|
|
|
Notices |
Do you own this game? Write a review and let others know how you like it.
|
 |

July 15th, 2005, 07:21 AM
|
 |
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 358
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
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 After it's been replaced by the UGL.
unit 103 has LAW-80 available after it's been replaced by the MBT LAW.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!
|

July 15th, 2005, 08:24 AM
|
 |
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Slovakia
Posts: 263
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
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?
|

July 15th, 2005, 09:56 AM
|
 |
Shrapnel Fanatic
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: GWN
Posts: 12,678
Thanks: 4,113
Thanked 5,900 Times in 2,905 Posts
|
|
Re: errors in existing OOB\'s
Quote:
JaM said:
unit no.545 Lynx mk.7 starting date 1978 armed with TOW-2! Too early for TOW-2, isnt it?
|
It should be just a TOW
Don
|

July 25th, 2005, 08:43 AM
|
Private
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 17
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
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...
__________________
It's not an adventure. Just a job.
|

July 28th, 2005, 03:28 PM
|
 |
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: 40km from the old frontline
Posts: 859
Thanks: 0
Thanked 15 Times in 7 Posts
|
|
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.
|

July 28th, 2005, 05:21 PM
|
Private
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 17
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
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...
__________________
It's not an adventure. Just a job.
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Hybrid Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|