Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

To the French SCORPION PROJECT like any such program, there are winners and in this case a loser. Nexter/Renault/Thales were the winners with their JAGUAR (Recon) and GRIFFON (APC) vehicles respectively. The loser was Panhard marketing the SPHINX (Recon) and CRAB (Recon) vehicles. The bids I believe were announced in mid-2009. The contract was awarded to the winners in late 2014. I should point out this is a French land vehicle modernization program, so it's about more than these vehicles. Going to my APC Folder I still have the following going back to 2010 and more, hey it's that "T" word thing ...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/frenc...ations_uk.html
http://www.janes360.com/images/asset...ernisation.pdf
http://www.armyrecognition.com/euros..._11306166.html

The following for FYI...
http://www.military-today.com/apc/panhard_sphinx.htm
http://www.military-today.com/apc/panhard_crab.htm

The winners...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/frenc...fications.html
http://www.janes.com/article/61243/e...akes-its-debut

Finally...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/frenc..._pictures.html
http://www.janes.com/article/60172/f...on-jaguar-ebrc

Panhard is seeking export orders for their two vehicles.

I hope this clears up any confusion on the matter. And be careful I just might "T"ing" you and have a folder on you as well!?! :shock: & :cool: (Right spy's do wear "shades"?)

Suhiir's point is well taken, it's bad enough we have to carry them all over the world just so we can land them somewhere to play with their toys and take out their aggression on someone because we might've kept them cooped up onboard ship for a handful of months or longer. We're not the "White Star Line" so luggage is limited to what you carry and the
"bigger stuff" better be multi-functional, tasked, operational and any such other word associated with these that I can't think of at the moment!! :D Bottom-line those factors are important and space is really limited on the ships. By date available...
http://www.military-today.com/navy/tarawa_class.htm
(The above are all decommissioned, however they demonstrate the USMC landing capabilities from the mid 70's on.
http://www.military-today.com/navy/w...land_class.htm
http://www.military-today.com/navy/wasp_class.htm
http://www.military-today.com/navy/s...onio_class.htm

The AMERICA Class is excluded as it's only a helo assault vessel.

Someone has to go to work later this afternoon, so good night and have a great weekend!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

And just when you thought it was safe to get back in the water Pat ... may I introduce the L-ATV.
https://oshkoshdefense.com/vehicles/l-atv/

Apparently the replacement for the armored HMMWV starting around 2019-2020.
Major features: HMMWV speed/mobility with MRAP protection.

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

I have a question on the new Stryker Dragoon and the way it's implemented in v11.

Namely, why was it hived off into an entirely new formation? From what I've read, the intention is that there are meant to be one or two per platoon (with the other vehicles being Strykers with Javelins bolted to the RWS). Logically they'd fit better into the one-per-platoon Light Support APC category, as an option in place of the grenade launcher Strykers, and the as-of-yet-nonexistent Javelin Strykers as a regular APC option.

We can probably phase out the "M113A4 IFV" for that role. They're not in service in the US, are they?

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

It's in two formations and players can use them as they please. We still don't know for certain how they are to be integrated and when we do we will write a formation for them.

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Oh. I didn't see the "Stryker Platoon +" formation. That does help, although manually assembling mechanized squads isn't going to be fun.

Incidentally, I went and did a bit of Googling, and found:
* Starting around 2007, Strykers should gain laser rangefinding and at least some stabilization. That was when the M151E2 Protector was introduced.

https://www.dvidshub.net/news/12057/...ystems-stryker

* The M240 AAMG should be removed, unless it's meant to approximate a field mount or something similar?

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Well the problem is there is only sketchy info on how they are actually going to be used so I decided to get them in some kind of basic formation ( there are two ) and players can build how they like until better info is available as "the intention is that there are meant to be one or two per platoon (with the other vehicles being Strykers with Javelins bolted to the RWS" means there is an entirely new kind of Stryker I;m just learning about today

"intentions" isn't hard info....and as interesting as "Strykers with Javelins bolted to the RWS" sounds it's totally new to me so maybe we need to give this a year to gather better info and in the meantime players can easily buy a basic Stryker coy and tack on a Dragoon Spt Sec

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Here's the best source I can find on it, from Breaking Defense:

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/02/a...30-mm-javelin/

"Upgunning the Europe-based Second Cavalry Regiment against the Russians is just the first of a “lethality upgrade” for the entire Stryker force. The 30mm quick-firing cannon for 2CR’s Strykers may ultimately go on half the Army’s fleet of the 8×8 armored vehicles (not counting specialist variants). The other half would get the a vehicular version of the Javelin, the military’s standard shoulder-fired anti-tank missile. Just as important, the Army wants to upgrade sights and sensors across the fleet — and it’s throwing the doors open to ideas from industry."

