Suhiir's Revised USMC OOB #13

[Suhiir]

Believe it or not I've FINALLY gotten my OOB #13 (USMC) rebuild done!!!
((You may now applaud, or feint in shock.))
==============================
Now for the mandatory disclaimers.
==============================
THIS IS A CUSTOM (Player created) OOB AND IN NO WAY SUPPORTED BY SHRAPNEL GAMES !

This OOB will not - WILL NOT - work with the WinSPMBT picklists.
For those of you that are not technophiles, that means the game AI will not be able to buy forces if this OOB is installed. I was unable to utilize the existing game formations and built new ones from scratch. I think (hope) I avoided moving a few mandatory formation number formations so picklists can eventually be created for this OOB.
You can however manually purchase units/formations as normal.

This OOB should be compatible with any official WinSPMBT scenario/campaign.
It will probably work with any player created scenarios as well - no guarantee.
==============================
For those that are interested here's some explanation of what I did to the OOB and why.
==============================
First why.
The current OOB in WinSPMBT does a pretty darn good job of presenting the administrative organization of the U.S. Marine Corps. It requires the use of the game editor to create the actual combat organization of the USMC.
Unlike most of the worlds military forces the USMC is organized as building blocks.
The USMC always (99% of the time) task organizes combat units based on mission and opposition.
Each Rifle Company has a Weapons Platoon with light mortars, light anti-tank weapons, and medium machineguns. This organization that makes training, maintenance, and administration easier and presumably more efficient. This Weapons Platoon would never, under any but the most unusual circumstances be committed to combat.
Instead the light mortars are generally retained under central control by the company commander and used to support the companies Rifle Platoons as needed.
The light anti-tank weapons (bazookas, SMAWS) are attached to the Rifle Platoon (usually 2 teams each). Sometimes a given platoon will have three, or one, teams if the position they hold or their mission requires more, or less, anti-tank support.
The medium machineguns are attached to the Rifle Platoons the same way.
This company level cross-attachment is generally reflected in the current game OOB.
However - each Infantry Battalion has a Weapons Company with medium mortars, ATGM's, heavy machineguns/AGLs, and snipers. These are also attached, in ones, twos, whatevers, to the Rifle Companies as needed (with the mortars usually retained under central control by the battalion).
In the current OOB you can sometimes purchase these units in ones and twos and cross attach them, however in some cases you can only purchase whole platoons or sections. This means you either do without some weapons or wind up with far more then you should have.
==============================
In my OOB revision you'll find several alternate formations formations for the basic building block of the USMC - the Rifle Company.
Rifle Co(-) : Bare bones with zero weapons attachments.
Rifle Company : Includes all standard attachments NOT including forward observers and MPADs.
The MMGs are combined with the Platoon HQ into a two-gun "Marine Spt Sec".
Rifle Co(+) : This is the real combat organization of the USMC. With a forward observer, MPAD, Platoon HQ, MMGs in separate teams, and designated marksmen (since 2001).
Rifle Co [M] : Motorized Rifle Company (trucks).
Rifle Co(+)[M] : Motorized, fully cross-attached, Rifle Company (trucks).
Mech Rifle Co : Mechanized Rifle Company (LVTs).
Mech Rifle Co+ : Mechanized, fully-cross-attached, Rifle Company (LVTs).
Rifle Co [H] : Heliborne, fully cross-attached, Rifle Company (normally one company per battalion is air mobile).
SOC Rifle Co : Special Operations Capable Rifle Company (less AT weapons, more marksmen/snipers, mounted in Cougar MRAPs).
CJTF Rifle Co : Similar to the SOC Rifle Co with one SOC Rifle Plt replaced with a Mech Rifle Plt (normal AT weapons, less marksmen/snipers).
Rifle Plt (FT) : Fully cross-attached Rifle Platoon with the Rifle Squads broken down into Fire Teams.
Rifle Co (+Spt) : Fully cross-attached Rifle Company with it's "share" of higher headquarters attachments.
Normally the USMC creates its independent combat units at Battalion level, this is the sort of unit that was deployed as independent companies at fire bases in Vietnam.

In a few (OK, more then a few) cases I ran into the ten sub-unit limit in the WinSPMBT editor and did the best I could with compromises.

All you need to add is battalion mortars (81s), artillery, armor, scout and attack helos, and air support and you have combat organized USMC formations. I won't get into how much of each of these is "normal" here.
==============================
In the OOB you'll find some special characters used in some of the unit names.
<<"M41A1 Bulldog">> : The M41A1 Bulldog (and any other unit with its name in those symbols)was never used by the USMC, or was not used in the 1946-2020 time period (example: the LVT(A)1).
AC-47D*Puff : U.S. Air Force aircraft/helo that may occasionally support USMC operations (look for the *), these units are also usually set to availability code "3".
Most U.S. Navy aircraft are set with an availability code of "1". The Navy tends to support USMC operations more frequently then the USAF.
==============================
Many units and weapons have been renamed to their "correct" USMC, USN, and/or pre 1962 names.

Many availability dates have been altered to reflect the actual use by the USMC.
I did NOT include use by the USMC Reserve in the availability dates. First, the Reserve is only about 25% of the USMCs total strength. Second, with very few exceptions the small arms used by the Reserve at exactly the same as used by Active forces. Third, if you want to use Reserve aircraft, armor, etc. just alter the purchase date back one generation (i.e. in 1994 all Active USMC forces were using M1A1 tanks, the the Reserve still had M60s, so if you want Reserve armor buy it from the reset your scenario date to 1992).
==============================
Many. many people will no doubt have strokes over some of the alterations I made in "Weapons".

In many cases these were simple, name changes, or altering data on weapon #18 from M249 (2) SAW to M249 (3) SAW since Marine Rifle Squads carry three not two M249s.

Probably the alterations that will raise the most eyebrows are those I made to multiple weapon weapon slot data and infantry explosives (hand grenades). I increased the "Acc" ratings but decreased the "HE Kill" one.
So, in theory, if you're firing three M249s as opposed to one you'll hit more frequently but no harder. Hand Grenades are far more likely to hit, but don't blow entire squads away. Etc.
I assure you, these are not arbitrary changes, each has a good (from my point of view) reason for it. I have not found the game results playing with them unreasonable. I find they add the "proper Marine flavor" to battles!
==============================
I won't go into the "why" I made the changes I've made here.
I KNOW there are mistakes (and probably mistaken judgment) in this, I'll be happy to hear from anyone that spots one and points it out.
Comments like "You're wrong!" will be generally ignored.
Comments like "You're wrong because..." will be happily discussed.

