|  | 
| 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    
    
 |  | 
 
    
        | Notices |  
        | 
	Do you own this game?  Write a review  and let others know how you like it.
 |  
 
 
	
		|  |  
	
	
		
	
	
	| 
			
			 
			
				November 29th, 2013, 01:20 AM
			
			
			
		 |  
	| 
		
			|  | 
 General |  | 
					Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Uk 
						Posts: 3,308
					 Thanks: 98 
		
			
				Thanked 602 Times in 476 Posts
			
		
	      |  |  
    
	| 
				 Canadian OOB 
 There seem some issues with a few DW platoons, namely by my thinking DW splits up the squad with the mortar so it should not be available for selection.
 This is only an issue in a few formations, namely Motor & Ski the rest seem fine so could use as template possibly.
 Example formation 321 Mech Inf Plat DW seems correct
 
 DW Motor Infantry Formations 332, 335 & 336 Motor should not include squad unit 103
 
 DW Ski & BV formations are also wrong 314, 317, 337 & 338
 They use the heavy ski troops, should be regular ski troops as at present all squads carry mortars.
 ---------------------------------------
 Also formation 30 Inf Co-Det Wpns could possibly be deleted - it is formation 28 in a different order without the sniper & not a DW formation (2012 date)
 
 ---------------------------------------
 Just for reference if people have not tried them in game terms these are very capable infantry formations. I must admit to buying as a regular Infantry Company & swapping one platoon for the DW platoon.
 
 Vs dug in units or ATGMS this is a very efficient fighting unit which can produce its own smoke screen.
 10 Squads
 3 AT teams
 Sniper
 LMG team (or another mmg if you wish)
 MMG
 2 Light mortar units
 
				__________________John
 |  
	
		
	
	
	| 
			
			 
			
				November 29th, 2013, 06:03 AM
			
			
			
		 |  
	| 
		
			|  | 
 General |  | 
					Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Uk 
						Posts: 3,308
					 Thanks: 98 
		
			
				Thanked 602 Times in 476 Posts
			
		
	      |  |  
    
	| 
				 Re: Canadian OOB 
 Also Canada has no MANPADS in service I think they at least used the British Starstreak though no idea if they had anything before that. 
				__________________John
 |  
	
		
	
	
	| 
			
			 
			
				November 29th, 2013, 10:01 AM
			
			
			
		 |  
	| 
		
			|  | 
 Shrapnel Fanatic |  | 
					Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: GWN 
						Posts: 12,712
					 Thanks: 4,159 
		
			
				Thanked 5,950 Times in 2,926 Posts
			
		
	      |  |  
    
	| 
				 Re: Canadian OOB 
 AFAIK, ADAT's is the one and only air defense system when the Javelins were taken OOS a few years ago but if anyone has any solid evidence to the contrary let me know
 Ah interesting....... according to wiki ( so of course there will be further investigation....... "As of late 2012, the ADATS has been withdrawn from Canadian service with no planned replacement announced."
 
 which I guess leaves us throwing rocks...... OTOH we haven't needed to shoot down enemy aircraft and helos because the ones we've been dealing with don't have any and I'm finding "talk" ( nothing "official" yet ) that the TOW-2 will be cut...... apparently ( this is sarcasm..) the Liberal Party of Canada has taken over the DND
 
 However, I will resist making changes this year as the dust has not entirely settled on the matter
 
                 Last edited by DRG; November 29th, 2013 at 10:37 AM..
 |  
	
		
	
	
	| 
			
			 
			
				December 1st, 2013, 04:19 AM
			
			
			
		 |  
	| 
		
			|  | 
 Lieutenant General |  | 
					Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Kingsland, GA. 
						Posts: 2,880
					 Thanks: 814 
		
			
				Thanked 1,377 Times in 1,031 Posts
			
		
	      |  |  
    
	| 
				 Re: Canadian OOB 
 Somehow I feel setup here   !?! Well unlike "Southpark" I would never bomb Canada, however it makes you wonder why  your "bean counters" would after spending over 100 million U.S. dollars to aquire the TOW/TOW2 systems and missiles think that by taking them out of service and saving 20 million dollars in doing so is a savings. Must be that "new math" I keep hearing about!?! Here we call it the F-35 when we have and are updating the F-22 with the same electronics. But I digress...But fear not ADATS/TOW/JAVELIN S-15 are still good at least through sometime in 2014 for now. In order of reports...
http://canadiandefence.com/canadian-...ce-capability/ http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/...outside-bases/
 
From the next ref. below. Item 3 dated 2/5/2013. 
"What They Do 
Air Defence Artillery Soldiers are members of Air Defence Artillery units of the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery. The Air Defence Artillery is part of the Combat Arms, but its primary function is to prevent enemy aircraft from interfering with our operations, especially by defending airfields. Air Defence Artillery Soldiers — normally called “Air Defence Gunners” — have the following primary duties:
 
Operate and maintain air defence weapons systems, including the ADATS, the Javelin S-15 and the Oerlikon twin 35-mm gun;" 
http://www.index.forces.gc.ca/Srch.a...rmat=&CurPag=1 
Next ref. modified on 8/30/2013...
http://www.army-armee.forces.gc.ca/e...nt/index.page? 
Next ref. current I'll call it "For whom the bell tolls..." Program 1.3 is what you want here...
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-rep...page?#sec2_1_3 
Some say this might resurrect the CCV and MMEV Program (Look for the LAV-TOW near bottom for MMEV info.) Ref. below on those is a click away...
http://casr.ca/bg-vehicles.htm 
All are from Canada and mostly from CF MOD/ARMY sites.
 
JAVELIN S-15 isn't that STARSTREAK? Why say your training your troops in a system if you don't have it? Now that would be a waste of money!?! The "new math"   , glad I got my degree when I did!?!
 
Regards, 
Pat
			
			
			
			
				  |  
	
		
			| The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FASTBOAT TOUGH For This Useful Post: |  |  |  
	
		
	
	
	| 
			
			 
			
				December 1st, 2013, 05:20 AM
			
			
			
		 |  
	| 
		
			|  | 
 General |  | 
					Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Uk 
						Posts: 3,308
					 Thanks: 98 
		
			
				Thanked 602 Times in 476 Posts
			
		
	      |  |  
    
	| 
				 Re: Canadian OOB 
 As always Pat thanks for taking the time, your quiet toiling away is much appreciated. 
				__________________John
 |  
	
		
			| The Following User Says Thank You to Imp For This Useful Post: |  |  |  
	
		
	
	
	| 
			
			 
			
				December 1st, 2013, 10:06 AM
			
			
			
		 |  
	| 
		
			|  | 
 Shrapnel Fanatic |  | 
					Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: GWN 
						Posts: 12,712
					 Thanks: 4,159 
		
			
				Thanked 5,950 Times in 2,926 Posts
			
		
	      |  |  
    
	| 
				 Re: Canadian OOB 
 No I didn't " set you up"   but thanks for digging into it
 
Interesting little tidbit here
C1/C3 Howitzer and 60 mm Mortar Ammunition 28 C1 Howitzers (105mm), 4 C3 Howitzers (105mm) and the Canadian Army's inventory of 60mm mortar ammunition will be divested. As a result of the recent acquisition of the M777 Howitzer, these weapons are now redundant and no longer required.
 that changes a few things
 
and this
TOW Weapon Systems Three fleets within the wider in-service support to Close Support Weapons component have been identified for divestment:33 Tube-launched Optically tracked Wire guided missile (TOW) Under Armour turrets;40 TOW 2 systems; and2,200 TOW missiles.
Divesting these systems will result in a savings in National Procurement maintenance funding. This weapon system has been replaced by more capable systems
  What I want to know is ( and this doesn't mean you have to look for it as the question is more rhetorical in nature....) is WHICH "more capable systems" have they found to replace the TOW2 !!
   
 What's confusing ( and it may be made that deliberately ) is they identify 40 Tow 2 systems but in point three they just say TOW missiles so those * could be" the older TOWs that were left over after upgrading to the newer TOW2
 
I've put this post on the to do list to dig into as there is a lot here to sort through but keep in mind this is what they say they will do but politics can change that which is why I would really rather wait  until the dust settles before rearranging units in the OOB
			
			
			
			
				  |  
	
		
	
	
	| 
			
			 
			
				December 1st, 2013, 11:01 AM
			
			
			
		 |  
	| 
		
			|  | 
 Shrapnel Fanatic |  | 
					Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: GWN 
						Posts: 12,712
					 Thanks: 4,159 
		
			
				Thanked 5,950 Times in 2,926 Posts
			
		
	      |  |  
    
	| 
				 Re: Canadian OOB 
 
	Quote: 
	
		| 
					Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH  Somehow I feel setup here   !?! Well unlike "Southpark" I would never bomb Canada, however it makes you wonder why your "bean counters" would after spending over 100 million U.S. dollars to aquire the TOW/TOW2 systems and missiles think that by taking them out of service and saving 20 million dollars in doing so is a savings. Must be that "new math" I keep hearing about!?! Here we call it the F-35 when we have and are updating the F-22 with the same electronics. But I digress...But fear not ADATS/TOW/JAVELIN S-15 are still good at least through sometime in 2014 for now. In order of reports... |  
 another source claims the S-15 is no longer in service |  
	
		
	
	
	| 
			
			 
			
				December 2nd, 2013, 01:30 AM
			
			
			
		 |  
	| 
		
			|  | 
 Lieutenant General |  | 
					Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Kingsland, GA. 
						Posts: 2,880
					 Thanks: 814 
		
			
				Thanked 1,377 Times in 1,031 Posts
			
		
	      |  |  
    
	| 
				 Re: Canadian OOB 
 I believe we might be dealing with a couple of possibilities using the 3rd & 4th CAF refs (In order.) from my last post... 
The 3rd ref said training included all three systems discussed to include the JAVELIN S-15. The 4th ref again modified (Lower right.) in 8/2013 seven months later doesn't show the JAVELIN S-15. Conclusion:  The JAVELIN S-15 went out of service between 1/2013 and 8/2013.
 
2. Just using the CAF training ref #3. Conclusion:  There is no clear evidence the CAF sold them off. That being said, if stored and due to the CAF's limited AA options it is not unlikely they would still be training on the system and would have the capability of maintaining operator proficiency. 
STRIX  and the discussions and refs we had lead to the same conclusion and we also decided to keep them operational which I still believe was the right decision then and now as we had more to work with.
 
3. I need to recheck Johns Thread from a few months back. Once I realized they weren't discussing the the ATGW (I do what I can to entertain you all whether it's intended or not.  ) I came across some info. I'll recheck.
 
Regards, 
Pat
			
			
			
			
				  |  
	
		
	
	
	
	
	
	
	| 
	|  Posting Rules |  
	| 
		
		You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts 
 HTML code is On 
 |  |  |  |  |