errors in existing OOB\'s
 

Just wondering, is this the place to post comments on errors in the current OOB's of the game?

And yes, I have some. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Narwan

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

Hi Narwan,

Yes this is the place.

There has been a lot of work/corrections with the OOBs, but I guess there is always a margin for corrections.

You are welcome to post your comments. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

Hi Pyros,

I'm sure the greek OOB will be up to date with you involved! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Unfortunately the dutch OOB isn't, althought the problem does go back to earlier versions. Two huge oversights jump out immediatelly when going over the encyclopedia.
Leopard II's are only available from the 90's onward with the A4 version. The dutch however were the first country after Germany itself to receive the Leo II! The first production run (delivered in '78) went entirely to the germans but the second one (in '79?) went to both germany and the netherlands. Within a couple of years almost half the dutch tankfleet was Leo II's (up to about 500). The dutch should be fielding Leo II's from about 1980 onward and through just about all versions.

The second point is the F16's. According to the encyclopedia the dutch had F16A's. They didn't, they had B's and D's. That's a big difference since the A's are single seaters and the B's and D's are double seaters.
The job of the dutch airforce within NATO was groundattack and CAS. So the dutch decided they needed a two man fighter plane and bought the two seater variant.

Narwan

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

Errors in the UK OOB.

While It's intresting to note that we've been thinking the same on some ideas (Check out my UK OOB, done for DosMBT 3.01), There are some big errors in my oppion in the OOB.

The Bigest is the SA-80. Why's everyone in the OOB carrying the non-combat arms SA-80? The Sight makes it accurate out to 800ish meters.

Other stuff:
Sabre was withdrawn last year for being rubbish. Scimitar with TI is still in service.

The support sections wepaons are a tad wrong in my understanding. It looks like you've combined the Comand section and the support section in platoon into one unit. If so then there shouldn't be a third GPMG or a snipers rifle.

Scarab isn't used by the UK, its an export for Belgium.

RGGS? I'm guessing this is the Underslung Greande Launcher (UGL)?

BV202/206 has a bren AAMG, even in 2020! and the Viking wich is the current RM comando vehicle is a different beast to the BV 206.

Pioneer's, are you not getting confused with Royal enginers? Pioneer's are just muscle. used for all the dirty jobs, like digging graves and such.

There's other stuff, or so I belive (No FRES?, No Recce Aircraft? No Sheilder!! the one I particly proud of...). My old OOB is still kicking around on the Yahoo mailing list. I belive it's a better rendition, It also has dedicated Icons for most of the vehicles.

If you wan't more justifcation or disscussion, I'm happy to provide.

Sorry to take up so much space on a whine.

Note: The Icons I did for it, are currently being Re-done by PlasmaKrab.

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

Hey, L, stop complaining!

Dintcha think we should have a wee bit more of a discussion on this subject before stuffing on-map minespreaders every old where?
Your Shielder is a nasty devious pet, and there are scores of similar things to do, but it wasn't meant to be implemented in the first case!
Recce aircraft are good though, and I think I found some hanging around in original oobs. Probably some were just forgotten. That is patch purpose.

Oh, and you got ANYTHING saying the FRES will ever come into service? Not better check the TRACER for one thing?

I'm quoting the article you sent me about this one:

"Vickers believe it could prove a tremendous asset;"

Believe you me, when a firm says such things about a private venture project, it just means they have no client yet and are begging for a contract. Hence the advertising!

But I agree most of your work is of common interest.
I guess the Team were too busy these times to file through the SPMBT files archives...

Cheers,

Plasma

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

Yeah It's coming, TCH's Future Armed Services plan makes it inevitable (As well as butchering the UK armed forces at Mr Brown's Orders) that we'll get it.

If you look for the ACAVP, they've got the test bed up and running, QinetiQ Are saying it's going to happen as is the Company designing it, Atkins.

And based on what I've read it is possible. Using the ACAVP as a base, it meets the required specs, and that's with huge great big Fox turret slapped on top of it. The only part of it I'm not so sure about is the AT version with an ATG. The Recoil is just going to be to huge for the chassis and turret ring to take. You've expressed those doubts as well.

Sheilder dosen't do that much damage, it's just very, very annoying. Sort of like a huge spanner to be projected into the enemies battle palns.

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

@narwan

Agreed on the Dutch Leopard 2s. There are two other things that are bothering me at first glance:

- The Leopard 2A5 has an L55 gun, while in reality it still had the L44. The longer L55 was only implemented on the 2A6.
- The Dutch will buy F-35 JSF STOL fighters, so they should be in the Dutch obat after about 2014.