[Suhiir]

Andy, Don...

For your purposes the revised unit/weapon names and availability dates are correct and accurate (as best I can find info on them).

In theory the units marked "<name>" could be removed from the OOB as these never were in the USMC TO&E (at least between 1946-2020). I realize you may not be able/want to remove such things as the Vulcan AA systems as the USMC has no AA gun system and the picklists need something to buy!

[DRG]

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

:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:


:D

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><NAME>"name<NAME><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

[DRG]

All formations 825 - 836 only exist in 2014

Looks like a WIP as they are hidden on page 6

Don

[Suhiir]

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

:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:


:D

Don

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

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

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.

[Suhiir]

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

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.

[DRG]

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


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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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*


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.
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"

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.


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.

[thatguy96]

Its interesting that the .30 cal system is in the notes like that in my opinion. The Army didn't start doing testing on the systems that would lead to the XM1 until well after the Korean War.

Do you have any more on the HMX-1 armament tests?

[Suhiir]

Its interesting that the .30 cal system is in the notes like that in my opinion. The Army didn't start doing testing on the systems that would lead to the XM1 until well after the Korean War.

Do you have any more on the HMX-1 armament tests?

Nope, just that one post-it on the subject.
I wasn't really looking into specific weapons as much as availability dates and capabilities - if a helo can carry rockets I didn't worry too much about the type of launch system or warheads :D

[Suhiir]

thatguy96,

As early as spring of 1949 the Corps had conceived of using helos firing rockets in an anti-tank role, and by 1951 HMX-1 had tested the mounting and firing of machine guns and 2.75 inch rockets from an HTL-4.

The instability and limited development of armed helicopters was not stopped, neither did it become a front burner project. It was to be a long and winding road from these early efforts to the Corps' first fully capable and deadly gunship.

Contrary to opinions which became popular among early gunship advocates, there were valid, practical reasons for this delay. Instability and limited lift capability were engineering problems more easily solved than other issues. The combination of budget limitations and force structure provided CMC with more difficult choices. The budget limited the number of squadrons and airframes. If you want two squadrons of gunships, give up two squadrons of attack aircraft. The Corps had to be prepared to respond to a variety of threats all over the world, and the inter-related issues of force structure and doctrine were based on this. It was not at all obvious that swapping attack aircraft for the gunships which could be developed at that time would be a smart action to take.

You might want to try to find a copy of "Whirlybirds, U.S. Marine Corps Helicopters in Korea" by LtCol Ronald J. Brown.

[thatguy96]

That's one of about a half dozen reports I want to get a hold of. Its available for download online from the USMC website. However, there seems to be an issue somewhere along the line. I try and download it and it gets to about 15-20% and then times out.

Could you go to the site (http://www.tecom.usmc.mil/HD/General/Publications.htm) and see if you have a different outcome? I want to know if its just me.

[redcoat2]

That's one of about a half dozen reports I want to get a hold of. Its available for download online from the USMC website. However, there seems to be an issue somewhere along the line. I try and download it and it gets to about 15-20% and then times out.

Could you go to the site (http://www.tecom.usmc.mil/HD/General/Publications.htm) and see if you have a different outcome? I want to know if its just me.

I had the same problem downloading the Whirlybirds pdf at first. Then I right clicked on the link and chose "Save target as." I was then able to save it to my desktop without any problem.

I'll look at the Whirlybirds book later. At the moment I don't believe that there were any rocket firing helos in service before or during the Korean War.

[thatguy96]

Hmm, I have the problem regardless of what method I choose. What browser are you using?

[redcoat2]

Here it is. :D

[Suhiir]

Given the information from this discussion it seems I read too much into the armed helo experiments before and during Korea.
(Hey I was looking a the entire OOB not just helos :cold: )
So I'm going to drop unit #630 (HRS Gunship) from the OOB. What availability dates do you for the H-34 Stinger? Best I have is 1960.

[thatguy96]

On 17 August 1964, HMX-1 is directed to begin work on what would become the TK-1 kit. The kit was developed it 2 weeks and a demo flight firing first occurred on 8 September 1964. The first kits arrive in Vietnam in November 1964. The TK-1 was officially canned in April 1965. There's probably some amount of overlap between this decision and their actual removal from the field, but the armed UH-34D was apparently not well received, it being decidedly underpowered for the role.

The fact that the TK-2 kits on the UH-1E appear in May 1965 mean that you could probably just exchange one for the other.

[Suhiir]

On 17 August 1964, HMX-1 is directed to begin work on what would become the TK-1 kit. The kit was developed it 2 weeks and a demo flight firing first occurred on 8 September 1964. The first kits arrive in Vietnam in November 1964. The TK-1 was officially canned in April 1965. There's probably some amount of overlap between this decision and their actual removal from the field, but the armed UH-34D was apparently not well received, it being decidedly underpowered for the role.

The fact that the TK-2 kits on the UH-1E appear in May 1965 mean that you could probably just exchange one for the other.

Thank you.

[Suhiir]

Just to make it clear.
I am actively soliciting comments on my OOB revision.

What's wrong?
What's good?
What's questionable?
Why the heck did you do X?

I've already pulled the early armed helos from it based on the comments here and hope to gather more such corrections for v1.1.

I really do want constructive criticism!

[redcoat2]

I have a small suggestion for Obat 13 in general: add a new LBM for Unit 4. The LBMs in the current and revised USMC OOBs are quite generic whereas the POA-CWS-H5 had a very distinctive appearance. It may deserve its own LBM. If that is possible?

A POA-CWS-H5 of the Marine 1st Tank Bn. during the Korean War (March 1951):

http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/3250/poacwsh5.jpg

The icon in the revised OOB is more accurate than the one in the current OOB. It shows a M4A3 (105) as it should. I don’t know whether the POA-CWS-H5 flame tube could be added to the turret or not?

