|
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Don,
I fully agree. We know where to get it if we need it and we might in about two years (See ref 2 below.), as Indonesia is good. The refs below will show why the Russians held off on the BMP-3F and possibly caused some "confusion" for some of the ref sites. Blame it on the KURGANETS-25 program. For everyone else why did I "change" my input when I read the JANE's ref (Reposted below.) over what are truely top tier refs? Well first a couple were noncommital. It's one thing to say they have them vs. having them, I.E. Origin vs. Using them or Built in vs. Fielding (Operating.) them etc. But more importantly it's JANE's. I will leave it for you this way for reasons some will understand, +12yrs/4 Submarines and 7yrs (Two seprerate tours.) Submarine Group/Atlantic Fleet Alt HQ Ops Staff and a brand new very expensive JANE's... All the Worlds Naval ED. every year at all of them or, for you Poker players 4 Aces and 1 King of Spades to cap it off your hand, it's that good. And you wonder why I asked John (IMP) a few years ago to run my JANE's fund raising campaign!?! ;) It's why I keep looking. http://www.janes.com/article/23350/r...bmp-3-variants http://rusnavy.com/news/newsofday/in...EMENT_ID=16068 Third Para. http://www.armarbg.com/news/Russia-P...ld-the-T-99/24 Last Para. Thanks again Don! Regards, Pat |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Thanks Pat. Yes if Janes says they have it or don't I'll take that as gospel
...........and on that note on the front page of the Janes website I find Quote:
....and I'll push the start date back for the Leo 2s as they are not actually in service yet. They only have two of each for parades Don |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Don,
Been tracking the Marders myself and was on my work list but as we discussed and for those reasons it might've had to wait until next year. But as with the LEO issue from last year with (2A6 vs 2A4.) this it's MARDER 1A2 vs. 1A3. I really appreciate you getting out front on this so let me give you all I had on the INDO MARDER deal. I'm sure others might apreciate "the process" involved for equipment submissions to include the timeframe to develop your sources and types. Hopefully in order of unit data and oldest report at top... http://www.armyrecognition.com/germa...res_video.html Brought it up when the last ref below was posted. NEWS... http://www.armyrecognition.com/decem...s_1612112.html http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2...s-germany.html http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?optio...asia&Itemid=56 http://www.armyrecognition.com/septe...y_1809124.html http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?optio...asia&Itemid=56 Note in the above MARDER 1A2 mentioned in this newest post. This was taken from 5/21/2013 Post #257 MBT Thread. It backed up my decision when submitted to go for the LEO 2A6 earlier in the year. Also though here to the MARDER 1A2 came up. And I believe ref 3 below indicated 15 LEO's would be delivered by 10/2012. This is why with all of the above info and below, sometimes you have to make a decision and keep your fingers crossed. All you can do is follow up constantly. But they say a little PITA is good for you once in awhile!?! Anyway... "3. Well in this case the calculus paid off, Indonesia is getting the LEO 2A6. I had held off in submitting it sooner as there were many reports at the time that it might be the LEO 2A4 with the REVOLUATION Kits (Making them similar in looks and attributes to Singapores and Turkeys (Added last year.) upgraded LEOs). This was one of the few sites to report it as LEO 2A6 tank from the start as indicated in the first ref. In an earlier commentary I felt that Indonesia after losing the Dutch LEO deal wouldn't take a couple of steps back for 2A4s, when the Dutch tanks were 2A6 marks. The last ones show the order was increased to 163 tanks. The MARDER I'll address separately elsewhere. http://www.armyrecognition.com/july_...a_1007125.html http://www.armyrecognition.com/july_...2_0307121.html http://www.army-technology.com/news/...anks-indonesia http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?optio...asia&Itemid=56 FOLLOW UP." Might not have been a useless excercise for some. I like the last ref because they get ahead of some of the more established sources in the defence industry. I'd be curious what data SIPRI has but I'm tired so good night. MARDER 1A3 I believe is the right choice here as well. Regards, Pat |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Well a week or two ago I posted Army Techs list of Top Ten MBT's now I guess it's the APC's turn. I guess my only surprize here was the BTR-4, other then that I feel they got it right. I would hope there will be no confusion between the APC and IFV categories. Here's the list enjoy...
http://www.army-technology.com/featu...riers-4142101/ Well as I was exiting out to get ready to do some more work on the next Patch Post I came across the following K21 UPDATE. Like a couple of other sites I use, when they feature a piece of equipment something has been updated which requires a look. So unless I missed something else the news here is in the Sensor section basically identification of a target at 3000m with a 6000m detection range. In my book that means the the K21 now can join the TI/GSR 50 club that has the BRADLEY, BTR-82A (Already in last year.) with the CENTUARO and now K21 (These two will not require new units to be added.) to be changed. The clock ticks so here's the update... http://www.army-technology.com/proje...hting-vehicle/ I think I'll have to avoid my sites until I can get the next input done they make more work for me!?! :capt: Regards, Pat |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
From the APC list you would have thought they could have put a better engine in the Stryker. I am guessing its sightly underpowered, slowest & worst range. Otherwise the drive train or suspension are not quite cutting the mustard.
|
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Speaking of the Stryker, does the newest (upcoming) version implement an autocannon version of its M2 Browning? As I understand it, all versions of the Stryker use a CROWS weapons mount instead of the pintle mount for its weapon, which is not reflected in the current version's AAA mount instead of autocannon mount.
|
Re: APC Development and related topics.