Any intent on adding Rangefinder 22/Stabilization, or removing the AAMG?
----

Other IFV news:

* Australia's LAND 400 program is proceeding apace, with the choices being a Boxer vehicle with the Puma's Lance turret (only with 35mm instead of 30mm), or a Patria AMV with 35mm.

http://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2016...?spt=sec&or=bn

* Canada's LAV 6.0 upgrade seems all but confirmed; I saw chatter about it last year. How this will show up in-game, I'm not sure...

http://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2017...l&utm_medium=1

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

You'll find the Posts concerning the LAV 6.0 on Pages 34 & 35 to include an email from the Canadian MOD to mine concerning it. Also posted on down select from Australia in here-that I've been tracking for years now as it kind've falls in line with the HAWKEI which I believe will finally be ready for the game next year. Ask Don or some of the "old hands" how many years I've been watching that one. THE MOST IMPORTANT issue beyond the pooling of information is the Patience to track this stuff for years at a time to monitor the evolution of a particular piece of equipment to the final choosen variant of it once accepted into service IF it makes it that far.

Back to vacation mode.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Looks like the ACV 1.1 is official (if not yet accepted/deployed) as is a probable 1.2 (larger more amphibious capable variant) that is intended to replace the LVT/AAV.

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/...o-marine-corps
https://www.defensetech.org/2016/12/...-marine-corps/
http://breakingdefense.com/2017/03/s...ests-to-begin/

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

I guess we just have to wait and see how this develops

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

I have added the rangefinder and Stabilization for next years OOB's but it had to be added from the start ( 2004 ) otherwise I have to add four additional units to an OOB with very few open slots left......so for 3 years they are slightly over capable. It's a fair compromise that I had to make

IDK where you see an AAMG....that's the second time you mentioned an AAMG..there are no AAMG's on any stryker...there is a "normal" MMG and I see no reason to remove it that doesn't create scenario issues for little benefit

Don

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

There is this "need" out here...forget it...This is what we really know...
1) All STRYKERS will get double "V" protected hulls which has been well underway for sometime now.

2) The USA will only currently upgrade 81 STRYKERS with the PROTECTOR MCT-30 turret.

3) From the USA and as it stands right now, well I'll just quote the ARMY here..."Fielding to the 2nd Cavalry Regiment in Europe will begin in May 2018, which represents "a near-record time from concept to delivery," according to Allyn." as taken from ref. 2. And yes ref. 1 covers the same as well.
https://www.armytimes.com/articles/a...th-30mm-cannon
https://www.army.mil/article/177472

About the PROTECTOR MCT-30 CLICK on the data sheet to the right for further details if you want...
https://www.kongsberg.com/en/kps/pro...rotectormcrws/

There hasn't been any "real talk" about the JAVELIN version for about a year or so. However, this is what the USA plans are for that and more. Hopefully the "PROJECTED ACTIVITIES" section is still open as I copied over. If not click on it. Note the following...A) MCT-30 will mount a M240 coax. B) Turret picture as shown in articles above shows advanced optical systems TI/GSR 40. C) From FY 2020 (Oct 2019 for you non fiscal types.) on is when we can possibly think about the JAVELIN equipped STRYKER as part of the ECP-2/2a proposal. This will be the TI/GSR 50-60 version based on the data provided by the USA below concerning the use of TOW/ITAS targeting "structures" from those platforms.
http://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-it...y-of-vehicles/

I really like my sources, however, I have found many times over the years that the information provided goes directly back to whatever military direct source either MOD/DOD/Military Component. I can't say how many times I've posted those with my other references when submitting equipment out here. To put it "bluntly" and using a "modern metaphor" if it can be helped at all I refuse to be the one texting as I'm crossing the street and get hit by a car, fall in a man hole, trip into a fountain etc. etc. these things take time, they need to age like a good bottle of whiskey like my 12 year old Bushmills (You can only get it in Ireland.) that I don't plan to open until our 40th Anniversary in 9.5yrs.

Equipment is just like that. I've been guilty of over exuberance in the start of doing this work, the result, well that would be more work for Don and I. I'd rather at this point in the game see how much more Andy and Don can "squeeze" out of the software then have them fixing and deleting equipment the way we had to a few years back. That's no fun when you're trying to get new stuff in or modifying it which is easier then fixing it to draw the distinction between the two in this writing.

