Usmc oob

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I am thus far finding that the M202 was field tested in SE Asia between July-September of 1969. I am closing in on actual "widespread" operational distribution of the system. I leave with the following along with the info that can be found/or derived from these documents. Once had them all until my computer dumped this was most helpful (Later version.) in my rework of the LAV-AD service dates (See earlier Patch Post ~3 yrs. ago by example.)and retirement of the CH-53D as examples of my use of these documents.
Ref with excerpts time period covered Jan 1947 - Dec 1964 below...
http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Pu...9000318200.pdf

"23 Dec (Added 1960.) USMC—-—The first Marine Corps F8U—2N "Crusader" supersonic aircraft, an all-weather fighter, was delivered to El Toro and turned over to VMF-34. (Flight Jacket, 6 Jan 1961 p. 1)."

"18 Jan (Added 1961) USMC——Sergeant Major Bertha L. Peters was the first Woman Marine appointed to the top non—commissioned officer post of Sergeant Major established in April 1960. (Scout, 10 Feb 1961, p. 5; Windsock, 27 Jan 1961, p. 3; Globe, 26 Jan 1961, p. 2)."

"30 Aug (Added 1961) CONUS——The first night jump from a Marine Corps GV—l intercontinental jet-prop transport was made near Camp Horno, California, by 31 Marines from the 1st Force Reconnaissance Company in a free—fall parachute jump. (Scout, 8 Sep 1961, p. 3)."

"1964
27 Jul CARIBBEAN—-The Cuban Government accused Marine sentries at the U. S. Naval Base, Guantanamo Bay of 'killing" one of their guards, indicating that a sentry had fired six
shots and critically wounded the Cuban guard twice. (Varner and Koze, P. 69; 1964 FOF, 241D3)"


With a little PATIENCE you can find all you need from these documents.

Will post the rest as I find them- No Fuss, No Mess; straight from the Corps.

Regards,
Pat

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by sammy1339

After not playing the game for a couple years I decided to come back and play the campaign "5th Marines 1967" again, which kind of stumped me the first time. I was a little disappointed to find that version 8.0 had introduced some unimprovements into the USMC units.

- The most egregious was that the M202 66 mm flame rocket was available starting in 1967. While this did make the game vastly easier for me, I looked it up and found that this weapon was not introduced until 1978! Flamethrowers also disappear at the same time, which is incorrect. Marine units with the M202 in the 1960's include 379, 382, and 418. I didn't check the USA file.

- Although it's only cosmetic, the ordinary M16 rifle (used from 1962-1967) has disappeared, being replaced by the M16A1/A2. There's also an instantaneous change from the M14 to the M16, which is definitely not accurate. The M16 was gradually phased in.

- I find it really weird that all M16-equipped rifle squads until 1968 (unit #369) use the Stoner 63 as a SAW. This weapon was fielded only in very limited numbers, mostly with SEALs if I'm not mistaken. I'm pretty sure the marines used the M60 machinegun in this role, as was the case in earlier OOB's. I've noticed there are no more infantry squads with M60's.

- This is more of a gripe than anything, but I was a bit disappointed to find that the M40 sniper rifle had an accuracy of 40. Snipers in this game are already a good replacement for entire infantry squads as well as scouts, and are definitely not in need of improvement. I also looked at other OOB's and found that their snipers have not improved. Do we really believe that the M40 sniper rifle is significantly superior to similar Russian weapons? Even if you think that the US rifles have better optics (debatable, especially for the Vietnam era) this should be reflected in "Fire Control," right?

There were also good changes, such as that the M728's 165 mm gun actually fires HESH rounds now, but it seems like a lot of things were changed to make them less historically accurate than in previous versions.

Anyone suggesting modifications and/or enhancements to the game, particularly with Tables of Organization and Equipment (TO&E) should first read the appropriate sticky, in this case: http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showp...53&postcount=1, Error Reporting Procedure.

Moreover, this game is so elastic that scenario designers can tweak or modify the composition of a formation, unit, or characteristic of a weapon and report those modifications in the scenario notes for others to comment.

Finally, changes and errors ought to be accompanied with a source as per the Error Reporting Procedure sticky, saving everyone the angst of looking over his or her shoulder again and again with each TO&E change request to further explain the respective OOB in question.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Now from Jan 1965 - Dec 1969 (It's amazing how a war will shorten the timeline. However current ones are done on a yearly basis until consolidated as this was in 1971.)
http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Pu...9000318100.pdf

1. No luck unless I missed it concerning the M202.
2. Look to 30 April - 27 May 1967 concerning the XM16E1 (M16A1) (The USAF actually ordered the M-16. The difference between the two was the "forward assist" which allowed for a manual "push" on the bolt group to clear jams.) during the Battle for Hill 881. I think this was the first major engagement the USMC used the XM16E1. I remember the controversy this caused and a little later for the USA.
3. Excerpts these from 1969...
A. Mar 3 USMC gets first CH-53D.
B. Apr 1 First four AH-16 Huey COBRA gunships start operating in Vietnam.
C. 14 Oct USMC---The UH-34D "Sea Horse" helicopter went out of active service after 12 years in Marine Corps aviation . The helicopters were transferred to units of the 4th Marine Aircraft Wing, Marine Corps Reserve, located throughout the country. (Flight Jacket, v . 26, no . 42, 17 Oct 1969, p . 1 .) This last copied over-who knows why?!?