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

Hi Listy,

Just wondering were you got your info on Sabre, to my knowledge Sabre was just a cheap way of issuing infantry units a recce vehicle like the armoured corps scimitar. It consisted of the old scorpion hulls fitted with fox turrets. There was no special upgrades for that vehicle. Both scimitar and sabre began an extended life program in the mid nineties which included chain gun, thermal image and new engines. However with all MOD projects not all the vehicles have recieved the TI upgrade due to budget restraints. Warrior infantry recce troops still use Sabre

regards cusbut

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

Easy, I Asked Serving Royal armoured corp personel.

The BGTI program (Battle group Thermail imaging) has fully upgraded all CVR(T)'s an Warriors now.

In my OOb, I had the Two scimitars overlap so that you canpick without without TI.
From what I've read CVR(T) is going to get replaced by Panther in the recce role. Under FAS We're going to get dropped down to three regiments of armour, each with two squadrons of CR2, and one with CVR(T)'s.

Also I knoticed in that UK OOB update that You've got CR2 With mine plows. That's as far as I can see wrong. The Trojan AVRE will be bale to do that role (That's also included under my OOB.) and a new Air portable AVRE called Terrier will bearriving in the future, this seesm to tie in with FRES to some degree.

A few other bits: The RAF have Recce Equiped Harriers and Tornado's.
Warrior, bassed on reports from the gulf Are Im Vunrable to RPG fire when hit on the chobham armour pannels on the hull front and sides (Hit anywhere eles and it would slice stright through though).

I spent Alot of time Searching and aquaireing the infomation, Talked to several soldiers, Serving and retired. To come up with my OOB.

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

Recce equipped aircraft are totally irrelevant to the SP series. Fixed wing air is attack air.

The spotter plane is there for slow prop-driven Austers early on, or UAV later on. Recce helos are normal light helos.

Early on, some OOB designers did go potty, and make "spotter planes" with helicopter icons, or even fixed wing jets. Those were removed from the offending OOBS since the spotter plane flies at prop speeds, makes a prop sound, and flies a tight circle no jet could manage http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif. The helo versions were redundant as mentioned above - the light helicopter class already does this.

Fixed wing recce is irrelevant as any line scan recce pod data would need to be sent to an intelligence cell first, and interpreted before being sent on to high level HQ. So the data would not arrrive at the battalion level in any timely enough manner for a 1 hour or so game even if flown in turn 1.

Recce fixed wing planes might be valid items if this was an operational level game with batallion sized counters and half-hour turns modelling a day or 2's combat in a game, but not at this level.


Cheers
Andy

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

Hi Listy,

I left the RAC in December after completing my colour service, I was a qualified gunnery instuctor on CR2 and CVRT, In the mid eighties CVRT carried a dismountable TI sight known as OTIS this was then replaced by a TI sight similar to the Warrior MAOV's TI sight known as SPIRE in the mid nineties. The TI capability although good is not up to the same standard as that fitted to CR2. Every CR2 is capable of being fitted with a dozer blade but the normal operational procedure is one tank per troop, not that we ever actually fitted them, lol. As you correctly stated we dont use mineploughs but the CR2 icon could be changed to represent dozer tanks. I was also a small arms instructor and although the Susat is capable of engaging up to 800mtrs effective section fire is only 600mtrs. I have included l85 with iron sights in my orbat (effective range 300mtrs) to cover the other arms equipment such as crews, artillery, air defence etc etc

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

Eh? the SA80 in the game as is is only effective to 400M, not 600 (That's where I first had the range, but I upped it in later versions, after seeing other people going to 800).

On fixed wing recce: Point taken, of course in the Gmae guide, or Mobhack help (can't remember which) it Did state that jet sounds start at speed 10, and spotters with a higher speed circle wider.

As to the time taken to get the info back, RAPTOR can do a direct data downlaod to any compatble system. BOWMAN is capble, and as Every system in the army will eventualy be BOWMAN any one with the right kit can get Tsarget data as a Tornado flies past...

Granted I did go nuts, I was bored at work when I went into it, so Maybe I'll remove the Canberra PR9 and the JRP equiped Harrier

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

Ukranie lacks the ability to purchase strike aircraft.

Doubt it was intentional, I'm guessing it's an OOB error..?

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

Did you check to see if your air strikes number was > 0 (either manually entered in the preferences screen or as allocated by the random routine if set to XXX)?

Did you look in the Misc formations purchase page, assuming you had strikes > 0?.

Had you bought some other air formations, thus reducing strikes, before trying to buy your fixed-wing strikes?

If all of that was OK - the exact year would be handy to know, just in case there is a gap in planes availability or whatever?

Cheers
Andy

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

It was in the editor, wanted to give the Ukranians some air support - the option for strike element is there but no aircraft. Year was Feb 2005 but I think the lack of aircraft goes for all time periods in the Ukranian OOB.

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

Nope - because I tested that before replying, and had 15 or so types to choose.

Tried at this date - planes are definately available in mobhack, will need to have a look, as something weird is going on! (hopefully just a subtle database error! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Cheers
Andy

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

A Database error - more than 21 (or so) planes simultaneously available, so nothing can be displayed in the game as too many items to fit on the page. (You get the same blue box message about "nothing available" for this error - since oth ask you to contact the OOb designer, even though in this case it is "far too many items available to dislay")

I'll have a look to see if I can change the (nasty horrible spaghetti) code that does selection to simply stop at 20 items (and drop any extras) if the OOB designer has viloated the "no more than 20 of any unit class item available at the same time" rule.

Cheers
Andy

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

ALthough the OOB designer isn't me, I didn't know that rule. Is it menioned in the game guide?

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

Should be somewherein the mobhack help, as it is to do with OOB editing technical details , and not general game play which is the GG's purpose, but may be buried in the GG somewhere. (Or I may be confused with something I posted on Yahoo - it was reasonably recent (~6 months or so)).

Have fixed the code to chop at 23 items, and simply ignore any superfluous ones past the first 23 found, instead of giving up and displaying the error message.

Cheers
Andy

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

Mi-24V "Hind-E" still carries the YakB 12.7 gun. The version with the twin 30mm is Mi-24P "Hind-F".

Russian Hinds usually have unrealistically high night vision values. The first all-weather day/night capable Hind with thermal imaging is the Mi-24PN. It entered service early 2004. Some upgraded test helo(s) may have been evaluated in Chechnya in the '90s though. PN also has chopped stub wings with 2 weapon pylons. Some sources suggest it might be able to carry the same 8-tube AT-missile packs the Mi-28 Havoc.

In Afganistan, Hinds often carried dumb bombs (4x250kg or 2x500kg). Sometimes FAEs and submunition dispense packs.

A couple of years ago first Mi-28N Havoc-B was said to enter service in 2005. Anyone got information about this?

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).

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

I would gladly see Rooivalks being exported quite anywhere (how about Jordan? they seem dead on South Afrcan hardware and their Cobras must be wearing out.), but I admit that a Tiger in Swedish polygonal camo... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif
Well, that IS yet another good one for alternate timeline modelling! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

Well, Rooivalk would be a good "counter-purchase" for the Gripen we sold South Africa.

We've almost decided to buy the Alvis RG-32M, which is from the South Africa branch. The only test left to do now is blowing it up.

Amazingly it performed very well in snow, handled cold weather excellently after only slight modification and was very well liked during the trials.

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

Well, there are lots of Cobra airframes around and spares for them. So Jordan can get replacements. Also the king having blood ties to th US means he has a good chance of getting Cobra replacements or even Apaches if he wants. Just maybe not advanced Hellfires.

I wouldn't mind seeing the Rooivalk in other counties service. I wonder how it would do myself. I looked on the net is are there less than 20 Rooivalk? I see that SA ordered 12. Are there more orders?

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

I am a retired USMC CH-46 pilot. While the aircraft was, and is capable of mounting 7.62mm guns it was never done. Our standard was two .50 cal XM-218 machine guns with 100 rounds per gun. Ammo loadout varied with the wt of payload. The aircraft static ports provide an input to the automatic flight control system (AFCS) and are located just aft of the gun doors. The short barrel of the M60/M240 causes an overpressure at these ports playing havoc with the AFCS. Hence, these weapons were never used. In addition, the normal crew is 4, Pilot, Copilot, Crew Chief, and 1st mech/gunner.

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

I noticed that a lot of the loadouts are the "TO&E possible" as opposed to what is usde. Where you stationed at New River?

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

I think Malaysia may be acquiring some in the near future.

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

Yes, HMM-264 at New River.

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

I grew up in Wilmington and now live north of Raleigh. I drove a tractor trailer all over that area.

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

Found something: German M47 has rangefinder 10,US M47 has rangefinder 18 maybe a typo...

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

A quick search on various sources showed no difference between the US and German versions, the German Pattons being merely the US ones given away when the M-48 came into service.

Basic RF is of the optical coincidence type (stereoscopic, M12). I don't precisely know the RF value range, but 22 is laser RF, so 18 seems quite high.

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

14 is Lasser RF, in DosMBT

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

M48 were quite accurate, they were able to hit with 50% propability target at 1800-2000m,their rangefinder was good, but slow,max range was 4400m,M1 Abrams has maximum range 4000m...(firecontrol computer is limited to this value) that is why it has such a good value. FC is just 10, this compensate low tech of its FC system (in comparsion with Abrams)I made many tests and played many games against AI with US in 1950-70 era, and i must say that US tanks are modelled quite accurately.Soviet too, the only one thing i would change is that i rised rate of fire (+1 or 2)for all Brittish tanks, beccuse they used different ranging system, they preffered use 3 round system, witch was faster than US system (analog balistic computer and optical rangefinder).This advantage was shown in Indo-Pakistani wars, where Indian Centurions had no problems with Pakistani M47 and M48, as their crews has problems with too advanced FC system of US made tanks.
Rangefinder 14 was Laser RF in older SPMBT v2, when v3 comes out whole FC and RF system was reworked.Now 22 represents Laser Rangefinder.