Sorry for venting and if I've offended anyone, my apologies. But sometimes "clarity of purpose" at least to my mind doesn't always come gift wrapped in the paper of your choosing.

Some pictures of something I've been following since 2012 late and to avoid confusion with the still in production earlier model, someone will figure it out and yes that's an armored cab...
Attachment 14680 Attachment 14681

Good Night!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

I added them for 9/117 as a compromise between the projected deployment date and the date the first test units were delivered. By next year that date will be firmed up and there will be formations pre-built using them but right now..they are have not been issued and any number of factors could change that but it does look like they will be deployed early next year

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

You're right we should know something by time the next patch gets released in Mar/Apr of 2018. Your date works for me though the "swag" is a little more than what you and I normally use at max. 6 months. However as you pointed out there are those "factors" that always seem to come up and change things. All we can do is watch the "news" and of course the calendar. I ended up in the beginning of the thread and happened to look at Post #10 makes me wish things could be that easy again, all that did get in the game but, not long after things just seemed to get more "technical" I guess. Anyway I'll keep tracking this.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

They also seem to be fast tracking these things and I suspect ( we will see.... ) that they are going to be deployed ahead of schedule. I now have a "Hvy Cavalry Trp" and "Hvy Cavalry Pl" in the OOB that integrates them with infantry that can be adjusted as new info is released

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Don when we entered the much improved M2A3 BRADLEY BUSK/BUSK III (The major improvement was it gave them a true "hunter killer" FCS system amongst others to include defensive one's.) and I have to check it against my submission posts also, but if not mistaken I don't believe we gave it artillery observation powers. Well unless we missed it we should've especially after you read the following as I just did. Still I don't recall seeing it at the time.

Here's the quote...
The Army Acquisition Support Center website says the M2A3 Infantry Fighting Vehicle features upgrades across much of the on-board systems that "provide 'hunter-killer target handoff' capability." The M2A3 IFVs and their crews are also the "Eyes of the Artillery," the ASC website said. The on-board technology the 2-137th will be using "can acquire, identify, track and designate targets while mounted and under armor, enhancing crew survivability."

Here's the ref.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april..._10104171.html

ASC as referred to is the following...
http://www.aschq.army.mil/home/AboutUs.aspx

Units effected are...
USA-889/898&899 A note about UNIT 889 the TI/GSR should be 50 vice 40. All "BUSK" units at the time received the same upgrades.

The "rub" here reading the article indicates that now all the M2A3 BRADLEY's (Article makes no mention of "BUSK" units.)have the new FCS and "Eyes of the Artillery (ETA)" equipment now. This is a "no brainier" only in that the regular ARMY will generally be fitted out before the National Guard starts getting the upgrades. In taking that logical step that means probably within the last couple of years (Or more.) the process of upgrading the M2A3 had started and is either completely finished or a "sneeze away" from being finished.
Those M2A3 UNITS would be...
USA-306/666&668. These should only be improved and limited to the FCS (to include TI/GSR) and again the "ETA".

No out of service UNITS by date would make the "cut" to be improved.

All this for reading my, well for today, evening papers. I guess, I should STOP reading my "papers"? :dk:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

This further supports my last Post on the M2A3, though good sources, these next two should cover the rest "of the bases" from second to home plate.
Ref. 1 very first para addresses this very simply and Ref. 2 is directly from the USA. Ref. 3 in particular the section below the M1200 picture would confirm we're right on our 2012 fielding date for our "BUSK" M2A3's and also when the artillery and target painting laser was also available.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...21-71/appi.htm
https://www.army.mil/article/185239/..._at_fort_riley
https://www.ausa.org/sites/default/f...pons4_1012.pdf

I should think this should cover it, if not, you know where to find me. ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Just got home from work around 11pm caught up on my news and a program than checked my in this case "paper" and found this, but, first I asked myself is this India? No it's the GAO the title actually says it all more then the sample article.
http://www.janes.com/article/69669/a...ecommend-delay

I don't have time now to dig further I need to get my "butt" to bed as I have my "fight course" in the morning. If no one else posts any further articles on the topic I'll see what I can come up with tomorrow late afternoon or evening.

Tonight I dream about the "Red Man"!?! :D

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

I always feel better after fighting the "Red Man" a couple of times in the heat of a SE Ga. day. Anyway I hit "pay-dirt" and if they abide by the delay the only USMC amphibious replacement program we're likely to see in the game will be the AVC 1.1 if you read the article it covers all the issues, if not, I'll be nice enough to tell just read the lower left section of this ref. and you'll see where I'm coming from.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/684147.pdf

Note the GAO normally gets it's way where money is concerned.

