip icons to represent makeshift level bombers... That would look silly as well, but here that would be the kind of silliness which can come from the actual forces, and not only the game models, which is always an improvement!

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

I set the night vision value 20 (or lower). (MobHack help suggests 30 for LLTV though). The main production variants are lacking in the night operability field, including exports. However, there have been several upgrade programs around the world.

I added the bombs just because they were used. Looks stupid and doesn't work that well as you mentioned. Furthermore, releasing a 500kg FAE from low flying Hind would have propably been a suicide in the real world. So, maybe no bomb gunships afterall.

For now, Finnish attack helo procurements have been silently buried. But the issue will undoubtedly be on the table again in the (hopefully not too distant) future.

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

Posted else where, but possibly in the wrong section, SO I've repeated it here, sorry or the duplication.

I've had a look through the UK Infantry, and I think I've found some error's/mistakes (They might not be though).

All these are basic rifle/Support sections. I'm also assuming that the RGGS is the Under-barrel Grenade Launcher (UGL) just coming into service to replace the 51mm mortar. It first arrived last year I belive.

rifle Sections
unit 065 has 8 law shots, in an 8 man squad
unit 075 has the RGGS, and is available in 1998.
unit 344 has 2 LSW's, and is avalible 2007-2020, but there is no Minimi Version.
unit 623 has a minimi and RGGS in 98, 5 years to early.
unit 624 has a Law 66 for 98-2010

Support sections
unit 090 has a 51mm mortar available all the way up to 2020. After it's been replaced by the UGL.
unit 103 has LAW-80 available after it's been replaced by the MBT LAW. It also has an odd Ammo load out on those LAWs.

Other Stuff:
The SAS PV's share the class with the Scarab. and shouldn't those PV's just be armed land rover's? not MRV's?

Also the SAS squads useing L85 and L86's? I don't think I've ever see that before!

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

As I said, if you really feel the need for bombing helos, you should scratchbuild some light level bombers with the Hind icon, and use them as Hinds doing high-altitude passes.

Looks silly too, but even less so than stationary helos throwing bombs 50 meters forward...

Oh, and if you never did, don't try zero-range weapons...at all http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/Injured.gif

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

unit no.545 Lynx mk.7 starting date 1978 armed with TOW-2! Too early for TOW-2, isnt it?

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

It should be just a TOW

Don

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

AT-14 kornet missile range is set 5500m (110 hexes). Although this represents the range of the missile, I've only found the sights (both optical and thermal) to "reach" 3500m. (Identification range, or classification range according to some sites) Vehicle mounted system may have different sights though...

The problem is, that this is only 2nd or actually more like 3rd hand info. At least source in turn referred to a document by Jane's, which I was unable to access.

Some sites, however note the at-14 being able to ATTACK targets a ranges around 5000 - 5500. There is no info about the sight performance however...

Any reliable info about at-14 or any new russian atm sight range characteristics would be welcome...

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

In many systems the "identification range" is well under the max weapon range, would it only be because of the possible target driveoff. That doesn't represent the max sighting range though, only above this value you have higher chances of confusing your target for something else, implying higher fratricide probability. I don't know what range the game rules are meant to deal with though.

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

True. Nothing prevents launching the missile as soon as target appears in the optics. So detection range would be the choise. Detection range itself varies somewhat according to circumstances but as the range tends to be stated as "up to" it would well do as max range.

The IFF point in mind someone might want to use the identification range though, since friendly fire is not allowed.

The reason why I took this up, is because the missile ranges appear as the projectile's max ranges. And there's a lot of speculation out there considering the sights' performances.

Well... Guess I'm just another sceptical bonehead...

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

Regarding Sweden, there MAY be a tender for an attack helicopter around 2008-2010, but its pretty iffy...

It depends a lot on how our politicians feel the planned airmobile batallion will fit into possible peacekeeping missions or the EU battlegroup we're in...

As for the Havoc in Sweden it didn't do to well over here. It was felt to be underpowered and clumsy in NOE flying. Another drawback was its huge IR signature... apparently it was by far the most easily spotted of the ones trialed(the Cobra had the lowest signature of the lot, OTOH, it was LOUD http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif).

The testing was however done in 1995, so it was a pretty early variant/prototype and it might not have had good engines and perhaps weren't issued with IR filters for the engine exhausts, somewhat explaining the heat signature.

I believe that the attack helicopters that have been trialled in Sweden are AH-64A, AH-1W, one of the Tiger variants, the A129 and possibly the Rooivalk (no confirmation on Rooivalk).