I need to get ready for work soon so I'll leave you with some light reading to address the issues brought up here concerning the STRYKER.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/stryker/ http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...-Stryker-Fleet http://defense-update.com/newscast/0...05_stryker.htm Upgrade details more in the last ref. Regards, Pat |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
I'm sorry to nitpick, and I'll try to clarify, but: none of those articles address the problem with the Stryker vehicles. They cover future upgraded versions, yes, and I'll be looking forward to those, assuming they get fielded.
The issue is with the basic version of the Stryker, OBAT 12 UNIT 335, and its GL-equipped variant, UNIT 351, plus the cage armor versions thereof, UNIT 680 and 681. The MG-equipped versions, 335 and 680, are armed with WEAPON 55, the .50cal AAMG, which is a Class 4 (FLAK/AA) weapon. The issue I had in mind was that this should not be correct, since they use remote weapons stations instead of a pintle mount. They should be using Class 5, CMG/BMG, or even Class 19, AUTOCANNON, to reflect that fact. The same applies to the grenade launcher variants, 351 and 681. Their weapon mountings are Class 3, Team Weapons, which is affected by buttoning; they should be in Class 5 or Class 19 (5 makes a little more sense since the grenade launcher isn't an anti-helicopter weapon except at very short ranges), again, to reflect the fact that RWSes are immune to buttoning. Regardless, though, I'll be pretty excited to see the new Stryker variants with better armor, stabilization, thermal sights, possible Javelin integration, all that. But I would like to see the existing old Strykers to be corrected as well. |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
4 Attachment(s)
Weapons are more my thing, weapons classes are not per say though I guess that might be an oxymoron. Though I understand what you want, my ref A (Just the way I get when tired.) from my post did answer the weapon issue. I'll take it further from that with the below with pics.
1. Basic STYRKER all were from the beginning equipped with the PROTECTOR RWS using either the 50 cal. or 40mm GL. http://www.military-today.com/apc/stryker.htm Attachment 12763 2. M1128 MGS has a 105mm with a turret mounted 50 cal. and 7.62mm gun. The pic shows the 50 cal. clearly. http://www.military-today.com/artillery/stryker_mgs.htm Attachment 12764 3. M1129 MORTAR Carrier has a roof mounted 7.62mm. http://www.military-today.com/artill...ker_mortar.htm Attachment 12765 4. M1134 ATM TOW has a 7.62mm mounted by the commanders hatch. The USMC and USA versions will be around longer then the game allows for currently. Both are testing with newer weapons systems to include the ITAS TOW. That'll be an issue for next year. http://www.military-today.com/missil...34_stryker.htm Attachment 12766 So it would appear something might be amiss without doing an OOB check. ;) Regards, Pat |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
I just completed commanding two Stryker companies, one rifle and one hq. I can answer some general questions if there are any, such as which variants have RWS, if that works as a reference. I know the standards of evidence here are rigorous.
|
Re: APC Development and related topics.
I have made some minor adjustments to the weapons on the Stryker but is the evidence Pat posted in #159 any different than your practical experience ? Also.. is "KEM" a dead project ?
Don |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
None of the links really discussed the capabilities of the RWS. It's a very precise system with high magnification, TI, night vision, etc. We employ it in many ways like a sniper since you can fire single rounds and reach out to 2km with accuracy. The info about which variants carry it is correct. Surprisingly, the recon variant does not currently carry an RWS.
As far as KEM, I assume you mean kenetic energy munitions? I haven't seen anything about it to be honest. |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Maybe I'll listen to John...John tell to please stop looking in on these posts so I can get the tank items finished!!! Never mind CINCLANTHOME has been trying for years and it ain't worked yet!?! :shock: Well I have to do my part for the CORPS...