For very recent background information, this is very good...
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R42723.pdf

Forgot to add...My MARINE friend out here was one of the very first to question the troop carrying capacity of these vehicles 10 vs standard 13 for a squad. I think she secretly works on the GAO Military Advisory Committee or MAC but not like "Hey Mac" - might get you a dirty look from her!?! ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

This is where it gets "game interesting"

to quote the GAO ( emphasis mine )
so...... that throws the carry cap for that vehicle as it's set up in the game now right out the window.....currently, the Hvy Ampib versions of the AAV we have in the game now has a carry cap of 23....... I guess that needs some adjustment..... I will let the resident Marine check her OOB for knock-off effects of making those the correct carry cap....I cannot imagine the GAO was wrong about how many they carry :re:

but note the ACV CAN pack in 13 if necessary..just like the unit I set up in the game

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

The new AAV SU (to be introduced in 2019) does in fact have a lower carry cap (due to the replacement of the wooden bench passenger seating by off-the-deck padded ones). But versions prior to that still use pretty much the same passenger seats as they've had since their introduction.

Current plans are to give the AAV SU a carry cap of 18 (17 would require the addition of a 4th vehicle per platoon or the creation of a new set of passenger units).

Part of what I'll be sending you next fall Don.

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

According to Headquarters Marine Corps - AAV 3 Crew + 21 Combat Marines. You'll find pages 10 - 11 very interesting in that it defines the current manning and equipment of the Ground Combat Element (GCE) of the USMC that comprises part of a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU). Pages 12 -13 Aviation Combat Element (ACE) manning and equipment with Pages 14 - 15 covering same for Logistics.
http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/Portals/...Capability.pdf

Further down you'll find data on ground fire support (Mortars etc.) same for air and ammo resources. Units as assigned to current Amphibian ship classes etc. etc. Should keep a couple of you busy for awhile if for nothing else then simple verification. Haven't quite seen anything out here yet to this detail and this current on the USMC in a long while. I just happened to stumble upon in my USMC data search on the AAV.

GAO are number cruncher's they ain't military.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

There have been a number of equipment changes and upgrades (M1A1, MV-22, etc.) but the basic infantry battalion MEU really hasn't seen any significant changes since the mid 1980's (the addition of the LAI component).

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

I'm re-posting the video from an earlier post on the AAV-7SU in this thread. If you freeze the frame as the Major gives the tour you'll count 7 Port side & 8 Starboard side seats, leaving you with the following 3 Crew & 15 Combat Marines. Why the change? Allows for the additional protections and 675hp power-plant vice what I believe is currently a 525/or 550hp power-plant (This off the top of my head.)

Also the space allows the SU to carry 3 days worth of supplies vs. current 1 day. Suhiir would have a better handle on this but, it is my understanding all previous and current mods could be outfitted with a center bench to allow for carry of 25 troops. My USMC HQ post said 21 which with outboard benches is doable but, I would think very cramped.

Bottom line...
1) Much better protected.

2) Armament upgrade still being looked at (Primarily some type of ATGW System.).

3) Faster at Sea and on Land it'll be much better at keeping up with armored units. However this is still being evaluated currently.

4) Increased terrain operability (SU is benefiting from the use of modified BRADLEY suspension components and combat endurance as noted above.)

5) Assuming no issues during 10 unit operational evaluation currently ongoing, Low rate production by 2019, fielded by 2023 in service until current estimates run from 2033-2035.

Video again...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKlgq3RDu74
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyAInmP4KMw

Second video (New.) about 22 seconds in, freeze it, verifies my seat count. Note the Hi/Lo seat configuration this allows for the human bodies/seat configurations thus, increasing carry capability.

Been on this for a year now or so.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

I can't speak for the newer versions ... but in the 70's they were VERY cramped (in fact the center bench seat was rarely used) and the exhaust fumes inside the crew compartment were nearly unbearable. In reality they rarely carried more then about 15-17 passengers ... and one of those is in the vehicle commanders position, which is that hatch opposite the weapons station. The 3rd crewmember was in back with the passengers when there were passengers aboard, otherwise he was in that commanders position getting fresh air!

The main reason for the passenger capability change is the elimination of that center bench (which as I said was rarely used) and those new individual seats vice the bench for passengers.

