Suhiir's Revised USMC OOB #13

[DRG]

I tried to find the most appropriate Icon and settled on this






Don

[Imp]

I tried to find the most appropriate Icon and settled on this

Good call

Suhiir just so I am clear units marked "name" are errors from the old OOB.
They do not represent equipment the USMC likes to borrow from the Army.
Tried 3 times to get the chevrons arrows whatever to show

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by Imp

Good call

Suhiir just so I am clear units marked <<'name'>> are errors from the old OOB.
They do not represent equipment the USMC likes to borrow from the Army.
Tried 3 times to get the chevrons arrows whatever to show

Not so much "errors" as stuff the USMC has never had in it's own inventory/TO&E (or had in very limited numbers, example the five (5) M551 Sheridan tanks they owned for testing).

In some cases (example Vulcan AA weapons) I'm sure they were included because the USMC has no AA guns (other then twin 50cals). Once MPADs became available it was decided they no longer needed AA guns. In my OOB I've added the Mk 93 twin 50's with MPADs as "AA Guns" but for the current game picklists to work an OOB needs to have some sort of AA gun so I'm sure they were left in the OOB for that reason.

As to borrowing equipment from the US Army, yes the USMC can and does occasionally do so. But not on a regular basis, and usually ONLY during combined operations (i.e. the Gulf Wars). The US Army doesn't like to loan out their toys. If you want to borrow Army equipment select "allied" and buy stuff from the US Army OOB. I tried to make the USMC OOB "pure" Marine (and US Navy) toys. I considered also dumping the US Air Force aircraft/helos but it wasn't practical.

P.S. I fixed your chevrons.

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by DRG

I tried to find the most appropriate Icon and settled on this






Don

Now of course comes the BIG question.
Will any of this be of any real use to you guys

Thanks for making me a sticky BTW, make me feel important!

Originally Posted by DRG

All formations 825 - 836 only exist in 2014

Looks like a WIP as they are hidden on page 6

Don

Yup, those are some of my "working copy" formations.
You'll find several formations hidden on page 6, these are sub-formations or TO&E formations I used to create the formations players can purchase (i.e. the various scout/sniper - STA platoon TO's from over the years).
I could, perhaps should, have removed them but since they're invisible to the player I just left them in.

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

Will any of this be of any real use to you guys

Yep, already has. I had already started tearing things out and making changes based on some of the other posts and this just makes it easier but I am really snowed under with work this time around so IDK how much "good" it's going to end up being right now. I found a simple note to check the load weight for SP sams in the game and found a good solid half days work sorting that mess out and "the list" is still 50 pages long. Basically, what's done by the First of March is what gets done this time around.

Don

[thatguy96]

I had a look at this and it seems like you gave the USMC OOB some much needed love. I wouldn't be myself if I didn't have some questions however. You have access to different and likely better sources than I do, so I'm just curious as to where some of the information came from for my own reference.

- There are 3 UH-1Hs in the OOB (Units 324, 880, and 944). I wasn't aware that the USMC ever used UH-1Hs. I'd be interested to learn more about this.

- A number of helicopters (units 172 and 320 for instance), has a GAU-19/A as its armament. I wasn't aware that any US service was actually using this weapon. Again, I'd be interested to learn more about this.

- Do you have sources for Units 629 or 630 readily available? According to the official USMC history of helicopters in the Corps, plus additional documents I have, I am unfamiliar with the fitting of weapons to HTLs. Also, according to the official history, HMX-1 test fired some rockets from an HRS type helicopter in 1951 and found it to be wanting, discontinuing any further tests.

- Weapon 174 is an "M23" machine gun. I'm unfamiliar with this designation. It appears that it might be a conflation of the M23 armament subsystem designation for door guns on UH-1 types. This system used an M60 machine gun.

Again, the OOB looks very well thought out and put together. The effort you put in is clear and thanks for sharing it with us.

