USA and USMC Common Issues

[sabresandy]

As noted, here are some issues I'd like to discuss regarding the TO&E. Obats and numbers will be in bold when possible. I'll focus on issues common to the US and USMC obats, since it'd be impractical to separate them out.

The first three issues are relatively fast "quick fix" problems. The ones after that would probably require a little more discussion.

* OBAT 12, US use of 2x70mm DAGR, weapon 187. This weapon is not in service. Easy to fix, though: replace the name with APKWS-II, which is in service. Oddly, units begin using these in 2006, six years before they enter testing.

* OBAT 13, USMC, also needs fixing for the DAGR rockets. Weapons 178 and 188 should be renamed APKWS-II instead of DAGR; in addition, units 500-505 have the rocket much too early. It only entered active-duty testing in 2012 or so.

* OBAT 12 unit 902, the US Pave Low, should be out of service in 9/2008. Ditto for its Marine counterpart, OBAT 13 unit 314.

* OBATs 12 and 13, US and USMC. Instead of the generic WWII-era "rifle grenade", US forces should have the ENERGA from 1950 onward, and the M31 from sometime in the 1950s. I recognize that fiddling with the US infantry sections will be an absolute pain, so for my personal TO&E I compromised by introducing an ENERGA clone with the introduction of the M14. That seems to be the easiest fix: introduce the M31 grenade at the same time as the M14 is introduced. Trying to fix the M1 Garand-armed infantry will be difficult.

* OBATs 12 and 13, US and USMC: M16 SAWs and M16A2 LMGs. (For OBAT 12, these are weapons 21 and 234; for OBAT 13, these are 21, 24, and 26.) Seriously, what's up with them? By the Vietnam War, every squad had an M60 if they didn't hang on to their older M14A1s or BARs. I couldn't find any references to frontline squads using M16s as light machine guns. I think it'd be better to replace them with a mixture of BARs, M14A1s, and M60s as appropriate.

* OBAT 13, weapon 27: the M27 IAR for the USMC. I think it'd be better reflected as a high-accuracy, low-killing-power weapon like the RPK-74 or the British LSW. As it is, its current stats at 19acc/5HEK reflect neither its lower bullet count nor its higher accuracy. I suggest 28ACC/4HEK, in between the RPK-74 and the LSW.

[DRG]

I'll put this on the list and deal with it after the summer. However.....

OBAT 13, USMC, also needs fixing for the DAGR rockets. Weapons 178 and 188 should be renamed APKWS-II instead of DAGR

That would give us 2 APKWS-II weapons in that OOB.....why would we do that ??

Don

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

APKWS is NOT interchangeable between the USA and USMC. Someone had a thread on the topic a couple of years back and I've pulled a ref or two off my first Helo PP concerning the AH-1Z. APKWS is USMC all the way well, at least until the USA dropped out of the program. In 2008 the USN deciding to support the CORPS in finding a better precision orientated system to replace both the ZUNI and HYDRA II rockets being used at the time and picked up and continued to finance the APKWS Program on it's own. Further testing now completed will see the APKWS II on the USMC AV-8 HARRIERS and USAF A-10's. APKWS is a BAE system while DAGR is a Lockheed Martin system. The war got the ball rolling for both with the overview below...
http://defense-update.com/features/2...ts_170709.html
These are for FYI...
https://mfcbastion.external.lmco.com..._Card-DAGR.pdf
http://defense-update.com/newscast/0...80307_dagr.htm
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Sec...2351204584218/
http://defenseupdates.blogspot.com/2...v-vehicle.html
http://www.defense-update.com/newsca...009042010.html

Kept the ref source easy as the same is covered by all my "usual" suspects is these matters. The bottom line is simply that the Army was hedging it's bets between the two systems and in the end had to make a decision. They of course choose DAGR. Makes you wonder who won the annual Army/Navy game that year, it might explain each services choice!?!

I believe the DAGR is still being evaluated by the Army, as I can't find any info to support they bought the system.

Regards,
Pat

[sabresandy]

I can't find any information that the Army bought off on DAGR, which is why I provisionally marked all the precision-rocket systems as APKWS, which is in testing. I understand the rationale behind sticking to DAGR for the Army orbat until they make a final decision, though.

Regardless, the dates of service do need to be adjusted, even if you keep with DAGR. Any mention of DAGR or APKWS before their combat debut in Afghanistan should probably be switched over to the unguided rockets.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

First off the first three threads are not updating on the posts/replies. These were started around the maintenance period as a possible cause.