As to supplies ... really depends how much you want to hang on the outside of the hull (assuming you're not doing a beach landing when anything outside would be waterlogged AND create drag, thus nothing was outside).

But, for game purposes we use the published data because otherwise you'd never get at consensus on anything (speed, armor, range, penetration, ...).

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

True and it may be possible to lower the SU's CC to closer to spec values and still maintain the existing formation structure and 18 may do the trick without bending the rules very much....BUT.... the current Rifle Plt(Mec) have 60 men using an AAVP7A1/RAM....6 of that is crew for the AAVP7A1/RAM leaving 54 / 3 = 18...the problem is 3 passengers are 13 and that's the main squads... that leaves 5 open seats per vehicle but the mix of added units that have to go in are 2 for the Hvy snipers and the two AT teams....the problem is the M240 MMG Sec is 6 men and 13+6 = 19 .......and that's what makes OOB work "interesting" at times..... trying to fit reality into game reality. If the M240 MMG Sec was broken down to two 3 man teams instead of the single unit it is now things would fit...but we only have 10 slots and they are full..... if this was a company formation we could build a "platoon" with two 3 man teams..but this is a platoon and you cannot put a platoon into a platoon

Fun

.......and if the SU really does only carry 15 then the max number of troops that should be in the platoon is 45 with three vehicles...60 with 4



Don

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

One reason I'd like to keep the carry cap at 19

13-man Rifle Squad + 6-man MMG Section
13-man Rifle Squad + 2-man Sniper Team + 2-man SMAW Team
13-man Rifle Squad + 2-Javelin Team + 2-man SMAW Team
(8 units)

But 18 can work
13-man Rifle Squad + 2-man Sniper Team + 2-man Javelin Team
13-man Rifle Squad + 3-man MMG Team + 2-man SMAW Team
13-man Rifle Squad + 3-man MMG Team + 2-man SMAW Team
(9 units)

17 or less would require a 4 vehicle AAV platoon and they are only 3 typically. But they may need to go to 4 with the reduced carry capacity of the AAV SU.

AND

There's the problem of mechanized/motorized formations ... still limited to 10 slots as well. So 1 for the company command unit, 1 for the company command transport, 3 are the infantry platoons, another 3 their vehicles, 1 for the company mortars, 1 for the mortar transport ... this leaves 0 slots left ... for the FO, TOWs, MPAD ... "bit" of a problem.

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

10 slots it is and 10 it shall remain forever unless Andy finds a way to re-write the laws of computer science

also, the SU is still in testing phase and in the end they may decide to for with 4 per plt. We can only guess as we are not the ones making those decisions.....but.....if you can only put 15 troops per vehicle and you only have 3 vehicles then you can only have 45 men per platoon....basic arithmetic. The ONLY way to put more in is to increase the vehicle count by one and that's not game reality......that RL reality and game fudging that to allow them to carry more won't fly very far. If there are more troops than capacity then theres a problem with capacity....if we allow an extra 1 or maybe 2 capacity because unit size requires that fudge but the overall troop count is correct but we cannot break down units like RL and put 3 men in one vehicle and 3 in another so we bump up the capacity by 1 or 2....that I can live with but to bump up capacity to carry more troops than reality... not so much............... so artificially increasing CC to 18 or 19 to make platoons bigger than they are in RL is not an option

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Yep, and this isn't even taking into account the reality that there's only so much volume aboard amphibious landing ships. You can't just add all that many extra vehicles to accommodate a reduced passenger capacity. So either you reduce the size of the units or you reduce the size of the formation (instead of 3x Rifle Companies you make an MEU 2).

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

My job as I see it is to read my "newspapers" and and see what's coming down the pike, or is getting changed, going away and then trying to tie all these up in a way that makes sense and present it with all it's welcome or unwelcome reality. Where we can do it without software limitations constraining us, we should even when it's an inconvenience stay as close to the real world (RW) as possible with the equipment within the game. We owe it to ourselves and the thousands of players who've constantly (And reviewers of.) over the years have commentated on the realism of this wonderful game. Quite frankly, I'd never have bothered if this wasn't the case here as Don found out early when I submitted the "RISE Passive" MBT. The issue would simply boil down to an ammo one in which the tank would only be sandwiched by date between two others for a six month period of time-this was no hard compromise and it saved a slot in a very tight USA OOB.

So now we might have issues with manning on the AAV's I'll just simply say we've had it pretty good for quite awhile because we've had at least on extra rifleman who would've not necessarily in the RW been there because that slot would've been filled by a USN Field Corpsman (Medic) but like the MP's we used to have in the USA OOB they're not relevant to the game (However like the USMC we felt very very lucky to have them on the boats as Independent Corpsman with added RADCON training.) and we move on.