[DRG]

It'll be all fixed up for the next patch with a new Icon

Don

[Suhiir]

I could suggest a "few" more LBM additions.
But I tried to just use what already existed as best I could.
Nice pic BTW readcoat2.

[Suhiir]

Just a heads up.
Planning to release an updated OOB (squashed a few bugs, made many sound tweaks, removed the pre-Vietnam armed helos, etc.) late this week.
So if anyone has found any bugs etc. let me know.

[rfisher]

Hello, I have nothing clever or insightful to say about your OOB as I only have a casual interest in these things, but I am certainly enjoying it!
It really shows that you actually know what the guys are using and aren't simply having to rely on educated guessing.

So, could you humour a noob level question?
What do the acronyms SOC and CTJF stand for?

And also, the standard tank company (present day and near future) has roughly 50% close support tanks in it. I assume this is because that is the usual load-out for the sort of deployments the USMC sees in 'real life'.
However, if they were to be faced with a more armoured foe, would that change their load out to a more anti-armour role and if so should that therefore be an option in the game too?

That is a genuine question and not an opinion, in that for all I know about these things ATGMs are the future of anti tank warfare and therefore the load out would be the same for the tanks but they would bring more AT-LAVs?

[Suhiir]

Hello, I have nothing clever or insightful to say about your OOB as I only have a casual interest in these things, but I am certainly enjoying it!
It really shows that you actually know what the guys are using and aren't simply having to rely on educated guessing.

So, could you humour a noob level question?
What do the acronyms SOC and CTJF stand for?

And also, the standard tank company (present day and near future) has roughly 50% close support tanks in it. I assume this is because that is the usual load-out for the sort of deployments the USMC sees in 'real life'.
However, if they were to be faced with a more armoured foe, would that change their load out to a more anti-armour role and if so should that therefore be an option in the game too?

That is a genuine question and not an opinion, in that for all I know about these things ATGMs are the future of anti tank warfare and therefore the load out would be the same for the tanks but they would bring more AT-LAVs?

SOC = Special Operations Capable
Marines assigned to these units (each Marine Division has one battalion) receive extra training in urban combat (and some special equipment) and are intended to support Special Operations by say US Army Green Berets, US Navy Seals, etc. They ARE NOT themselves trained or equipped to perform "super secret sneak in and grab/assassinate someone" jobs. They're intended to be the combat muscle that may be needed for such operations.

CJTF = Combined Joint Task Force
A normal (usually mech) USMC combat rifle company with one (or two) platoons exchanged for a SOC platoon. Such a unit would (and is) be used for something like "rescue US and allied civilians from a potentially hostile area". The normal combat units provide manpower and muscle and the SOC platoon(s) is better trained/equipped to deal terrorist/guerrilla forces that may attempt to disrupt the rescue operation.

You are correct, USMC tank units are generally loaded for infantry support not tank-on-tank battle.
Of course they could be given less HE and more AP ammo if needed. But keep in mind, the USMC has one tank battalion per division. The USMC is NOT intended, nor equipped, to fight in "armor heavy" environments. That's what we keep the US Army around for :smirk:
If needed (as during the First Gulf War) a division can have a second tank battalion attached, and the USMC "borrowed" an armored brigade (Tiger Brigade 2nd Armored Division) from the US Army.
But, USMC doctrine is that the main anti-tank assets are aircraft, helicopters, and ATGMs.
Tanks are for infantry support!!!

[rfisher]

Brilliant! That explains everything perfectly!

Cheers!

[Suhiir]

New version of my USMC OOB (#13).

[Marcello]

Here is the revised iraqi OOB I made.It has iraqi troops armed with M16s, Stryker and a lot of other changes which would be useful for a near future scenarios, as well as ones set during OIF, GW1, arab israeli wars etc.

[Imp]

Not had a look at yet but just a thought if setting up a scenerio with new formations, now they have had some Western training give them experience modifiers or turn off troop quality & set manually.

[Suhiir]

Thanks Marcello !
I'll have to include your revised Iraq OOB with my revised USMC one for the campaign I'm working on.
Do you have any objections to that?

[Marcello]

Thanks Marcello !
I'll have to include your revised Iraq OOB with my revised USMC one for the campaign I'm working on.
Do you have any objections to that?

No problem

[Jaakko]

I've been trying this out for a few days now and found it good so far. My eyes caught a couple of things I'd like to hear an explanation for. Firstly, the increased range of M16s. Secondly, the reduced range of .50 MGs. The first is not so much of a problem but the second gives an unwanted advantage to other OOBs, unless the other OOBs' .50/12,7mm MGs are reduced to 32 as well. The 32 hex range "feels" more realistic and less arbitrary than the standard 40, but I need to be convinced before I go through the trouble of changing it in all the other OOBs I'm playing with/against.

[Suhiir]

I've been trying this out for a few days now and found it good so far. My eyes caught a couple of things I'd like to hear an explanation for. Firstly, the increased range of M16s. Secondly, the reduced range of .50 MGs. The first is not so much of a problem but the second gives an unwanted advantage to other OOBs, unless the other OOBs' .50/12,7mm MGs are reduced to 32 as well. The 32 hex range "feels" more realistic and less arbitrary than the standard 40, but I need to be convinced before I go through the trouble of changing it in all the other OOBs I'm playing with/against.

M16's
1) Game standards are that all "assault rifles" (anything 7.61mm or less) have a range of 8 (400m). "Battle Rifles" (7.62mm+) usually have a range of 10 (500m).
2) The US Army (on which all USMC weapons data is based) only requires its people to qualify at a max of 300m (someone can correct me if I'm wrong) with the M16. The USMC requires them to do so at 500m (and if they can't they can actually be discharged for unsuitability). To the best of my knowledge no other military force in the world (other then of course sniper types) requires such standards, and ranges of basic marksmanship.
3) The official range of the M16A1 is 460m, the M16A2 500m, not sure about the M16A4 but probably 500m as well.
4) The USMC has a tradition of, reputation for, and in fact requires, marksmanship as a basic trait in all Marines. "Every Marine is a rifleman" is not something they pay mere lip service to. Cooks, clerks, and in fact regimental commanders are required - required - to quality once a year with an M16.

All that said I increased the range of the M16A1 to 9 (450m) and the M16A2/A4 to 10 (500m). It's not such an advantage as you may think, it may give them the first shot occasionally, but not that often. More to give a "USMC flavor" to the OOB and make it unique. It may also slightly increase their chance to hit at lesser ranges (my tests have been inconclusive on this) but that's fine - marksmanship 101 should be a USMC OOB trait.

.50 cal HMG's
Actually if you look you'll see that only weapons on pintel/anti-aircraft mounts have a range of 32, those on tripods with T&E's (traversing and elevation) mechanisms are still at 40.
The reasoning is simple - on a tripod with a T&E the official, and actual effective range of the .50 cal is 2000m. A free gun on a pintel mount has 80% of that range (i.e. 32). You'll see the same exact logic and range ratio in the MMGs as well.
You'll see the same thing in many - but not all - OOBs. One of the little "issues" (not a bug, nothing broken just...annoying) with WinSPMBT that may be somewhere near the bottom of Andy and Dons "to fix" list somewhere.
I'll admit this is something of a problem as the other OOBs tend to give all HMGs a range of 40...but...really, how many HMGs do you see in the game? More then you would in reality (just like many times games have more tanks then reality) but it's not usually that big a problem.

Glad you're finding my revised OOB interesting, hopefully it gives a "USMC flavor" to your battles, they're not just "US Army Lite" *grinz*

[Mobhack]

2) The US Army (on which all USMC weapons data is based) only requires its people to qualify at a max of 300m (someone can correct me if I'm wrong) with the M16. The USMC requires them to do so at 500m (and if they can't they can actually be discharged for unsuitability). To the best of my knowledge no other military force in the world (other then of course sniper types) requires such standards, and ranges of basic marksmanship.


British army rifle qualification was done out to 500 yards with the 7.62 SLR fitted with iron sights (none of this telescope malarkey) was standard. That was back in the mid 1970's when I did my "steam gunnery", I have no idea what they do with the new 5.56 rifle.

Ah the joys of range duty - including recovering some not too bent rounds, and popping those in the holes in the figure 80 target on a recruit's qualifying shoot. When he came up to inspect it, he was advised to squeeze the trigger harder since the rounds were not making it through the paper :)!. Usually got at least one who fell for that wind-up hook line and sinker...

Cheers
Andy

[Suhiir]

2) The US Army (on which all USMC weapons data is based) only requires its people to qualify at a max of 300m (someone can correct me if I'm wrong) with the M16. The USMC requires them to do so at 500m (and if they can't they can actually be discharged for unsuitability). To the best of my knowledge no other military force in the world (other then of course sniper types) requires such standards, and ranges of basic marksmanship.


British army rifle qualification was done out to 500 yards with the 7.62 SLR fitted with iron sights (none of this telescope malarkey) was standard. That was back in the mid 1970's when I did my "steam gunnery", I have no idea what they do with the new 5.56 rifle.

Ah the joys of range duty - including recovering some not too bent rounds, and popping those in the holes in the figure 80 target on a recruit's qualifying shoot. When he came up to inspect it, he was advised to squeeze the trigger harder since the rounds were not making it through the paper :)!. Usually got at least one who fell for that wind-up hook line and sinker...

Cheers
Andy

I stand corrected!
Seems "modern" armies have decided "volume of fire" via the assault rifles is preferred over "accuracy of fire". I know during WW II most armies expected accurate fire at 5, 6, even 800 yards.

Love the bit with the not to bent rounds in the paper! One I never heard before. :up:

[Suhiir]

Upgrade to v5.0

The attached OOB is the update to my USMC OOB revision to compatibility (as far as is possible) with WinSPMBT v5.0.

[Suhiir]

Scenario (part 1 of 7 from my work-in-progress mini-campaign) posted.

13th MEU Part 1 of 7 (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=45928)

[Joe1960]

Many thanks for this.

I was a USMC 0311 for 8 years.

I was always going "Huh?" when picking my USMC units for Long Campaigns because of the stock OOB.

Your earlier post about the structure of a "standard" USMC Infantry Battalion is dead nuts on.

Have 2 USMC Long Campaigns going - versus Iran in 2010 and one vs NK in 1985. I just started the NK one so I will restart and give your OOB a test run.

Thanks again.

[Suhiir]

Many thanks for this.

I was a USMC 0311 for 8 years.

I was always going "Huh?" when picking my USMC units for Long Campaigns because of the stock OOB.

Your earlier post about the structure of a "standard" USMC Infantry Battalion is dead nuts on.

Have 2 USMC Long Campaigns going - versus Iran in 2010 and one vs NK in 1985. I just started the NK one so I will restart and give your OOB a test run.

Thanks again.

Of course the problem with the USMC is NOTHING is "standard" :smirk:

But yes, the structure in my OOB revision is the typical one used in training and as the "base line" for creating whatever task-organized force is needed for a given mission.

Thanks! Nice to hear another Jarhead plays this game...I was getting worried that the "real meaning" of Marine might be true:

Muscles
Are
Required
Intelligence
Not
Essential

[Joe1960]

Muscles
Are
Required
Intelligence
Not
Essential

Hehe...that's a new one to me!

[Suhiir]

Just a FYI.

I will be updating my version of OOB #13 (USMC) to v5.5 over the next few days/weeks.
No estimate on completion date.

[cbreedon]

^^ looking forward to it... I have enjoyed the previous versions...

[Suhiir]

Updated to v5.5 :D



Included a variant of Scenario #77 Marines return to N. Korea 01/04.
This variant goes in scenario slot #326.

[scJazz]

:clap::clap::clap:

A quick story don't remember where I heard it and some details are no doubt not right.

WW I: Marine unit moves up to the trenches to relieve a French unit. While officers of the French and Marine units are conversing in the CP a Marine Sargent runs into the tent and announces "Sir! We can see the Germans from the line!" The French Officer replies that yes there is a relief area visible behind the German lines. However it is out of rifle range and Command won't authorize artillery because there are never enough enemy visible. The Marine officer gathers up his Sargent and the Frenchman and heads towards the line. Upon arrival he directs his riflemen to commence firing at the Germans visible in their relief area. An astonished Frenchman and German soldiers note the following. They are in range, at least if the riflemen are Marines!

Really love this OOB! I think it is the first time that I haven't shuffled units around insanely aside from adding a few Hummers to move some Snipers and Mortars around!

[Suhiir]

The USMC cut it's teeth playing sniper with a musket from the rigging. So marksmanship has always been a very high priority.

When the M16A1 was the standard rifle the US Army's official weapons manual gave it a maximum effective range of 460m. The USMC however continued to require all recruits to quality at ranges up to 500m.

[scJazz]

Unknown strangeness...

I noticed this but can not reproduce. I'm still totally fail on OOB design.

During the '65 period... could be 12/64 or 7/65 and might even include '67 and the 90s now that I think about it.

Sometimes the Tank Sections (what would be expected as 2 tanks also effecting Zippos/CS Tank sections) only represent a single tank. This is during Long Campaigns in the '65 time period. Sometimes, I start a campaign and sections are 2 tanks sometimes just 1.

I might have lost my mind and this is a useless post but somehow I think not.

[Suhiir]

Unknown strangeness...

I noticed this but can not reproduce. I'm still totally fail on OOB design.

During the '65 period... could be 12/64 or 7/65 and might even include '67 and the 90s now that I think about it.

Sometimes the Tank Sections (what would be expected as 2 tanks also effecting Zippos/CS Tank sections) only represent a single tank. This is during Long Campaigns in the '65 time period. Sometimes, I start a campaign and sections are 2 tanks sometimes just 1.

I might have lost my mind and this is a useless post but somehow I think not.

Error in the OOB, will be corrected in the next revision after WinSPMBT v 5.6 is released.

Thanks for pointing it out!

[Jaakko]

While playing the USMC during the battle of Hue 1968, I noticed the lack of M60 LMGs. What appeared to be in their place in most cases was the weapon number 24 "M16A1 AR" or 26 "3x M16A1 AR". Is this supposed to be so and what is the weapon number 24/26 supposed to represent?

I also noticed relatively low morale levels compared to later periods. I wonder what's the reasoning behind this.

[Suhiir]

While playing the USMC during the battle of Hue 1968, I noticed the lack of M60 LMGs. What appeared to be in their place in most cases was the weapon number 24 "M16A1 AR" or 26 "3x M16A1 AR". Is this supposed to be so and what is the weapon number 24/26 supposed to represent?

I also noticed relatively low morale levels compared to later periods. I wonder what's the reasoning behind this.

The USMC never regularly used the M60 as a LMG the way the US Army did.

With the loss of the BAR in the late 50's (tho many units did continue to use them till about 65ish) the official USMC policy was for each fire-team Automatic Rifleman (the person in a team "authorized" to fire in full auto mode) to be issued a bipod for the M14/M16 and carry some extra magazines.
With the advent of the M249 SAW they were issued them as an "LMG".

So yes, weapons "M16A1 AR" and "3x M16A1 AR" represent the use of M16's as "Automatic Rifles".

Not to say the M60 isn't used as an LMG regularly, but WinSPMBT code can't deal with an MMG unit becoming an LMG unit when in motion and back to an MMG when stationary.

As to morale ... Vietnam was a rather unpopular war and I believe (and can't personally verify) there is a hard-coded reduction to morale for US (and possibly other) OOBs during the late Vietnam period. This probably lasts till about the Regan Era (ca. 1981) when it is returned to "normal".

[DRG]

Yes it's hard coded and why some nations "elites" might have +10 modifiers and another nation might have +15..it's to make their "elites" equal.

Morale is 10 points higher in the 90's than in the 60's for USMC and there is a 5 point increase in experience during the same time period. Changes are made by decade in MBT, in WW2 it's by decade up to the start of WW2 then it's by year.

Don

[Suhiir]

Yes it's hard coded and why some nations "elites" might have +10 modifiers and another nation might have +15..it's to make their "elites" equal.

Morale is 10 points higher in the 90's than in the 60's for USMC and there is a 5 point increase in experience during the same time period. Changes are made by decade in MBT, in WW2 it's by decade up to the start of WW2 then it's by year.

Don

((Hurriedly scribbles herself some notes))

Thank you Don.

[Suhiir]

In response to a couple questions I've had I'll post here for everyone to "enjoy".

The basic Rifle Company TO&E used by the USMC was adopted on May 1st, 1945 (called the "G Series" TO&E).

Fireteam
1x Fireteam Leader w/rifle (Cpl)
1x Automatic Rifleman w/M249 or the new M27 (L/Cpl)
1x Grenadier w/rifle and M203 40mm GL (PFC)
1x Rifleman w/rifle and AT4 or two (Pvt)
Extra AT4's carried as needed

Offensive: 2x 2-man teams, one team advances as the other covers.
Defensive: 2x 2-man teams, 2x foxholes (1 man working/resting as the other keeps watch)

Rifle Squad
1 x Squad Leader w/rifle (Sgt)
3 x Fireteams
Normally has an MMG or SMAW attached from Weapon Platoon

Offensive: 2 teams (+SMAW) advance in assault, single/double envelopment as the 3rd (+MMGs) covers
Defensive: As Fireteam

Rifle Platoon
1x Platoon Commander w/carbine (1st or 2nd Lt)
1x Platoon Sergeant w/rifle (SSgt)
1x Platoon Guide w/rifle (Sgt) platoon supply/admin chief
1x US Navy Corpsman w/carbine (HM3) medic
Normally has 2-3 Scout/Sniper Teams from Battalion attached
Frequently one man from the platoon is detailed to act as radioman

Offensive: 2 squads advance in assault, single/double envelopment as the 3rd covers
Defensive: As Fireteam

Weapons Platoon
1x Platoon Commander w/carbine (1st or 2nd Lt)
1x Platoon Sergeant w/rifle (SSgt)
1x Platoon Guide w/rifle (Sgt) platoon supply/admin chief
1x Radioman w/rifle (Cpl)

3x MMG Sections (each with 2x MMG)
--1x Machine-gunner w/M240 (Sgt or Cpl)
--1x Assistant Gunner w/rifle (L/Cpl)
--1x Ammo Carrier w/rifle (PFC or Pvt)

3x AT Sections (each with 2x SMAW)
--1x SMAW Gunner w/SMAW & carbine (L/Cpl)
--1x Ammo Carrier w/rifle (PFC or Pvt)

3x Mortar Sections (each with 1x 60mm Mortar)
--1x Mortar-man w/M224 (Sgt or Cpl)
--1x Assistant Mortar-man w/rifle (L/Cpl)
--1x Ammo Carrier w/rifle (PFC or Pvt)
Frequently has a HMMWV attached as an ammo vehicle

Normally each Rifle Platoon has 2x MMG and 1x SMAW attached
The mortars remain under the control of the Weapons Platoon Commander

Rifle Company
1x Company Commander w/carbine (Capt)
1x Company XO w/carbine (1st Lt) often has 2nd job as Weapons Platoon Commander
1x 1st Sgt w/carbine (1st Sgt) admin chief (usually back in the rear)
1x Co Gunny w/carbine (GySgt) training/supply chief
1x Radio Section (2-3 radiomen)
1x US Navy Corpsman w/carbine (HM2) medic
3x Rifle Platoon
1x Weapons Platoon
Normally has an FO Team from Battalion 81mm Platoon attached
Normally has 2x Javelin Teams from Battalion attached
Normally has a Stinger MPAD Team from ACE attached

A Rifle Company has no organic vehicles but normally has 4 x HMMWV's (ammo, CO, 1st Sgt (supply), Utility(ambulance), plus others as needed/available/stolen)
Depending on mission a Rifle Company may have Engineer/AGL/HMG/AAV/Tank or other attachments

For all intents and purposes a USMC Rifle Company is an autonomous unit.
With the capability to call-in and direct mortars/artillery/helos/air support as required.
Most military services create companies for specific tasks (infantry/armor/air mobile). The USMC assigns tasks to companies. Everyone is trained, and practices infantry patrolling, mech assault, helo assault, and urban combat. At least once a year they spend a week or so doing rubber boats and amphibious assault. Every couple years they do a month or so of mountain warfare and cold weather/jungle/desert training; so about half of them at any given time know at least the basics, and senior people have done it often enough to be fairly proficient.

Other then when on patrol it's rare to see a fireteam/squad/platoon operating far from it's Company. But Companies often go days without anything but radio and resupply contact with their Battalion.

[Warhero]

Btw, is latest version of USMC oob already in SPMBT v.6.0? If so, no need to d/l version 5.5 in previous page?

[cbreedon]

I don't think this has been updated for 6.0. I have been using 5.5 with 6 and haven't seen any problems.

[Suhiir]

Working on the update to 6.0.
Real life has intruded into my free time.
As Andy and Don frequently say ... it'll be done when it's done.

[Suhiir]

Update to 6.0 finally complete.

It has always bothered me that there is no provision (and, yes, I do understand why there isn't) for counter-battery air strikes in the game. So I created some special O/M artillery units named "CB Airstrike" (the formation is named "Ctr Bty Air"). Tho it can be used as cheap artillery they have very limited ammo and a small blast footprint so it's rather pointless. However if you buy one and don't allocate any fire missions it will do a reasonable job of disrupting opposition O/M artillery.

As something of a joke (given the number of times I've seen this in movies) I've added the Harrier Jump Jet as a Lt Attack Helo variant. Given their lack of armor and speed they're not the most efficient unit, but you can use them if it amuses you.

[Warhero]

Thanks Suhiir:)! Must d/l it immediately...

[Suhiir]

OBAT013 (USMC) v 7.0 Suhiir

Updated to be pretty much compatable with v7.0.

Pretty much?

Changes to units to make them comply with game rules may cause issues (a handful of infantry units had anti-tank weaponry that was was not in weapon slot #3). And some units have such things as "106mm Flechete" and a newly added "50c GAU-21 HMG" that are not in the default OOB and could lead to problems.

I'd still say my OOB variant is probably still 99% compatable with the default OOB.

The big change you'll see is I FINALLY got reliable data on the Battalion Anti-Armor Company/Platoon for all dates from 1946 thru 2013. so pre 1975 infantry companies/platoons have had 75 and 106mm recoilless weapons added to their formations.
Now if I could get solid data on the 1946-1981 Battalion Heavy Machinegun Platoon I'd be overjoyed.
##########
Added - Predecessors to the SEALs; Scout/Raiders 1946-1948 and UDT/Raisers 1049-1062.

Added - Vertical Assault "companies" 1948-1958 (based on helo assault testing done durning that period).

Added - Amphibious Rifle Company/Platoon; a 1946-1955 formation utilizing the smaller LVT3 class amphibians.

Added - Rifle Company/Platoon (-/-); i.e. no company or battalion weapons, pure infantry squads.

Changed - Rifle Company/Platoon (-); i.e. no battalion weapons, a rifle company with ONLY it's inherent Weapons Platoon (60mm mortars, MMGs, light anti-armor) weapons.

Changed - Rifle Company/Platoon; inherent Weapons Platoon and typical Battalion additions (no 81mm mortars, as those are usually held in direct support for the entire battalion).

Changed - Rifle Company/Platoon (+); exactly the same as the Rifle Company/Platoon with the machinegun section broken down into 2x teams and platoon marksmen added in 2001-2020.

Changed - Rifle Company (+Supt); exactly the same as the Rifle Company (there are no Platoons (+Supt) due to the 10 formation limit) with ALL the cats and dogs from Battalion/Regiment. Typically used only when a company was operating totally independently (i.e. a Vietnam-era fire base).

Changed - Weapon loads on some aircraft to conform to typical load-outs based on mission (Fighter-Bomber/anti-vehicle) or COIN/anti-infantry).

Modified - The M1917 30cal HMG is now a seperate unit type so 1946-1961 formations will have the proper mix of M1917s and M2HBs.

Modified - PBR (Patrol Boat River) variants to conform to the most typical weapon sets (in reality each boat was pretty much customized to fit the crews feelings of what worked best).

Thanks to the v7.0 changes we've gotten rid of almost all the US Air Force aircraft/helos in the OOB.
Thus most "Level Bombers" are gone from the OOB, with the exception of some US Navy aircraft and A-6 Intruders that actually were used for level bombing missions (you still have the capability till 1985, after that buy US Air Force aircraft from the US Army OOB).

Removed - (i.e. marked with <Unit Name>) the M48 Roller variants; due to some clairification as to their real availibility (Thanks Basileus Ioannis!).

