Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).

[DRG]

There appears to be an "easy" fix for this. I just have to proceed carefully.

( and " easy " is a relative term )

When all BTR-50's are made 20 carry capacity and changed to UC-120 that shifts these big APC's to a UC all their own. The ONLY formation affected by this is 5 ( from the POV of the picklist )...that's the Mech Rifle Co from 1/1955-12/66......none of the others are affected ...BUT......moving Formation 375 to slot 5 puts the Hvy APC's in the formation slot the picklist wants and moving Form376 to Form38 puts everything in sync.... freeing up 2 formation slots as well as changing nothing from a player POV and keeping the picklist " happy " once the "new" Form 5 is pointed at the correct place it's "new" pls are found in ( 38 )

See....simple.

now all I have to do is figure out the infantry that goes into each and in the end these early big carriers will be set up correctly but there WILL need to be a slight compromise to accommodate the lower carry capacity of the BTR-152 that shares this class

The bottom line is this can be fixed so it better represents the actual situation but it won't be exact and in the process free up 2 formation and 1 unit slot

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Crueldwarf

Standard motor rifle section have 8 men in it (section commander, BTR/BMP gunner, BTR/BMP driver and 5 dismounts). And there is another 6 men in the platoon command group which is absent from the game as separate unit.

I always thought that command groups are simply spread out among the rifle squads. So mech sections should be either 7 men (if we have 3 men vehicle crews) or 8 (if commander dismounts too).

Also there should be two man PKM team in each BTR/Platoon after 90s as company machine gun platoon was disbanded. AT assets went to a company command and machine guns were spread out among the platoons.

I have made OOB development adjustments to the Russian OOB that appear to set up the various mech formations more correctly with slightly larger mech units and so far I have not found a case where units were left on foot and the manpower count seems to be as close as we can get. Both the BMP and BTR Rifle plts now have 24 men on foot with 6 more as crew in year 2000 platoons but it's a juggling act to get this all to work with formations that span 75 years but I *think* I have. PLUS the BTR-50 formations are better represented in regards to manpower and number of carriers per plt/ coy

However, in future PLEASE use specific game formation numbers when making comments on formations so I know I'm looking at the same thing you are looking at

[dmnt]

Russian Victory Day parade showed couple of new developments which caught my eye: according to news there were arctic versions of Pantsyr and Tor-M SAM launchers.
In a nutshell: Snow track vehicles that are amphibious. If there's room to fit them in the OOB.

https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.w...issile-system/
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...e-air-defenses

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

This is everything I've been tracking for Russian SPAA/AA equipment in some cases for almost 2 years now.

Pantsir-S2... Issues improved radar and detection augmented by a new missile allowing extended range and altitude.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/febru..._12502152.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russi..._12205164.html

ZSU-23-4 & Tungunska replacement?... Issues they're just old and outdated.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/decem..._12812151.html

The next is specifically for the dedicated Arctic Defense Force (ADF) they already had the SPAA version mounting the Pantsir-S1 modified system the news here is they are also equipping the ADF with the new longer range TOR-M2 system
with both mounted on the Vityaz DT-30-series all-terrain tracked carriers (ATTCs) optimized for Arctic operations.
http://www.janes.com/article/69523/r...efence-systems

Buk-M3... Issues pretty much the same as the above improved radar and new missile, however, the main difference here is that this is considered a completely new system vice an improved one. That's the big news here. I believe I might've posted this already in the SPA/SPAA Thread at least the second ref.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/decem..._11212153.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russi..._11312154.html

Finally because it's time for lunch and getting ready for "my Monday" the TOR-M2U improved version of the well, TOR-M2... Issues this comes under much improved from the first ref. "The SAM system is capable of acquiring over 40 targets simultaneously, prioritize them and engage four of them at the same time." in the SAM world that's pretty darn good.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/septe..._13009162.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russi...o_2604153.html

Strela replacement and SPAA for Russian Airborne troops, the Sosna-10... Issues simply "out with the old, in with the new".
http://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2..._10505161.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russi..._11312155.html


That pretty much covers most of it. As a reminder equipment status always noted on the equipment info refs or as otherwise noted in the preceding article.

Since this came up, I'll be moving this into the SPA/SPAA Thread early Tue. morning after work for my tracking.

Regards,
Pat

[Pibwl]

Out of curiosity, do threads get deleted?... I've recalled there was a thread about BTR-50 capacity several years ago, and I think I've even drew a cross-section with at least 15 men inside - but I spent over half an hour searching, and couldn't find anything...

[DRG]

Threads rarely get deleted and I cannot think of any reason why one like that would be. The Shrapnel search engine isn't the greatest. If you think you know what was said try Googling

[Pibwl]

...three minutes of of Google searching "BTR-50 capacity site:http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/"

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showt...t=47851&page=6

With a drawing: http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...6&d=1319491521

[rel19]

It would be cool to add few sabot ammo for Russian T-64A close support MBT (unit 63 in OOB) instead of some HE ammo.

[DRG]

That's what the regular tanks are for. CS tanks are for dealing with situations requiring HE

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by DRG

That's what the regular tanks are for. CS tanks are for dealing with situations requiring HE

CS tanks usually have some HEAT as the A/T ammo since HEAT is dual-purpose against grunts (beyond the 4 kept in hand) and is also good versus bunkers etc. Some CS tanks may have sabot or AP though, its up to the particular OOB designer.

You could always make your own version in Mobhack, then run the oob cost calculator on it. For games against yourself that is fine - but if playing PBEM you will need to agree it with your opponent and send him a copy of the modified OOB if he does (IIRC, been ages since I looked into the mechanics of PBEM).

But CS tanks as Don says, are not really there to deal with other tanks - use the regular version for that, with C/S hanging back to be wheeled forwards for any grunt-punching duties.