First the STRYKER... Is equipped with the Kongsberg M153 PROTECTOR RWS which is derived from the M151 PROTECTOR RWS used most notably by the CADF. http://www.kongsberg.com/en/kps/prod...rotectorcrows/ http://www.kongsberg.com/~/media/KPS...202010-A4.ashx http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011smallar...57Eagleson.pdf JANE's might have some better gun data for ROF etc. but I'm moving on to... The LAV-AT... This made my list because the game data and references out there just didn't make sense. You're running around with yes, improved but older tanks and somebody wants to take away your light armored tank killer too!?! Well that's because you're running around yeah, unimproved weapons equipment on your improved LAV-ATA2 platform. I know Suhiir it's a bitter pill to swallow but there is light (Or Refs) at the end of the tunnel here. Now to be serious (:clap:)... John pointed out some issues with the LAV-25 platform above and along with the STRYKER with the lessons learned in both Iraq and Afghanistan improvements have been made along similar lines. For the LAV-25 this would lead to the LAV-25A2 which is in the field now. The confusion with the LAV-AT is that it's thought the platform/concept was going away completely in 2014, in a sense it is but not however until the the LAV-ATA2 comes online. The whole LAV-25 and STRYKER are on a parallel track. Improvements will keep both in the the field until 2025 with contingency plans until 2035 based on funding for ongoing projects for both services I've reporting on for awhile. So yes Don I hear you...the issues with the LAV-AT is that the EMERSON Launcher System is no longer supported to include parts etc. (And I believe the company itself is either out of the defense industry or no longer in business.) also the ARMY no longer supports the TOW used with the system. Currently live fire tests as recently as this past Oct/Nov have gone well for the LAV-ATA2. The LAV-ATA2 is using the USA ITAS and latest TOW with operational testing to be completed in 2014 (Look to Fall.) and should be in the field by 2015 early. I'll be tracking developments. Game wise I see improved LAV-25A2 and LAV-ATA2 platforms and weapons capabilities being added. Yeah I know...slots slots and more slots. I can tell you also with ITAS we're talking TI/GSR 50 also for the LAV-ATA2 and STRYKER-AT. Refs below are oldest first to show program development to develop the timeline we need. Make no mistake here for the LAV-AT/LAV-ATA2 the launcher and TOW issues fall under the USA TACOM just to be clear this is a joint services op. http://www.military-today.com/missiles/lav_at.htm https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&m...=core&_cview=1 http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010MCSC/We...forLusardi.pdf http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011combatvehicle/Kayser.pdf http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...Killers-07373/ http://www.marcorsyscom.marines.mil/...er-assets.aspx http://defense-update.com/20131027_enhanced-lav-at.html http://www.janes.com/article/29232/e...ing?from_rss=1 Why people don't use this site I'll never it fiqure out, anyway... a Bonus site... http://www.the-blueprints.com/bluepr...2/view/lav-at/ I gotta work later today so good night and have a great weekend! Regards, Pat CRAP! Forgot about KEM better known as LOSAT (Line Of Sight Anti Tank Weapon) the clock ticks so KEM cancelled in 2004. USA revived the program as improved CKEM apparently cancelled in 2008. No data after successful final test flight in 2007. http://www.ausa.org/publications/arm...ts/SA_1205.pdf http://www.army-technology.com/projects/losat/ http://www.deagel.com/Anti-Armor-Wea...000979001.aspx Hey Airbornerifles don't be shy around here!?! Time to hit the rack!! |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
There are a (large ) number of changes being made to the USMC OOB ( again ) this time around. The LAV-ATA2 and an upgraded M1134 ATGMV for the US OOB have been set up for TI/GSR 50 starting 1/115........... that will no doubt change again next year. I have removed the KEM units and weapon from the US OOB
|
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Don sorry for the extra work, another excercise in having to clean up an OOB of future weapons and platforms that died on the vine, it just really chaffs my ___ as it takes away from the work at hand! YEAH I HEAR YOU, ENOUGH SAID ON THAT ISSUE. Besides who am I to complain!?! ;)
Regards, Pat |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Most of this is by way of my WORKLIST and to an extent updates you might not be aware of...