The AAV SU as has been pointed out will probably cause the CORPS to make some kind of adjustment and trust me when I say they will if it's warranted. Of that there's no doubt like any professional military organization would. And as my almost last boat CO always reminded us on SSBN-739G, "Change is a constant." and isn't that what we do out here!?! And besides until we've got until late 2018/2019 if the seating or anything else changes with it.

Maybe we need to remind ourselves of that at times or else why bother. Too much is coming between now and 2026 and the above will never have "rung so true". I thank God this isn't an RPG or Fantasy/Sci Fi game nothing wrong with it mind you but, let's face it those games are a dime a dozen.

I hope especially the younger players out here can appreciate the uniqueness of this game, the work that goes into keeping it relative and realistic as noted above as possible. These are the key factors in making both these games challenging and fun for us.

I would like to walk away from this game in 2026 knowing I did the best I could for it in my own small way and that we were not ever afraid to do the right thing out here for the players.

So let's start with a definition of a word from Merriam-Webster (This is the USA after-all.), then I have found the current guidance from the USMC on all things AAV etc. Did you expect something less here!?!

1) Notional is the word, in this case the first definition below applies though, the Oxford one is somewhat
better.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/notional

2) Organization of the United States Marine Corps MCRP 5-12D Updated on Feb. 2016.
The following document pages might be of some use... 5-5/5-14/5-17/5-27 and 8-2//.
http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Pu...RP%205-12D.pdf

3) Everything you wanted to about the AAV-7, how to disembark, setup for beach assault, formation assignment per mission, landing, assaulting, there's just too much fun in this document that I just didn't know what to do with myself!?!
The following document pages might be of some use... Fundamental Section 1/Section 2: 2-6/2-7/Table 3-3 on 3-9/Figure 3-2 on 3-14/Figure 3-5 on 3-24/Combat Load on 6-9/These last reflect PDF page numbers/A-2 PG. 160/F-3 PG. 195/F-4 PG.196/F-5 PG.197/F-6 PG.198/PG.205//
http://www.marines.mil/LinkClick.asp...3d&portalid=59

Now I really hope no one asks "But what about the AAV-SU?"
well I'm not going there. :p

Gotta work later today the "Red Man" always keeps me fired up for a couple of days after.

With anything in life "You ain't tryin, if you ain't tryin." and I've obliviously lived in the South too long now!?! ;)

Have a good weekend!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

I get a cover and lots of blank pages.
http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Pu...RP%205-12D.pdf

Yeah, the ultimate reorganization that will result from the SU will be interesting to see. But right now all we have is speculation and (semi) educated guesses.

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Made a "HC" to take an allergy med, saw your post. Went to my last and checked both seemed to work fine pages came up fine after I let them download. But using your link I get the 404 error from a different USMC site. Very strange. Trying something here...
http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Pu...RP%205-12D.pdf

I'm back and the above opened properly, should see a red page open up first with...

"MCRP 5-12D
Organization of the United States Marine Corps
US Marine Corps
(As Amended Through 15 February 2016)
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
PCN 144 000055 00"

Also went back to previous page w/Post 380 and they're both still coming up fine. I gotta get back to sleep. Don't know?

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

The link Pat provided in both post 380 and 382 work for me....the one Suhiir provided produces a 404

and since I get constantly nitpicked about things like this the actual manual states


......and the USMC OOB has it set up for 23 but in THIS CASE it is justified as two of the three AAVP7A1 are under capacity but the third is at max because the game does not allow enough unit slots to break down the MMG teams

Just saying......sometimes we have to adjust RL to fit the game but in this case, the overall platoon has the correct number of vehicles and the correct number of troops when I check it deployed in the game in April 2017 the Rifle Plt(Mec) loads 17+13+23 = 53 and Rifle Plt*(Mec) loads 13+13+23 = 49

53 / 3 = 17.6
49 / 3 = 16.3

so *technically* the Rifle Plt*(Mec) will load all available troops into a SU but the Rifle Plt(Mec) will not by half a man per vehicle

In the big scheme of things it's a minor issue but allowing a one or two added capacity to make it work in the game is one thing...6 over capacity is stretching things a bit too far and I would LOVE to have 12 slots instead of 10 but 10 is what we have

Bottom line.....we will do what we can do within the limitations of the game structure and the information we have available

Don

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Must be an Microsoft Edge thing ...
Getting the red cover page but every other page in the PDF is blank.
Odd.