[Suhiir]

UH-1H
They initially got the UH-1B/C/E model, but since less then 200 of that model were built they also used a lot of the more numerous UH-1H (long fuselage, upgraded engine) versions as well (over 5000 built). Also after the introduction of the UH-1M the USMC upgraded all their UH-1E to the new engine, making them basically UH-1Hs. Rather then include three different models of the UH-1E I went for simplicity and called them UH-1Hs, which is essentially what they were.

GAU-19 50cal gattling
In an on-again/off-again discussion they've been talking of mounting a chin turret with the GAU-19 on the MV-22 Osprey. So they have some GAU-19s (they got about 100 of them in 2007).
Since they haven't gotten around to putting the chin turrets on the MV-22s they're occasionally used as a replacement for the M134 7.62mm minigun on UH-1's. So I stuck them on my "Light Attack Helicopter (Unit Class 221) variant which I've set up to be mainly "soft vehicle"/"crewed weapon" killer helo (the 50cal vs the 7.62mm, less HE and more AP rockets).

HTL Gunship (Unit 629)
(A.K.A. YR-13 / H-13 / OH-13 Sioux)
This was a field mod commonly made to observation helos during Korea. Some pilots also carried hand grenades to drop as "bombs". This was never an "official" modification but was very, very common.
The US Army formalized this with the "XM1 armament subsystem" http://tri.army.mil/LC/CS/csa/xm1m37c.gif

HRS Gunship (Unit 630)
(A.K.A. Sikorsky S-55 "Chickasaw" / H-19 / HO4S)
These were another common field modification (they were the predecessor to the H-34 Stingers).
You mentioned the tests in 1951, yes, officially the tests were discontinued.

Weapon #174 M23 Machinegun
Yup, exactly right ! I didn't want to use the standard MMGs for helo doorguns because of their range.

*********************
This is probably a good time to explain the "why" of one of my weapons modifications.
You'll find that "fixed mount" (i.e. tripod, CMG, etc.) type MGs have a 20% greater range then "flex mount" (i.e. bipod, pintel, etc.) mounts. Also the "fixed mount" types are not AAMG capable.
Example :
Weapon #14 M60 7.62mm LMG (WC 2, Acc 21, Rng 16)
Weapon #36 M60 7.62mm MMG (WC 3, Acc 20, Rng 30)
Weapon #52 M60 7.62mm AAMG (WC 4, Acc 20, Rng 24)
Weapon #64 M60 7.62mm CMG (WC 5, Acc 20, Rng 30)
Weapon #174 M23 7.62mm MG (WC 3, Acc 20, Rng 24)
Yup, it's a LOT of variations on a simple 7.62mm MG, but each has different capabilities and applications, and, the USMC OOB had the extra space in the weapons tab to allow all these variations!

[thatguy96]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

UH-1H
They initially got the UH-1B/C/E model, but since less then 200 of that model were built they also used a lot of the more numerous UH-1H (long fuselage, upgraded engine) versions as well (over 5000 built). Also after the introduction of the UH-1M the USMC upgraded all their UH-1E to the new engine, making them basically UH-1Hs. Rather then include three different models of the UH-1E I went for simplicity and called them UH-1Hs, which is essentially what they were.

This is interesting, since I wasn't aware that the USMC retained any of its UH-1Es in anything but a training capacity (TH-1Es) after the introduction of the UH-1N in 1971. The upgrading of the engines isn't mentioned in the official USMC helicopter history from 1962-1973 (which was published in 1978). The differences between long and short fuselage UH-1s I would think would be different enough to warrant using a term like "UH-1E+" or something. I dunno. Its good to know the reasoning though and it does make sense.