NORWAY/ADD...has been planning these upgrades for sometime now but finally got the funding to start the project in the last 2/3 years. Still trying to piece some of this together for the armor improvement thinking is 10-15% all around but not sure. http://www.army-technology.com/news/...n-army-4461121 http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...ization-07439/ http://www.armyrecognition.com/septe...gian_army.html http://www.armyrecognition.com/decem...ed_forces.html NETHERLANDS/MOD... EW issue for their CV90/35 UNITS. http://www.armyrecognition.com/septe...nch_order.html CZECHOSLOVAKIA/ADD... I didn't see this in the OOB while looking into another matter. If I missed it I'm sure I'll hear about it. ;) http://www.military-today.com/trucks/tatra_t815_sot.htm FRANCE/TRACK... The DGA has certified the new VBCI-32 which is an improved version of the VBCI. The improvements were brought about from lessons learned in Africa. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...led-apc-04100/ BULGARIA/ADD... To get TEXTRON's COMMANDO SELECT vehicles. http://www.army-technology.com/news/...extron-4404443 LEBANON/ADD... France to help Lebanese better protect themselves against threats posed by groups such as ISIS. The VBC-90 is the concern here however, other systems are involved as noted in the article. http://www.armyrecognition.com/octob...s_2510142.html DENMARK/TRACK... Life is better or maybe Russian stirring things up, is making people nervous again. http://www.armyrecognition.com/decem...oured_121.html http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...mored-Vehicles FRANCE/TRACK... In line with the UK's FRES Program, France has kicked off the SCORPION Program. http://www.janes.com/article/46852/u...cle-programmes http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...hicles-028975/ http://www.armyrecognition.com/decem...y_0612141.html FRANCE/ADD... As I was working down my bookmarks I guess I had already saved the VAB-HOT. C2/P2, HOT 4 ready/8 reload, TI/GSR 45 (System info indicates 2500m/or 50hexes) your call. http://www.armyrecognition.com/franc...ications_.html Well that should do it on current issues I have more in the previous page or two as well I believe. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
FYI The newest USMC OOB will have:
01/82-06/87 LAV-AT - Vision=30, BGM-71D 07/87-06/92 LAV-AT - Vision=40, BGM-71E 07/92-09/01 LAV-AT - Vision=40, BGM-71F 10/01-12/14 LAV-ATA1 - Vision=45, BGM-71F (now has "cherry picker") 01/15-12/20 LAV-ATA2 - Vision=50, BGM-71F ("cherry picker") Not that the "cherry picker" is modeled/handled by the game code BUT the LBM and Icons change. |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
We still need a truly modeled IFV/AFV. The APC model is fine for a troop taxi into battle, but we need a vehicle to carry troops into battle then stay in support with Oportunity and Reaction Fires at ranges near 1km against non-vehicle targets.
|
Re: APC Development and related topics.
We can all dream but, I don't think the CORPS has any plans for that in a true IFV concept from what I've been posting. Still in the "beachhead mode of thinking" I guess but, I do agree with you on that 100% the CORPS needs it.
To the ATA1/ATA2 I thought Don and I got those in a couple of years ago (Or last year?) when he initiated things concerning the USA KEM Program. You know I do my PITA best to support the CORPS (And it kills me at times!?! ;)) but, did I miss something here? No answer required as I've given mine to you already but, did I miss something here!?! :rolleyes: That's why I get along with them so well on the base-because I like them (You to just you're a little wiser than they are!?!). Now would be a good time go "SHALLOW-SHALLOW-GOING-DEEP-DEEP-OVER." :cool: Program Alert: If you can watch or get to PBS.org FRONTLINE is doing a story called "Putin's Way" @10pm EST. Wouldn't do this normally as you know but they are really good at those type of stories and it might provide some insights to the man. Gotta Rig for Deep Submergence!! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
The whole point of the Corps is a mobile reaction force. Why everything possible is air transportable by MV-22/CH-53/C-130s and standard assault transport shipping (vice cargo ships).
If you put enough armor on an APC to make it a "true" IFV it' s no longer easily transportable. Same reason the USMC uses lots of helos and jump jets, no need to capture/build a full air base, any flat piece of ground will do. A USMC MEU (an autonomous combat unit from battalion to division size) has enough supplies in it's logistics element for 90 days of operations (in theory). After that the US Army is suppose to have gotten there to take over operations. The USMC is not intended or equipped for sustained heavy combat, that's what the US Army is for. |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
I agree with you totally on your last post however, given the op-tempo of the last decade it kind of makes you wonder who's augmenting whom. Again not disagreeing with you but it would make you think the USMC might want to reconsider a "strike force" option after all that's the reason they kept the LAV-AD around longer then they wanted because they stripped them of their missiles and used the launchers to carry extra DPU rounds for direct ground support (You might remember the video I posted.). After all that's why the USAF has all those nice C-117s. But we have them because they are the best combat troops in the world at what they do and they have not only the past but current history to fall on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM82Vuq3PdM Note the hot expended shell casings being ejected in the video. Anyway forgot one for the last post though I'm hesitate to post it as it involves Finland, well OK not really... FINLAND/MOD XA-180/OCT 2015 should allow for enough numbers to be available as needed. When keys words such as "new external surfacing" are used that tells me a 10% gratis increase in armor protection is probably warranted. General ground performance should probably be looked at as well over the existing UNITS. http://www.armyrecognition.com/novem...e_forces_.html USA/BRADLEY/ALL TYPES/MAIN GUN CONSIDERATION...Well I work with a diverse group of folks from the military. We got to talking about the game which lead to the BRADLEY as he served in them in Korea and Iraq. Did we know the main gun is dual feed with an HE and AP belt of ammo? I believe each belt holds either 500 or 800 Rds (Will confirm later today when I go back to work.) with two more belts of each for reload, I believe the simplest fix is to balance equally both types of ammo available to the game units. I do not know if the game engine would (or does now) allow auto target ammo selection much as the gunner does in real life with the auto selector on the real gun. "Jake" did tell me anything less then an up armored HUMVEE type vehicle got the HE treatment and everything else got AP rounds including hardened defensive positions. Just curious, I had this conversation about three weeks ago. Anyway Good Night-gotta hit it again starting tomorrow. Regards, Pat |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
I believe the Bradley uses the same feed system as the LAV-25.