I'm getting the feeling that small arms aren't covered, at least in the older histories. Time to relax going in to rescue the "Sandman" in the morning at the end of the "O course".

Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

What I found interesting was the number of Japanese holdouts they were still getting.

Yeah I know Jul-Sep (or Oct) was the field test but unless you can find a fairly solid date on wide-spread use it'll do since it's probable they didn't pack them and any ammo they had back up and ship it to CONUS. And since they didn't use flame weapons all that much in Vietnam anyway I'd suspect if they actually felt one was needed they'd probably break out an M202 unless all they were doing was clearing tunnels in which case the standard flamethrower would be better suited.
Come to think of it I don't even recall seeing an M202 since around 1976 but then I hadn't seen an M79 since about then either till 1991 when I saw a few in Kuwait.

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

I'm getting the feeling that small arms aren't covered, at least in the older histories.

Not too surprising since no doubt the sub-units of a division would get them at various times over the course of weeks/months.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Concerning the M202 found it interesting that the launcher could also fire an HE package. Also saw some that said the AT rocket as well. Read a lot of USMC blogs from flamethrower operators that they preferred the M202/A1/A2 because of it's range and relative accuracy. There were reported draw backs such as "drops" when reloading (NOT GOOD) and as the rockets got older, a fuel leakage issue down on the back of the operator, I suspect fuel-rocket motor ignition exhaust again-NOT GOOD! I think the dates are fine as well also.

Outta here!!

Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

As I recall the M202 was MUCH preferred over the M72 LAAW due to range, better sights, and most importantly it had 4 shots and while I can't be 100% certain I'm fairly sure it had an AT round.
I can't say much other then that post about 1976ish I don't recall seeing the M202 around anymore, the fuel leakage problem you mention might well explain that.

In the 70's the anti-tank MOS still trained with the M20 Bazooka as part of their MOS school even tho they were "obsolete" and not used outside of the school because they were considered superior to the M72. I can't say for certain but I suspect that stopped with the introduction of the Dragon since that became the primary weapon of the anti-tank MOS.

[sammy1339]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

while I can't be 100% certain I'm fairly sure it had an AT round.

I believe there was a plan to provide the capability to fire the same 66 mm HEAT round as the M72, but this was never actually done.

[Suhiir]

Well about time to roll out another set of corrections/tweaks to the USMC OOB.

I'm afraid due to a little battle I had with a computer virus I lost the notes as to exactly what was changed from the official OOB this time around. Most of the changes are fairly minor tho.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

You can add the M777A2 as discussed in the thread with the dates etc. already provided where we talked about this in the thread bearing the same name, but NOT for the reasons discussed concerning the EXCALIBUR accuracy issue and how to model it in the game since the player can set the artillery accuracy in the game options section anyway. The practical reason I came upon (And it was in the video I provided on the EXCALIBUR.) is because the M777A2 can fire AT rounds where the M777A1 could not because the electronics package needed to do so was unavailable to support that on the M777A1 pieces. The CORPS and USA both have them and used them therefore they should be game supported. The Aussies bought the German AT rounds in quantity and are on my list as well as the USMC and USA to get them added. Canada I'll have to check on as they might not have them due to their current MOD policies or treaty obligations, it'll require further investigation on my part later as my eye progresses.

2. Also you'll save about four or more slots here as you can delete all the USN helos in the OOB carrying the HELLFIRE missile. The HELLFIRE missiles were modified slightly for the USN to use them for ANTI-SHIPPING/ASW Ops (If the target of opportunity arises-think forced to the surface or caught running on the surface.) I believe they were used in the Gulf against the gunboats and to support our oil rig take downs a few years ago. For land ops that would be the USMC aviation helos and both the services "fast movers".

3. Got a LITTLE PO'd about the next but you should be able to regain a couple of slots (Or 1.) concerning the UH-1Y-
A. Pictures are wrong for all.
B. They are not classed as gunships/ALL CARRY 8 fully equipped troops+crew.
C. ALL should have EW 6/Vision 50. Third GEN and BRIGHT STAR II makes it so.
D. ALL structural associated numbers should match. These birds are 100% matched to each other and share an 85% commonality with the AH-1Z, i.e. it has basically the same "vision" equipment on board as the AH-1Z without the full FCS components carried which makes the difference in the vision package between the two and the numbers.
E. ALL should defensively have the same protection numbers as the AH-1Z around the engine area (Armor protection up to and including 23mm rounds.) and as a side note the four blades and rotor area were also protected in the same manner I think it's in the "Top" armor for that number.
F. You can have 2 MG's and 2 Rocket Pods but NO MORE.

All this is posted in the Helo Thread in the refs already provided however I'll leave here the NAVAIR version of things to save time or to supplement the rest.

About #2...
http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm...3-372CD723D22C

ABOUT #3...
http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm...0-F386299C8FF8
http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm...5-A46CAE6C2381
Pictures from NAVAIR...




Notice in the last it can carry the standard 19 round rocket pod (2), note they are mounted slightly aft of the "cargo" doors to allow for the ingress/egress of troops. The primary purpose of the two machine guns (7.62mm GAU/or 12.5mm (Improved w/nights sites.) and the two 19 shot rocket pods is for INFIL/or EXFIL LZ suppression or self defense. Actually the first picture shows this as well.

There were about three other issues I submitted and we discussed after you deservedly beat me up about them that I believe are in this thread or PM's after the last release.

My eyes are tired so I'll quit here.
Have a good weekend.

Regards,
Pat