Here's what I've found just with APKWS II and with the AH-1Z. I will just highlight the issues here as good points were brought up here , but the problems run deeper as I looked into this and I don't know what happened with the AH-1Z as I thought it got into the patch as submitted originally. I'll need to check my crib notes on my hard copy for any differences as submitted. I'll further address this in the Helo Thread with credit to sabrasandy for the "scent" though we differ with Item 1. below.

1. Though APKWS had production runs (This is the date issue I believe.) already over the period as assigned to some UNITS already noted here in this thread (And others I've found.) it was not fielded operationally by the USMC until 3/12 in Afghanistan. See Ref. 1 and understand DID builds the source data into the articles, (Now) verifies status in the right side of the article and lists further and related reading at the bottom of the article. Ref 2 is my "shout out" to Canada.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...d-phase-02193/
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/...n-afghanistan/

1A. Affected USMC UNITS 172, 173, 192, 257, 502, 503 & 505. they should be armed with the HYDRA 70mm.

2. NAVAIR deemed the AH-1Z operationally ready in 9/10 after completing it's OPEVAL that month. I had submitted a fielding date of 6/11 based on I believe when they were deployed overseas. Ref. 3 & 4 (You'll have to click on Rotor Craft then click on H-1.) however states they became operational in 2/11. So though the game date and my date are within the "swag" there's only one thing to do and that's go to the middle or in this case the operational date of 2/11.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/p...1w-supercobra/
http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm...ome.rotorcraft

2A. Affected USMC UNITS 172, 173, 192 again to 2/11 start date. Also USMC UNIT 500 should be changed to 3/12 vice 9/12.

Refer to HELO Thread Pg.2 Post #12 from Feb. 13, 2011. Both these issues were at the time part of a much larger discussion as it referenced other Posts back to the APC Thread. God help me if this is a sign how this summer is going to go , this is on my work list now and will be moved to the Helo Thread for follow up.

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I have an appt. in the morning so I'll try to be brief. Concerning the PAVE LOW the information presented is correct. They flew their last combat mission in 9/08. You have two options here in the USMC OOB... 1) Simply DELETE both MH-53 helos UNITS 313/314. ADD both the SOAR MH-47E/G helos we fixed and added in the last patch to support both the USMC Spec Op and USN SEALS. Makes life easier for the player and will allow the AI access to them in the USMC OOB. Also USMC CH-53E UNIT 646 needs to be upgraded to the MH-53M UNIT 314 mark.

2) Just make the date change to UNIT 314, however the CH-53E UNIT 646 will still need to be updated and I can support this change. Option 1) requires a little more work at each end, however it is the more relevant choice.

3) The CH-53K Program is still moving along. As you know I was on this from the start here, so USMC UNIT 647 will be submitted for a change in it's TI/GSR in the 50/60 range based on the last updates I've gotten.

This is reminding me of a story about a fisherman and his "can of worms"!?!

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I have an appt. in the morning so I'll try to be brief. Concerning the PAVE LOW the information presented is correct.
They flew their last combat mission in 9/08.
http://defensetech.org/2008/10/08/by...-hello-osprey/
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/fac...t.asp?id=12439 Note the armament section at the bottom.
http://www.mh-53pavelow.com/pave_history.html
We have two options here in the USMC OOB... 1) Simply DELETE both MH-53 helos UNITS 313/314. ADD both the SOAR
MH-47E/G helos we fixed and added in the last patch to support both the USMC Spec Op and USN SEALS. Makes life easier for the player and will allow the AI access to them in the USMC OOB. Also USMC CH-53E UNIT 646 needs to be upgraded to the MH-53M UNIT 314 mark.

2) Just make the date change to UNIT 314, however the CH-53E UNIT 646 will still need to be updated and I can support this change. It will however cause a redundancy issue. They are the same helos only difference lies in designation and names between the USAF, USMC and USN. Option 1) requires a little more work at each end, however it is the more relevant choice.
http://www.marines.com/operating-for...super-stallion

3) The CH-53K Program is still moving along. As you know I was on this from the start, so USMC UNIT 647 will be submitted for a change in it's TI/GSR in the 50/60 range and EW (Maybe.) based on the last updates I've gotten.

This is reminding me of a story about a fisherman and his "can of worms"!?! Still not as bad as those Turkish LEO's from 2/3 years ago!!

A little F&F 6 after my appt. should set me right though!
Good Night EVERYONE!

Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by sabresandy

* OBATs 12 and 13, US and USMC. Instead of the generic WWII-era "rifle grenade", US forces should have the ENERGA from 1950 onward, and the M31 from sometime in the 1950s. I recognize that fiddling with the US infantry sections will be an absolute pain, so for my personal TO&E I compromised by introducing an ENERGA clone with the introduction of the M14. That seems to be the easiest fix: introduce the M31 grenade at the same time as the M14 is introduced. Trying to fix the M1 Garand-armed infantry will be difficult.

* OBATs 12 and 13, US and USMC: M16 SAWs and M16A2 LMGs. (For OBAT 12, these are weapons 21 and 234; for OBAT 13, these are 21, 24, and 26.) Seriously, what's up with them? By the Vietnam War, every squad had an M60 if they didn't hang on to their older M14A1s or BARs. I couldn't find any references to frontline squads using M16s as light machine guns. I think it'd be better to replace them with a mixture of BARs, M14A1s, and M60s as appropriate.

RIFLE-GRENADES
M9A1 HEAT c.a. 1943 Penetrate 60-100mm of armor. Ineffective vs the Soviet used by the North Koreans.
M28 HEAT c.a 1952 Copy of Belgian "Energa" Effective range 90m
M31 HEAT c.a. 1955-1965 Penetrate 200mm of armor.
By the end of the Vietnam War, both the US Army and US Marines had essentially phased out rifle grenades in favor of the M72 LAW and the M203 GL.

The Rifleman's Assault Weapon (RAW), a big-azz sphereical-shaped rocket-boosted 140mm rifle grenade for the M16 was developed in 1977 and put into limited service by the United States Marine Corps.
It had a 1 kg HESH warhead and a remarkably flat trajectory to 300 meters (max range, 1200m).
It was designed for urban warfare; making holes in walls, taking out fortified positions & bunkers, and destroying unarmored vehicles.
There was also a HEAT version.

The Rifle-Launched Anti-armor Munition (RAAM) was another program during the 1990s for a rocket-boosted HEAT bullet trap rifle grenade with a tandem warhead.
The RAAM has a maximum range of 250 meters and can penetrate armor more than 400 mm thick.

M16 SAWs and M16A2 LMGs
Not quite.
Each USMC Rifle Company (in it's Weapons Platoon) has 6x M60 MGs. Generally allocated 2 per Rifle Platoon (which has 3x Rifle Squads).
The USMC does not generally use the M60 as a LMG (one of the reasons the USMC still uses a 4-man machinegun team vs the US Army 2 or 3-man).
Tho many units held onto their BARs till the 1960s they were officially phased out in 1958 when the M14 was adopted.
The M14 and later the M16 were officially designated, and used, as automatic rifles in the USMC (not that either was very good at it) until the adoption of the M249 in 1986.

DAGR/APKWS II
Fastboat covered those quite well.

[sabresandy]

All right. All good points; I'm glad to at least be provoking a discussion. Did the US Army press the M60 into the squad role, at least? I got the impression that it did.

As for the rifle-grenades, US squads typically change their TO&E in 1958, when they get the M-14s. Before that, their TO&E is unchanged from 1946 onwards. Introducing the M28 grenade in the middle of that will require an extreme amount of work. It might be easier to just introduce the M-31 from 1958 onward, with the new TO&E they get when they ditch the Garand and pick up the M-14s.

The main thing is to make US infantry squads not totally useless in the AT role before the LAW is introduced.

I'm aware that the BAR was officially phased out in 1958, but given that squads were still armed with it on an ad hoc basis, I think it'd be a good idea for it to be an option for the Marine fireteams or squads; ditto the M14A1, though I've heard it was rather terrifying (for the operator, not necessarily for the target) in the squad automatic role.

[Suhiir]

To the best of my knowledge the US Army regularly used M60's as LMG until the advent of the M249.

For my part I'd agree, ignore the M28.

They're no more useless vs armor then anyone else, and actually much less as many WinSPMBT US/USMC squad variants have a bazooka.

The USMC continued to (and as far as I know still continues) use M14s for some roles till at least the mid 1980's (the last infantry battalion finally got M16s in 1971). In fact in 2001 the M14 was officially re-introduced as the "squad marksman" rifle (since replaced by the SAM-R).

From talking to some of the "old farts" when I first went in (some dated back to WW II) the problem with the M14 AR (M14E3 I believe) vs M1918A1 BAR was 3-fold:
1) The M14 had a lighter barrel this heated up much faster
2) The M14 bipod was an add-on and not very sturdy
3) The M14 wasn't designed as a full-auto weapon thus wasn't very "sturdy"
All-in-all the M14 was a poor substitute for the BAR. But in the interests of standardization it was pressed into the role (as was the M16).