Removed - "Fire Team Foxholes", "Squad Entrenchemnts", and "MMG Pits"; frankly you're better off just using the entrench option for infantry units for defensive battles.

[Suhiir]

The bulletin board absolutely refused to let me edit the above post so here is a fix to the worst of the typos.

##########

Added - Predecessors to the SEALs; Scout/Raiders 1946-1948 and UDT/Raiders 1949-1962.

Removed - the M48 Roller variants; due to some clarification as to their real availability (Thanks Basileus Ioannis!).

[cbreedon]

Suhir

I have a question on this. Are the 'recon' units in the oob representing Force Recon/MARSOC or the battalion recon elements?

[Suhiir]

Suhir

I have a question on this. Are the 'recon' units in the oob representing Force Recon/MARSOC or the battalion recon elements?

Force Recon/MARSOC

"Battalion recon elements" are nothing but normal Fire Teams/Squads/Platoons temporarily detached from their parent unit and given a recon/scouting mission. These are represented by the "Scout Teams".

[cbreedon]

Thanks for the info

I thought that the 4 recon battalions were a bit more 'trained up'. They have normal organization as the standard rifle platoons etc but were a little bit better. At least that is what a friend of mine who was in the 3rd recon battalion tells me :-)

[Suhiir]

Thanks for the info

I thought that the 4 recon battalions were a bit more 'trained up'. They have normal organization as the standard rifle platoons etc but were a little bit better. At least that is what a friend of mine who was in the 3rd recon battalion tells me :-)

They are, but for game purposes they're lumped in with Recon or Scouts. If you buy a Recon unit they have great vision and some special weaponry; buy a Scout unit they just about as effective (game wise) and a LOT less expensive.

Adding Division Recon to the game would just confuse non-jarheads.
Besides, those Division Recon formations get formed and disbanded, exist in one division and not in another, and vary between platoon/company/battalion size, more often then most grunts change their socks.

[cbreedon]

So if I wanted to mod your mod and add them.. I would just use a regular rifle platoon and add say, 5 to exp and morale???

[Suhiir]

So if I wanted to mod your mod and add them.. I would just use a regular rifle platoon and add say, 5 to exp and morale???

It depends, if you plan to use them in the MARSOC role I'd modify Recon units with vision=15 (except snipers and FOs).
If you're using them as just "better" scouts then look at the Rifle and Recon units available for the date in question and decide if you should perhaps alter a weapon or two (it's unlikely Division Recon would have Predator ATGMs vice AT-4s or that Div Recon would carry M249's).

1986-2020:
SEAL +15/+15
Recon +8/+8
Scout +3/+3

So yeah +5/+5 sounds about right.

But, a +5/+5 modification to a unit/formation isn't really all that significant in game terms. About 1 time in 10 or 20 a unit will be pushed into the next better experience or morale category (i.e. green->trained->vet->elite).

[Suhiir]

With the release of the WinSPMBTv8 (2014) patch the default USMC OOB is my OOB variant set to WinSPMBT standards.

I ought to know, I built the new OOB and picklists.
I'd like to give Don and Andy a BIG THANK YOU allowing me to do so.

That said there are a few "minor but significant" areas where I personally disagree with WinSPMBT standards, thus the next v8 update to my OOB variant is strictly in VIOLATION of those standards.

The areas of disagreement are almost entirely with regard to weapons data:

1) Rifle accuracy is doubled from 1 to 2 (this does not make them twice as accurate, I don't know the exact math involved but I suspect it's on the order of 10%).
2) The default range of assault rifles is 8, I increase the M16A4 to 9.
3) Multiple independently operated automatic weapons in Rifle Squads (i.e. M1918A2 BAR (3)) are currently given no increase in accuracy but 50% higher HE Kill. I feel the accuracy per weapon used should be increased but the damage remain unchanged. Thus they will hit more frequently but no harder.
4) The default range of MMGs is 24, I increase this to 27. I also increase the accuracy of MGs in general. Any infantryman will tell you that next to artillery MGs are the terror of the battlefield, in the default game they just plain aren't.
5) .50cal AAMGs have the same default range as tripod mounted HMGs, whereas medium AAMGs have a reduced range to MMGs. Thus heavy AAMGs are reduced from 40 to 32.
6) Much like MGs Gatling type weapons are not awe inspiring thus their accuracy is increased. (I'd love to do away with separate HE and AP/Sabot ammo for them but game mechanics make this impossible).
7) The cost calculator adds about 45 points to any unit with TI vision, regardless of unit type. This is fine for a 500-point MBT, but I feel a bit excessive for a 31-point infantry squad. Thus some unit costs are manually adjusted.
8) UAVs are very expensive units due to size, EW rating, and vision. The costs of these units is manually adjusted.
9+) Other similar tweaks.

All that said I'd like to get and idea how much interest there is in my continuing to post my USMC OOB variant. As stated, the v8 upgrade IS my OOB set to WinSPMBT standards.

[cbreedon]

I am definitely interested. I have been overwriting the standard oob with yours since you started. If you don't publish your variant anymore I will probably manually incorporate most the list into mine anyways. I have appreciated your work and hope to see it continue.

[cbreedon]

Looking at the OOB what is the difference between weapon 25 and 9? They both say M16A4 ACOG.

[Suhiir]

Weapon #09 = Primary Infantry Weapon (used in weapon slot #1)
Weapon #25 = Secondary Infantry Weapon (used in weapon slots 2-4)

Primary Weapons get a modifier to hit based on the number of men in the unit, Secondary do not. Most OOBs use a Primary Weapon as an alternate weapon for things like ATGM teams, but because they are in weapon slot #2 (usually) they have a rather poor base accuracy (1) so they're relatively ineffective. By creating a Secondary Weapon for use in this slot the teams can be semi-useful as infantry.

[shahadi]

When loading out units for a scenario, primary weapons occupy the first weapons slot from the Mobhack Unit tab, and verification of weapon status maybe obtained in the Weapons Class from the Weapons tab. Right?

Now, to load out a unit from the D-key in the Editor, it would be wise to check the Mobhack for primary/secondary weapon status, correct?

This is really good stuff Suhiir, thanks.

[scorpio_rocks]

the problem is this now needs to be done for every other OOB to keep things even/fair when fighting USMC...