It uses 150 or 60 round belts. Typically a LAV-25 carried a 150 round belt of HE AND a 60 round belt of API loaded (dual feed system after all) with another belt of each aboard for reload. For a total of 300 HE and 120 AP rounds carried. |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Just got a minute, but "Jake" was pretty clear on the point that the feed had both a separate HE and AP belt on the gun. I did ask about a combined HE/AP belt and he stood firm on the separate ammo belts as noted above and previously. Of course he noted both have "tracer" rounds interspersed as well on each belt.
Regards, Pat |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
That's what I said. Two belts, one of HE (150 rnds), one of AP (60 rnds).
As to tracers, the "standard" in 1-in-5. |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Quote:
|
Re: APC Development and related topics.
I did use the word "intended".
Ever since Korea (1950-1953) the USMC has been used in sustained operations. While of course they can (and do) do so regularly it's not their "intended" mission. Some of this is due to the US Army's over emphasis on mechanized warfare. From about 1970 thru the early 2000's the US Army seems to have almost totally forgotten about the need for leg infantry. Everything but their Rangers, Airborne, and the 10th Mountain was so tied to vehicles (helos in the case of the Air Cav) that without them they were basically non functional. The USMC has always maintained that while infantry may occasionally ride/fly somewhere it's primarily a foot mobile organization. Then you get something like Afghanistan where much of the terrain is mountains there's no option but to keep the Marines around while the Army reinvents "leg infantry". During Vietnam the length of an individuals deployment was mandated from Washington, thus was the same for everyone (more or less). As you recall in Somalia the Marines went in first, then left (pretty much) when the Army arrived. The need for large numbers of troops in Iraq/Afghanistan means that given the size of the US Military overall there's no choice but to keep Marines there indefinitely. |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Mobility is often described as a force multiplier, in fact, so much so that it is doctrine. I think, either in the Air or on Land, soldiers and Marines will ride in something to the battle and the better for them too, as speed, agility, we're still talking mobility, will multiply on force effectiveness to identify, close, engage, and defeat the opposition. That is the mission of an infantry unit, be it light or heavy, Marine or Army.
Yes, and the Marines are light infantry, and admittedly so, but today, they ride, not walk. Since the early fights on the plains in the ole West, forts or what we call Patrol Bases today (PBs) are ubiquitous. So, that and for other reasons, I argue for the IFV in our game to deliver Opfires and reaction fires at ranges of 1km. As the MBT becomes increasingly expensive and limited in MOUT operations, and as the thread of armor forces of equitable strengths ever engaging diminish, the need for an infantry fire suppression vehicle rises. So, lets have a better modeled AFV/IFV in winspMBT. Here, here and what say you? |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
First...Suhiir sorry for misreading your post on the ammo issue for the LAV-25.
Second...The LAV-25/STRYKER issue is covered on Pgs. 16-17 of this Thread with plenty of references. Third...Since this whole issue started going back to the pre-EFV stage I've been posting regularly on the topic of what the USMC is trying to do to replace the AAV for years now. The CORPS is addressing the support issue with the ACV/MPC Programs that have been on and off for the last couple of years now, similar to what the USA was going through with the GCV Program all again in this thread. To address this ongoing discussion and what the current and future role is for the USMC concerning it's mission in regards to amphibious operations etc., I leave you with the below ref which Mr. Feickert has been reporting to Congress on for the last few years now (Google it.). You will see AT, 30mm and 40mmGL RWS's discussed within among other issues and it's all current-06 January 2015 was the best I could do on short notice. I can probably also get the RFI & RPI data as well for initial contract requests and requirements but I had a LONG/DAMP/COLD/RAINY DAY ON post earlier tonight so I'll just go to bed good night! Enjoy the read as I have and have a wonderful day! http://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R42723.pdf What the hexx! Here's to the LAV-25A2 RFI and Program which is all on track... https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&m...=core&_cview=1 http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011combatvehicle/Kayser.pdf Regards, Pat |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
It's not mobility that I was referring to earlier. It's being so closely tied to those vehicles you can't operate without them.
For instance, the US Army as a whole doesn't use 60 or 81mm mortars, they use vehicle mounted 120's ... no vehicles ... no mortars. Same for artillery, it's almost all self propelled. And I won't even get into the amount of ammo the Army uses with their suppression fire doctrine, without their vehicles they'd run out several times faster then Marines do. Mobility hasn't been much of an issue since the late 1950's. In general USMC infantry is 1/3 LVT/AAVs, 1/3 helos, 1/3 trucks. And the helos in particular give us outstanding mobility. The US Army has one, count them one, Air Cav division, if it's not in the area then significant heloborne operations are not an option. While the AAV is a poor substitute for a Bradley or even a BMP it's every bit as capable as a M113 or BTR (in fact somewhat more capable). But again the USMC isn't designed/intended for use in Central Europe. During the Cold War we were primarily slated for Norway, Greece, and Italy. True actual battlefield mobility is reduced, since only a fool rides a truck or helo when being actively shot at. But on the other hand the USMC isn't tied to the road net nearly as much as the Army. Many's the time we've waded thru a swamp or crossed a mountain to attack from directions then Army KNEW no significant attack could come from when doing joint service training with the US Army. #################### Yeah, amphibious warfare has been obsolete since the invention of the A-Bomb ... funny how many landing have been made since then by various nations worldwide. The Brits should have known retaking the Falklands was impossible ... |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Suhiir, not to be difficult but much of your information regarding Army vs. USMC appears to incorrect. I'm an infantry officer in the Army and I know from personal experience as well as readily available public information that this is so.
The Marines are a light infantry force, high quality, I agree. But four of the army's ten divisions are also light infantry: the 10th Mountain, 25th Light, 82nd Airborne, and 101st. In addition, other divisions have fielded light infantry brigades including the 1st and 3rd Infantry Divisions. Even the 1st Armored Division had a light infantry brigade for a while (that is in the process of disbanding right now with the move back to three brigades per division). Additionally, every Army division has an aviation brigade that allows them to conduct large-scale airmobile operations. The 101st I believe has two aviation brigades so they can conduct a full brigade air assault, but it is not a capability unique to that division. You are right that the heavy formations are very road-bound, but that's the nature of things with armored vehicles. AN the army absolutely does use 60 and 81mm mortars. Every light infantry company has 60s, and light battalions have 81s in the mortar platoon. Additionally, Stryker companies and battalions also have dismounted 60s and 81s in addition to the vehicle mounted 120s. Not disputing that the Marines are an excellent light infantry force with great history and esprit, but I'd put the soldiers from the 82nd, 101st, or 10th Mountain against them any day in any terrain. And a final note, the USMC in these extended deployments always has to rely on Army logistics to sustain themselves because they don't have the institutional ability to do it themselves. |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
I'll freely admit much of my information is probably outdated. I was on active service 1974-1994 and a LOT has changed since then, both in the USMC and the US Army, and I have NOT followed the changes in the US Army nearly as closely.
I don't recall there even were a 1st or 3rd Infantry or 25th Light or during the 80's, and the 101st is, if I'm not mistaken primarily an airmobile unit, thus while it fights as infantry it's a valuable overall asset (like the 82nd Airborne/parachute division) and not used lightly. These units may well exist now, and I say GOOD, and apologize for my assumptions that the US Army of 2014 is the same one that existed in the 80's/90's. |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Clarification to the above:
The 1st and 3rd Infantry DID exist as formations during that period, but they were Mech Infantry not leg. |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
No need to apologize, and thank you for your service! It's something I love about this game and this forum, the commitment to realism and accuracy.
Think of the 82nd and 101st in similar terms to the USMC. they each have their specialized mission (parachute assaults and airmobile operations) that they conduct extra training for, but for otherwise they are just high-quality light infantry formations. And you're correct, the light brigades in 1st and 3rd ID, and 1st AD were not implemented until the GWOT, though the Army had other light divisions in the 80's that have since been deactivated (7th ID, for example). |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Yeah I know the Army has long used the 82nd and 101st as light infantry. I'd sort of assumed it was because they were the only light infantry available not because they were intended to be used that way.
Learn something new every day. |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Well this next is to acknowledge "The Kings of Re-purposing" in this case dealing with old tank hulls. Of course this means the Russians and in this case the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians have found out the hard way that their BMP-2's are not up to the task and have suffered heavy losses in APC and MBT's early in the conflict. Since then in the area of MBT's a better protected and capable version of the T-64 has been fielded (MBT Thread.) and now the push to field a heavy APC/IFV has been revitalized and will see the light of day now. Next is the main story followed by examples of what is "already in the can".