This is why I said 18 was the minimum passenger capacity I could work with ... and even then I'm not sure I can manage it with 10 unit slots.

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

there is still the issue of 13 man squad +6 man MMG team = 19 so 19 may have to be the fudge required.....there are also issues with the way formation 489 is set up ( and others ).....those snipers should be units and they should be in front of the first carrier not behind is otherwise an autodeploy leaves them on foot with a 2 formation gap between the lead carrier and the platoons and that is NOT desirable

You can PM me if you like but I see absolutely no reason for using a single sniper "formation" there it just messes up loading.

Don

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

The other possibility is removing the sniper and ATGM Teams from the platoon formations (neither is actually part of the platoon TO&E anyway, they were just put there because there was room) to make room for the AAVs and putting them in the company level formations ... I'm playing with different possibilities.

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

To whom it may concern:
####################

Unit# 187 AAVP7A1 - Carry 121
Unit# 690 AAVP7A1+ - Carry 121
Unit# 691 AAVP7A1/RAM - Carry 121
Unit# 844 AAVP SU - Carry 118

Formation# 480 Rifle Co (Mec) - Unit#1 360, Unit#2 180, Unit#3 1080, Unit#4 1490, Unit#5 1490, Unit#6 1490, Unit#7 1062, Unit#8 1062, Unit#9 1495, Unit#10 None

Formation# 481 Rifle Co (Mec) - Unit#1 360, Unit#2 180, Unit#3 1080, Unit#4 1490, Unit#5 1490, Unit#6 1490, Unit#7 1062, Unit#8 1062, Unit#9 1494, Unit#10 1495

Formation# 482 Rifle Co (Mec) - Unit#1 360, Unit#2 180, Unit#3 1196, Unit#4 1490, Unit#5 1490, Unit#6 1490, Unit#7 1062, Unit#8 1062, Unit#9 1494, Unit#10 1495

Formation# 483 Rifle Co (Mec) - Unit#1 360, Unit#2 180, Unit#3 1196, Unit#4 1490, Unit#5 1490, Unit#6 1490, Unit#7 1062, Unit#8 1189, Unit#9 1495, Unit#10 None

Formation# 484 Rifle Plt (Mec) - DELETE FORMATION (no longer used - CHECK PICKLISTS)

Formation# 485 Rifle Co (Mec) - Dates 1/75-12/92 - Unit#1 360, Unit#2 180, Unit#3 1196, Unit#4 1490, Unit#5 1490, Unit#6 1490, Unit#7 1137, Unit#8 1137, Unit#9 1189, Unit#10 1495

Formation# 486 Rifle Plt* (Mec) - DELETE FORMATION (no longer used - CHECK PICLISTS)

Formation# 487 Rifle Co (Mec) - DELETE FORMATION (no longer used - CHECK PICLISIS)

Formation# 488 Rifle Co (Mec) - Unit#1 360, Unit#2 180, Unit#3 1197, Unit#4 1490, Unit#5 1490, Unit#6 1490, Unit#7 1137, Unit#8 1137, Unit#9 1189, Unit#10 1495

Formation# 489 Rifle Co (Mec) - Unit#1 360, Unit#2 180, Unit#3 1197, Unit#4 1490, Unit#5 1490, Unit#6 1490, Unit#7 1137, Unit#8 1189, Unit#9 1189, Unit#10 1495

Formation# 490 Rifle Plt (Mec) - Dates 1/46-12/125 - Unit#1 360, Unit#2 360, Unit#3 360, Unit#4 430, Unit#5 430, Unit#6 411, Unit#7 411, Unit#8 180, Unit#9 180, Unit#10 180

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

I ran a quick check with the current date and the coys work well for both types of AAV and the load combination I got with the SU's put everyone inside with a max per vehicle of 16. I will check other decades tomorrow but it's looking very good. When I'm more awake than I am now I will recheck this......as it looks like the SU's can be made their RL 17 CC

Don

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Nope, they'll need 18 ... you have to fit the sniper teams and javelin teams into them too. With the limit of 10 units per formation and having to split the MMG section into teams the snipers and ATGMs are no longer in the platoon formations.