Originally Posted by Suhiir

GAU-19 50cal gattling
In an on-again/off-again discussion they've been talking of mounting a chin turret with the GAU-19 on the MV-22 Osprey. So they have some GAU-19s (they got about 100 of them in 2007).
Since they haven't gotten around to putting the chin turrets on the MV-22s they're occasionally used as a replacement for the M134 7.62mm minigun on UH-1's. So I stuck them on my "Light Attack Helicopter (Unit Class 221) variant which I've set up to be mainly "soft vehicle"/"crewed weapon" killer helo (the 50cal vs the 7.62mm, less HE and more AP rockets).

Okay, this more or less fits what I've heard. The GAU-19/A has been tested on just about every helicopter in US military inventory in the last 20 years, but there seems to be no rush to put it into active service.

Originally Posted by Suhiir

HTL Gunship (Unit 629)
(A.K.A. YR-13 / H-13 / OH-13 Sioux)
This was a field mod commonly made to observation helos during Korea. Some pilots also carried hand grenades to drop as "bombs". This was never an "official" modification but was very, very common.
The US Army formalized this with the "XM1 armament subsystem" http://tri.army.mil/LC/CS/csa/xm1m37c.gif

I've not read anything about this. Do you have a source? I'd be interested to incorporate it into some projects I'm working on.

Originally Posted by Suhiir

HRS Gunship (Unit 630)
(A.K.A. Sikorsky S-55 "Chickasaw" / H-19 / HO4S)
These were another common field modification (they were the predecessor to the H-34 Stingers).
You mentioned the tests in 1951, yes, officially the tests were discontinued.

Again, do you have any sources on it actually being used in combat or available for such use? The official USMC helicopter history says that the conclusions drawn from the tests by HMX-1 were decidedly negative. I can see tests continuing on an ad-hoc basis, but the USMC seems to have been pretty set on the usage of fixed wing aircraft for CAS and helicopter escort right into the mid-1960s. They even pursued the YAT-28E as an alternative to an armed UH-1E.

Originally Posted by Suhiir

Weapon #174 M23 Machinegun
Yup, exactly right ! I didn't want to use the standard MMGs for helo doorguns because of their range.

Makes sense. The stock stats for the M60s used on helicopters should be different in the basic OOB. Like my comment on the first point, I would have personally left them named as M60s, but does make a lot of sense.

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by thatguy96

This is interesting, since I wasn't aware that the USMC retained any of its UH-1Es in anything but a training capacity (TH-1Es) after the introduction of the UH-1N in 1971. The upgrading of the engines isn't mentioned in the official USMC helicopter history from 1962-1973 (which was published in 1978). The differences between long and short fuselage UH-1s I would think would be different enough to warrant using a term like "UH-1E+" or something. I dunno. Its good to know the reasoning though and it does make sense.

Never came across the "Official History" (wonder how I missed it).
Actually the idea of creating a UH-1E+ (with UH-IH speed for the engine upgrade) is a good idea! Then drop the UH-1H to avoid further confusion. It will also "fix" the long fuselage (larger carry capacity) problem.
*makes a note*

Originally Posted by thatguy96

Okay, this more or less fits what I've heard. The GAU-19/A has been tested on just about every helicopter in US military inventory in the last 20 years, but there seems to be no rush to put it into active service.
I've not read anything about this. Do you have a source? I'd be interested to incorporate it into some projects I'm working on.

Afraid this is just one one of the many post-it notes in my "Helicopter" file.
"Bought 100ish GAU-19s in 2007, used in place of M134s"

Originally Posted by thatguy96

I've not read anything about this. Do you have a source? I'd be interested to incorporate it into some projects I'm working on.

Yet another post-it note I'm afraid.
"Korea, 1951ish, Observers in H-13 (HTL) very unhappy with lack of guns, mount 2x30cal on skids, Army later formalize as XM1".
Keep in mind they only had a dozen or so HTLs in the "observer" role in Korea. So while this may have been a "common" mod I doubt more then half of them had it. So I'd be VERY hesitant to field a fleet of "HTL Helo Gunships". It's more that sometimes a HTL Light Helo might be armed.