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

Isn't issuing "M29 Inf Cbt Wpn" and "M25 20mm GL" from...

-Obat 12 USA
January 1 2006 (Unit 707 Ranger Squad)
January 1 2006 (Unit 428 Ranger Patrol)
January 1 2007 (Unit 383 Airmobile Squad)

...and especially...

-Obat 13 USMC
1 January 2005 (Unit 748 SEAL Pathfinders)
1 January 2005 (Unit 741 SEAL Team)

..lets say, a bit optimistic considering the status of the project?

The problem is compounded in that the units are ONLY available with M29/M25 after these dates, which atleast for the 1 Jan 2005 date is pure fantasy. SEAL's haven't been running around in Afghanistan and Iraq with any "M29 ICW".

That the Rangers or ANY unit would have gone fully or even partially "M29/M25" by 2006 is extremely doubtful if at all possible.

The XM/M29 OICW is by all extents dead. The KE-unit is now known as the XM/M8, the 20mm CE-unit is cancelled or at least indefinatley suspended from development.

What may become available out of the program is the M8 rifle/carbine/PDW and the 25mm (not 20mm) XM25 grenadier carbine, which has no KE-unit.

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

the XM-8 was fielded to replace the M-16/M-4 family of weapons due to flaws foung during OIF. The M-29 was never to be fielded before FY08. Is there a report out about the M-29?

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

Was fielded? Must have missed that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Its not even officially acknowledged it will be fielded yet.

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f...925-708424.php

Some more info here, although its on a Blog so I won't vouch for it. Haven't found a better source yet.

http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/002065.html

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

go to the below site. seems that Congress and the Senator from Colt is getting involved. Was introduces here (home of Fort Bragg and the then deployed 30th Brigade)as the newest and latest weapons to enter the Army.

The blog seems right as it states that 2 brigades were to get them this year.

Trying to make it the Stoner weapons system, again another weapon opposed by teh Senator from Colt.

The failure mentioned was low battery life I think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM-8

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

Wiki...

"Fielded" would imply its in operational service somewhere, which it is not.

Nothing in the Wiki contradicts that, or states that it is "fielded" as of now... at best it refers to that it was MEANT to be "fielded" in 2005, and that a "2005" JDW article (unspecific date so its kinda hard digging the article up...) stating that funds to acquire 10400 units in "2006" has been set aside...

The XM-8 still need to win the tender for that to happen.

What was "good" about the blog I linked to was that it quoted parts of the OICW Increment I tender document, not that it had interesting information regarding the OICW Increment 1 weapon system itself.

Here's a better source for the same text;
http://www.defensereview.com/modules...le&sid=706

I was hoping that the official procnet page would come alive and allow a direct link to the official document, but its as dead today as it was yesterday, so the document seems to have been removed from there

Still, I have no beef with the appearance of the M-8 within the dates used in the obat (2007-2010?). Allowing a year between procurement and field use is good practice since infrastructure and training needs to be built around the new system. Such an assumption is a reasonably credible prediction.

But the XM-29 and XM-25 being the standard weapon of certain units from 1 Jan of 2005... that would imply its been "fielded" as a standard issue weapon for 7 months already... That the OICW Increment-II system would be fielded before the OICW Increment-I is a bit unlikely wouldn't you say?

No sources I've come across state that the OICW Increment II or III is anywhere near entering service, quite the opposite. The XM-25 25mm GL may well be along the way, but its ammunition isn't ready to be produced yet AFAIK. The 20mm grenade system was deemed unviable, it was almost all fuze f e...

OICW Increment-I is basically the XM-8 family of weapons, perhaps in combination with some new NV gear derived from the Landwarrior project (parts of which have been field-trialed).

What has happened is that even this project is "delayed" since a tender has been put forth, and a "competition" between alternative systems will be held.

Even if the XM-8's win this, it will be another delay in "fielding" the system.

Unfortunately even the tender has been put on hold...


http://www2.eps.gov/spg/USA/USAMC/DA...SynopsisR.html

http://www.dod.mil/releases/2005/nr20050719-4101.html

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/....php#orison_mc

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

The saga continues;

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/...0719-4101.html

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

It looks as if the Colt people are getting their way. If you can't compete you delay your comptition. Its the Stoner all over again.


\

Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
 

Found error in Slovak OOB: T-72M1 and DYNAS has AP rounds but their gun has 0 AP penetration...