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Well these are loaded......
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1492951840

like so.....and nobody's on foot
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1492951924

and formation 489 is set up as you specified
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1492952139

489 Rifle Co (Mec) - Unit#1 360, Unit#2 180, Unit#3 1197, Unit#4 1490, Unit#5 1490, Unit#6 1490, Unit#7 1137, Unit#8 1189, Unit#9 1189, Unit#10 1495

ATTACHED IS A SECOND TEST I JUST RAN..... ALL TROOPS ARE LOADED AND THE HIGHEST COUNT IS 17

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

HeHeHe..... EVERY picklist in the USMC uses those formations...all 100 of them and I have little enthusiasm for that but we can accomplish this change a slightly different way that won't involved changing 100 picklists

>
>
>

EDIT

490 is copied to 484 and 486 which are the primary mec platoons used by the picklist...then 490 is deleted

484 runs 1/46-12/74
486 runs 1/75-12/125


the remaining coys are set up with the appropriate platoons and all is right with the universe again and no picklists were harmed........484 and 486 are duplicates but so what ? It's not like we are going to run out of formation slots in that OOB....and it's NOT how the OOB is structured in MOBHack that is important....it's what's displayed in the game for players to use and from that POV it does not matter at all that 484 and 486 are the same

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1492955296


There are 10 picklist issues remaining that involved Form 487 ....I will deal with those later..

FURTER EDIT

I dealt with is now while it's fresh.

Form 487 is now a duplicate of 485 with different dates

485 runs 1/75 - 12/85
487 runs 1/86 - 12/92

picklist remain untouched and the change to the game is seamless

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1492957110

Everything fits, nobody is on foot, the picklists remain as they are and the CC for the vehicles is closer to spec than they have ever been and all that is "a good thing" getting the formations to work with the AAV7 and the SU is " a very good thing" :up::up:

AND..... you CAN fit everyone into a SU coy @ 17 per vehicle

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

*blinks*
You managed to fit the 3 x sniper teams and 2 x javelin teams on the AAVs at 17 carry?
How?
Where?

I was trying to avoid duplicates in the formations/picklists but yeah ... that'd work just fine.

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

The USMC would be proud you've managed to get one below their "notional" goal of 18 in an AAV. I know I left the definition of the above word but, in this case it was the desired goal of the CORPS if you took the time to read from that ref. A job well done!! Even I can live with it, not that I'd have much choice in the matter, however, it's still worth mentioning for the effort alone to get there.

I was wondering however, what caused all the flurry of activity surrounding the AAV-SU. I gave it a quick thought and "low and behold" there it was in the OOB and the good news is that you can use it now instead of six years from now!!!! Now I've always been held to the six month standard (Our agreement for SWAG.) of a projected fielding date with Don, maybe I misunderstood the agreement all these years and it really was six years all this time!?! Oh Happy Day!!!! Stand by to receive incoming traffic!!!! First a little Icon party: :rolleyes:, :cool:, :shock:, ;), :p and :D !!

As a note, I have found other USMC data that's holding to late 2022/or 2023 for fielding the AAV-SU. Can post if desired.

Seriously to you both, well executed and a good job!!!! :clap:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Academic exercise ... Can you fit 10# of stuff in a 5# sack within the limits imposed by the game mechanics (10 slots).

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

It's in operational testing AFAIK so I put it in the OOB

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

I have a couple other ideas in mind for those formations..the re-nationalized Co Supt (Mec) has loads of room left for some of those formation/units that screw up auto deploy. It just requires a bit of "creativity"

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

With SU load limit set to 17
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1492989477

everything fits and you end up with about half the carriers at 17 capacity and the other half 16

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

I was keeping that to stuff that usually deploys behind the front lines (mortars, MPADS) and hadn't considered it's excess carry capacity ... duh.

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

some of those added coy extra units could be used as "security" for the mortars and manpads..... but in an advance, some could be dropped off and the remainder continue forward so it's a legitimate use of that formation

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

With IDEX 2017 going on I just happened to catch this on the show/exhibition news area. Looks like the Czech Army is seriously looking at the German PUMA IFV C3/P6. Understand I've got a couple of issues going right now, nothing bad, however I don't have the time to back check the German PUMA IFV. That being said three issues or non starters don't know...
1) Fielded btwn Jan.-Apr. 2016.

2) Indicates all using SPIKE I believe it to be the LR version as I think the IDF is still testing the latest version due this year to go into service with the IDF.

3) Is the German PUMA IFV configured with the "soft kill" MUSS system as indicated in this article?
http://www.armyrecognition.com/idet_..._10506173.html

As a testing update for EITAN which will be equipped with the new SPIKE when fielded...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/april..._81004174.html

Probably will be ready for fielding by years end or very early next year by the pace of development. Nice to see someone run a defense industry with "Their Sxxx one sock" for a change.

Gotta go!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt: