IDF OOB project.

[gingertanker]

But was there ever one???
No argument here just asking out of curiosity, because I've only seen dozers mounted on 105 mm Shermans.

I have only seen the full dozer blade mounted on a M4 with a105mm short barrel howitzer. However AFAIK the dozer blade could be fitted to any sherman.

Also Don,

That is interesting. There is no specimen in Latrun...I have never seen a picture of one in IDF markings...And I do not recall ever hearing from anyone that they used them. In 1982 the IDF used 203mm SPA pieces to blast away buildings...

I just don't know. The only thing I can do is ask some old tankers if they ever saw one. I guess keep it for now.
Amit

[Suhiir]

Generally minefields are defended by infantry/anti-tank weapons rather then armor so the 105mm is a better choice for a mine clearing tank then the 75/76mm.

[gingertanker]

Generally minefields are defended by infantry/anti-tank weapons rather then armor so the 105mm is a better choice for a mine clearing tank then the 75/76mm.

That is true but considering that all tanks in the IDF are driven by tank corps crews, and are part of tank battalions, I expect the uniformity in ammunition and maintenance was valued above any tactical advantage of a 105mm/165mm howitzer. As I recall in my battalion the breaching platoon had rollers and plows but no dozer blades. These were mounted on regular Merkava Mk 2b with 105mm guns.

Generally the IDF prefers rollers/plows to dozer blades on its tanks, but here is a pic of a merk 1 with a dozer blade:



Here Puma engineer combat vehicles as well as 2 Nakpadon Heavy APCs and 1 M113 are seen. You can see that one Puma has a Roller and one has a Dozer blade. In other words both were and are in service at the same time.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

IDF UNIT 119 looks like it can go. The M728 CEV was born into the ARMY in 1965 and died in the GUARD in 2000. There is no evidence to support that this tank was ever exported. These sites usually show that info and a couple reference Hunnicutts book on the Patton series of tanks with for many is considered the "Bible" on the subject. The ARMY recieved about 291 of them until production ceased ~1972.
http://patton-mania.com/IDF_Pattons/idf_pattons.html
http://patton-mania.com/M60_Patton/m60_patton.html#M728 CEV
http://www.military-today.com/engineering/m728_cev.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...round/m728.htm
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/eng/M728.html
http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/cevm728.html

Regards,
Pat

[gingertanker]

The Puma:

Unit 120 Puma Dozer,Unit 130 Puma Nochri,Unit 422 Puma

This is the main ARV for the IDF since the early 1990s. All Pumas are capable of carrying troops.

Is there a way for the Dozer and Nochri versions to safely carry the troops and retain their mine clearing capability? If so carry capacity should be 8, and not 13(The skeleton crew for this thing is 3, the rest of the machine guns are manned by the sappers riding in it.

also we might want to add the CARPET as a weapon. Sure it wont clear mines in game, but IRL it was used as a direct fire weapon many times:
http://defense-update.com/news/6702carpet.htm

[DRG]

I'll look into it. The problem is that unitclass is set up to "carry" passengers on the outside like a tank but we restrict carry on tanks so if it was set up to carry like an APC we could set up APC type vehicles with CC and still restict tanks to zero. However, the US OOB already has the M1132 ESV as a MCV with 109 CC

Don

[gingertanker]

A noob question- the only thing that makes the troops protected when they ride an AFV is the 10X carry capacity rather than x?

Never mind just checked the help file and its not

[DRG]

hardcoded

[gingertanker]

Yeah I understand...So basically this will require changing the code Any chance of that happening or is it loads of work?

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by gingertanker

Yeah I understand...So basically this will require changing the code Any chance of that happening or is it loads of work?

I've added the 2 engineer vehicle unit classes to the protected passengers types so they will behave as APC. Unless front armour is 0 - then its still unprotected on the off-chance we have an engineer type APC with soft skin (unlikely!).

(Haven't tested it as yet, but the code change was 5 minutes work. I'll just need to put an engineer APC with passengers on the firing range and hose it down with HMG fire to check it works.)

Looking at the OOBs, engineer tanks already have 0 carry, and only "Engineer APC" i.e. those engineer tank types with a carry capacity as well as a roller or blade equipment, do. We will still need to give the OOBS a thorough comb through.

Now those "Engineering APC" types will not have the pax behave as tank riders when under fire any more, so an engineer APC will be a good way to get some foot engineers forwards to aid the work.

Not added to WW2 as yet - but may be if there are engineer APC types found there. We will have to troll the data there to check, but it looks like engineering APC are a post-war thing.

Andy