http://www.janes.com/article/47949/u...fv-development http://www.military-today.com/apc/bmpv_64.htm http://www.military-today.com/apc/bmp_k_64.htm http://www.military-today.com/apc/bmp_55.htm http://morozovkmdb.com/ For the KMDB link click on the "Upgrade Packages for Vehicles...section just below the BTR-3U. Some of those upgrades have already been applied to the current Ukrainian military equipment. TRACK/TRACK/TRACK Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Well, well this is interesting........ the stated effective firing range at night for a T-64 A and B is 600m, or in game terms.. 12 hexes. 1500 after modernization..... 30 hexes
|
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Now you know why I've used this site (OPLOT/OPLOT-M) and have kept it but, the "boys" from Ukraine I'm sure have contacts or use the site themselves. Any way I show the history tank section this might be of some general use especially dealing with pre and WWII tanks. The site is rich in data after all this plant has been making tanks for over 75 years. The cautionary note here is dealing with the upgrades available that the data fields are looked at completely so as not to miss items such as gun upgrades and protection benefits (With tested values.)of items such as ERA like NOZH etc. You have to remember they are in the business to make money and have been very successful in the export business in countries like Thailand and Iraq.
http://morozovkmdb.com/eng/body/tank...?page=history5 I don't know where we're at with the Ukrainian tanks but the last one I submitted was the OPLOT-M and modifications to the OPLOT. So I suspect at least a couple of these will need to be submitted. Further I will move this post to it's home thread later just wanted to wrap this "chain of events" up here. http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t72ua1.htm http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t64e.htm http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t64b1m.htm (JANE'S (And others.) has reported the two above as in service, there are reports of a T-64B2M as well FCS upgrades probably in line with the T-84 below. Also it seems the T-72UA1 MIGHT BE in service as well though they have better options in the field now.) http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t64bm_bulat.htm http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t84.htm (For reference to the previous ref above.) A note on NOZH is that it has very similar characteristics of the same armor package used on the MERKAVA. It is in essence a further development of KONTACT-5 which Russia a couple of years ago (In MBT Thread.) accused the Ukraine of stealing. As noted it improves protection especially when used in conjunction with "conventional" ERA. Right now not many reports of Ukrainian T-72 or OPLOTs being used actively in the current crisis. Same for reports that the T-72BM3 is operating within the Ukraine sightings thus far have been confirmed as newer T-64 variants and possible older T-72 types. However the T-72BM3 has been confirmed on being seen inside the Russian border with the Ukraine. Again some of this is in the MBT Thread. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Well this has long been "what if'd" , wish listed, do they or don't they etc. I can't do better than DID covered this topic from the start of their site. Again refs/additional readings are both highlighted in blue and certainly covered at the end of this article. USMC amphib "hopes and desires" with a dose of reality and a little "we're still waiting on a decision" is all rolled into this article covering 2001 to the present. This reading is not for the faint of heart it is long by even their standards.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...updated-02302/ It's as good as it gets no fuss no mess, I just wait a decision to do what I do. The only question I have for now is does our AAV-7 meet the current/coming improvement standards? Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Some folks just refuse to understand you can't make a fully amphibious MRV-IFV.
|
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Well an update of the correctly named (I was using the old designation.) ACV 1.1 and ACV 1.2 (We always did like our decimal points with our numbers in our military.) so from JANE'S and more for likely WinSPMBT 1.0...
http://www.janes.com/article/48255/u...ehicle-contest I don't know what we'll all be doing over the next 20yrs., but if this plan holds up the USMC will be doing it (What ever "it" is!?! ;)) still with the AAV. Regards, Pat |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
I just hope they put these thru the same "final testing" they did the LAV when it was adopted.
Basically they turned the three finalists over to a bunch of average Jarheads and gave them a month to play with them at 29 Palms. Reporting on what they liked, what they didn't, how often they broke, how badly, and how easy they were to fix. |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
One question. Why only M3 Bradley BUSK and no M2 Bradley BUSK? Thank you.
Edit: Only a question, I really know the slot issue in USA OOB but I ask for interest. |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Hi. Exploring the Russia OOB i saw that two BTR-90 units are in there.
I think two more slots for Russian OOB.. Regards Edit: in addiction to this, i saw in USA OOB EFOGM ATGM. According to http://www.army-technology.com/projects/efogm/ " The ACTD program concluded in September 1999. The US Army has no plans for further funding of the EFOGM program." According to http://www.deagel.com/Anti-Armor-Wea...000959001.aspx "Up to 300 EFOGM missiles armed with a shaped charge warhead and 12 HMMWV-mounted launchers were procured by the US Army by late 1990s. The program is currently on hold and there are no further plans to keep going with this program" So I think was only a testbed and not a really fielded unit. One more free slot? |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Russian OOB (011):
Unit# 233 BTR-90 (-) 01/103-12/120, UC=121, VIRSS=1, Weapons 151, 64, 49 Unit# 309 <BTR-90B> Unused unit (no nation set) 01/114-12/120, UC=251, VIRSS=2, Weapon 151, 237, 64, 49 Apparently Unit#309 is a proposed upgrade of the BTR-90 that has not (as of yet) been implemented. |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
The BTR-90 is being used in limited quantities so will stay as a 93 code
There's no "309" in my OOB |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
SOFTBALL #2 Item #3...