[Suhiir]

When loading out units for a scenario, primary weapons occupy the first weapons slot from the Mobhack Unit tab, and verification of weapon status maybe obtained in the Weapons Class from the Weapons tab. Right?

Correct, "Primary Weapons" are Weapon Class 1.

Now, to load out a unit from the D-key in the Editor, it would be wise to check the Mobhack for primary/secondary weapon status, correct?

It would be prudent.

[Suhiir]

the problem is this now needs to be done for every other OOB to keep things even/fair when fighting USMC...

The USMC as a whole tends to emphasize marksmanship more then any national army (of course commando/special forces of any nation are NOT the same as their national army). And unlike most national armies everyone from infantry to cooks to radar technicians must re-qualify every year and failure to do so may well lead to a discharge.

So ... the USMC having a slight advantage over other OOB's doesn't seem unreasonable IMHO.

[shahadi]

So ... the USMC having a slight advantage over other OOB's doesn't seem unreasonable IMHO.

The ROK Marines have earned "warrior class" status. The Battle of of Tra Binh Dong in '67 attest to their having earned admiration from the USMC. Here is what Jones shared: "In establishing the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program (MCMAP), Gen James L. Jones frequently recounted his observations of Korean Marines during the Vietnam War. The fact that Republic of Korea (ROK) servicemen were skilled in the Korean martial art tae kwon do was widely known, evoking respect among allies and instilling fear in the enemy. The former Commandant recalled that his own Marines envied this skill, believing the Korean Marines were the most feared adversary on the battlefield and that North Vietnamese soldiers and Viet Cong irregulars would bypass Korean units whenever possible."(citation: LtCol James F. Durand Marine Corps Gazette
July 2005) (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?51595-Good-story-on-ROK-Marines-and-USMC&)

IMHO, and I do not differ with Suhiir, not substantially anyway, on markmanship, because truly, the warrior within does not depend on the weapon, but on his mind as echoed in the MCMAP credo: "One Mind, Any Weapon."

the problem is this now needs to be done for every other OOB to keep things even/fair when fighting USMC..

Let me say this, the goal as I understand of the oob's are not to make the game "even" or "fair," or ought not to be IMHOP; further, if we are striving to keep simulation in the game, then we must concede what happens in the real world, all armies are not equal either in equipment or personnel.

Lastly, I'd vote the ROKs right up there with the USMC, they stand shoulder to shoulder.

[DRG]

Let me say this, the goal as I understand of the oob's are not to make the game "even" or "fair," or ought not to be IMHOP; further, if we are striving to keep simulation in the game, then we must concede what happens in the real world, all armies are not equal either in equipment or personnel. .


Which is why there are variations in the morale and experience ratings of each nation in the game and that's as far as it's going to go

Don

[Suhiir]

I've worked with ROK Marines a few times and VERY thoroughly believe their unofficial motto "ROK Hard" is well deserved.
I'd say in attitude and training they're easily on par with the USMC, if not a step or two ahead.

While it would certainly be possible to go thru the OOBs and modify and any all such units (SAS, Green Berets, Spetsnaz, the list goes on...) to give them similar slight advantages I'll mention researching and rebuilding the USMC OOB was around 4-800 man-hours of work. Now multiply that by 91 OOB's (seeing as 1, the USMC is already tweaked) and the simple answer is ... it ain't gonna happen.

Now, if it bothers you enough to do ALL the research yourself and create a custom OOB, based on verifiable research NOT "best guess" go for it !

[shahadi]

Now, if it bothers you enough to do ALL the research yourself and create a custom OOB, based on verifiable research NOT "best guess" go for it !

Nah, that's not my point to get the oobs redone. However, if I choose to do a scen using SEAL, USMC, ROKS, for example, then yeah, I would tweak the units I needed too, while leaving the oob untouched. So, I might build a custom formation in Mobhack, then over in Scenhack change somethings, then in the game Editor use the D key to change the load outs, etc.

I mean, I try to let the player know when I've tweaked units (for game sim play experience based on solid research.) I don't open my mouth without references, else someone put a foot in it.

Abraham

[Suhiir]

That's what the editor is for!
I use it all the time when making scenarios.

[cbreedon]

Hi

Do you have the ANGLICO teams represented in the game? Or are you just using the FO units?

[Suhiir]

Hi

Do you have the ANGLICO teams represented in the game? Or are you just using the FO units?
There's not a lot of reason (in game) to represent them separately as an FO-is-an-FO-is-an-FO.
"Recon" teams are parachute units and always include and FO.

[cbreedon]

I hadn't noticed that there were FO units in the recon units.

I'll use them

[MarkSheppard]

The USMC as a whole tends to emphasize marksmanship more then any national army

Here's a US Army related report on the M16A2 circa 1982-83 from a contractor working with Fort Benning:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a168577.pdf

[MarkSheppard]

Which is why there are variations in the morale and experience ratings of each nation in the game and that's as far as it's going to go

I don't know if Base experience and morale is randomized each time you load up a battle, but from a simple look, in January 1989, the USMC has +4 Experience and +3 Morale over the US Army, which is about right for the more intensely focused Marine training which has more emphasis on infantry combat arms, as opposed to the US Army's Big Green Machine Of Doom [TM].

[Suhiir]

That experience/morale base also varies from time-to-time.
Check the US Army and USMC during the 1970's you'll see it's lower then it is in say the 1990's.

As to the M-16, it always amused me that the official US Army manuals declared the maximum effective range of the M-16A1 was 460m yet every Marine was required to quality at that range. From what I saw of US Army ranges they never fired more then 300m and the requirements to qualify were lower. But I suppose that makes sense since Army doctrine was volume of fire vice the Marine one of quality.

[Suhiir]

Due to a computer melt-down during the v10 update to WinSPMBT several USMC OOB changes didn't get submitted.

Notably the addition of MARSOC/Raiders and the removal of the vision 40 fire teams and squads that were place-holders for MARSOC until I got some verifiable information about them and load-out changes to the F-35 as I also have better info on them now. And a few other tweaks (such as taking advantage of some new icons and LBMs) that should be transparent and not effect compatibility with the official OOB.

But, as always this is an UNOFFICIAL OOB modification.

[cbreedon]

I was actually looking for the MARSOC units last night. I knew I had seen them somewhere. Thanks