First to respond... 1. At the time the BRADLEY "BUSK" was submitted, the references I used basically put the priority on getting them (Urban Protection System.) installed on the A3. The A3 is pretty much doing most of the heavy lifting now from what I understand on the front lines. And as you mentioned the slot situation is beyond tight. Though I'll take this opportunity too throw out my Plan B here (And I have my Steinke Hood handy when I get torpedoed!?!-;)) the UAE or as I like to call it the UAE/PITA some of the countries that make this up already have their own OOB's and trying to keep up with the equipment buys and upgrades etc., etc. I gave up even trying myself to do this maybe could we consider killing it and then dividing it up among the most slot restricted OOB's? 2. This might help concerning the EFOGM or not. http://www.reocities.com/Pentagon/qu...6747/efogm.htm http://www.army-technology.com/projects/efogm/ 3. The end of "Jake's Tale... As a refresher he primarily served in the BRADLEY A2 tracks as a gunner in Korea and saw combat in Iraq. His unit was one of the ones chosen to operationally field test the BRADLEY A3 BFIST. Not to rehash from the previous posts too much...again the auto-cannon is a dual feed ammo weapon that allows the gunner to select between the HE-FRAG and AP belts while engaging targets. In our discussions and based on them his/my concerns are as follows... A. Are the game units using HE-FRAG rounds as this was the standard round used by all types to his knowledge. B. It would make sense especially with the ROF of the BUSHMASTER to have either an equal (And preferable.) amount of both HE-FRAG and AP rounds or at minimum, increase the AP allotment over current game levels. Those were the game issues discussed somewhere. ;) The last is some insight that would make sense to most of you out here... C. As a point of interest he told me the loaded belts had between 72-75 (He couldn't remember which.) rounds each. They NEVER had less than 400 rounds each of HE-FRAG and AP onboard (This matches most refs that show they carried at least 900/or 1000 rounds total.) however, when going on a combat mission they routinely carried much more depending on the mission and threats expected to be encountered. An easy rule of thumb as a gunner he/they used was anything less then an up-armored HUMMER got HE-FRAG and above that standard AP. http://www.military-today.com/apc/m2_bradley.htm http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bradley/ Regards, Pat |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Ran out of time to edit...
BTR-90...Had more but this from ref. 1/para 1 is from the manufacturer GAZ, "The vehicle was intended for the use of mechanized units of the Russian Army as well as marine units of the Russian Navy, as a vehicle for fire support, transportation of personnel, surveillance, reconnaissance, and patrolling tasks." and from para 1/ref.2 "A small number of these APCs are in service with Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs." we had a similar situation when I submitted the BPM-97 (And one of my very first submissions.) we then decided though in use with Border Guards we at the time could not connect it to the main stream military (The link can be made now as new information became available years later.) and we decided not to enter it. If you remember and those refs supported it, the BTR-90 situation is what drove the BTR-82 just over 3 years ago getting into the game when I submitted it. The BPM-97 and BTR-82 data is at the bottom of the refs. http://www.gaz.vehiclemechanics.net/btr90/1 http://www.military-today.com/apc/btr_90.htm http://tanknutdave.com/the-russian-b...hting-vehicle/ http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...sia/btr-90.htm http://armour.ws/btr-90-apc/ http://www.military-today.com/apc/btr_82.htm (Tie in again in the first para to the BTR-90.) http://www.military-today.com/apc/bpm_97.htm (Original source as posted in the very beginning of the MRAP Thread I believe.) http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bpm-97-apc/ (Updated source Paras 6/7.) http://www.military-today.com/apc/bumerang.htm (This last caused us a lot of aggravation as well because some thought this to be a revived BTR-90 around the time we worked through the BTR-82 some might find that process interesting, it is all in this Thread. This is on my list as well but it is slightly behind schedule at this time.) I recommend taking out the BTR-90 and I'm personally holding off on the BPM-97 myself though on my submission list again due to some still "lingering fog" on the subject. I would rather the slot(s) be available for at least one or two of the Russian MRAPS I know they're getting/have in the Army just recently. Just my "2 cents" on this. Only one more Softball left to go the F-35 and what a mess it is worldwide but I will offer a very simple solution. Nice of my @*#^&+! mouse to cooperate with MozFox so far!?! Regards, Pat |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Quote:
------ |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Quote:
THINK people....... I've had a year to modify the OOB's...... I pulled that unit months ago, that's why it's NOT IN MY OOB. My OOB's usually start changing within a week or two of a patch release. I figured by saying it wasn't in my OOB any longer that would indicate it's already been pulled |
Re: APC Development and related topics.
Quote:
Additionally, it seems that the BTR-90 was never even intended to replace the BTR-80, since it's much too expensive for that. The Russian Army still has a huge number of BTR-70 vehicles, which have gas engines and need to be replaced with something relatively inexpensive. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:28 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.