IDF OOB project. [Archive] - .com.unity Forums

gingertanker

August 9th, 2013, 08:12 AM

Hotchkiss tanks:
*Israel OOB 04 Unit 003 Hotchkiss H35: This should be the H39(currently unit 435 in the OOB).

*Israel OOB 04 Unit 010 Hotchkiss H35i: I personally have never heard of a 6pdr hothkiss in Israeli service. The shoehorning of such a weapon into the H39 seems unlikely to me.
Further more, the 37mm guns that the tanks came with were actually removed and put on armored cars- as the tanks were mechanically unreliable. The constant engine and transmission issues had this tanks listed
as "Unfit" from December 1948 onward. This means that in reality, H39 tanks were available only from 5/1948 when they
arrived to 1/1949 when they were withdrawn from operational service altogether, and their guns were removed and put in the turrets of armored cars.

Source: http://www.yadlashiryon.com/show_item.asp?levelId=64904&itemId=401&itemType=0 (the Israeli Armored Corps Museum)

Speaking of small french tanks, the Renault R-35, a cousin to the Hotchkiss, is missing altogether...At least one of 3 tanks captured from the Syrians was repaired in 1948 and used along side the Hotchkiss and Cromwell tanks. If added I think it should be available until 1949, but this
a guess based on the Sherman tanks arriving in greater quantities around that time. The R-35 can be added instead of unit 011, which as mentioned before should be removed.

Source: http://www.himush.co.il/?section=203 (IDF Ordnance Corps Veterans)

DRG

August 9th, 2013, 08:45 AM

FYI I know it's the Isreali OOB were are dealing with so I don't need "Israel OOB 04 Unit 003"...... Just "Unit 003" and if the tank is already in as a light tank it does not need to be in again as another class unless it's needed to bridge a gap in the unit list which in this case it does not so in this case unit 3 would just be removed or renationalized for now and removed later.

ALSO......

The R-35 can be added instead of unit 011, which as mentioned before should be removed.

Show me where you said remove unit 11. You had mentioned Unit 010 but never actually said "remove it" though it was implied

So YES... changing Unit 010 Hotchkiss H35i for a Renault R-35 would work but you need to check and correct the errors in your reports before posting otherwise we will have "problems" as we progress though this

Don

gingertanker

August 9th, 2013, 11:38 AM

FYI I know it's the Isreali OOB were are dealing with so I don't need "Israel OOB 04 Unit 003"...... Just "Unit 003"

Sure no problem. I did that because I was concerned if somone copied it to a list of things he wants to do, it would be easier to have the full info in case its a mixed nation to-do list...

if the tank is already in as a light tank it does not need to be in again as another class unless it's needed to bridge a gap in the unit list which in this case it does not so in this case unit 3 would just be removed or renationalized for now and removed later.

The reason I asked for that is that Israel has no formation which allows choosing the H39 as a single tank. The formation "Tank" works only with MBT units...Considering the small amounts of both H39(less than 10 available at any time) and R-35(No more than 3 available at anytime) I think it would make sense to allow them to be picked in a formation that includes only one tank.

Show me where you said remove unit 11. You had mentioned Unit 010 but never actually said "remove it" though it was implied

So YES... changing Unit 010 Hotchkiss H35i for a Renault R-35 would work but you need to check and correct the errors in your reports before posting otherwise we will have "problems" as we progress though this

Good point I will try to do better checking of my posts. I did actually go over it but i somehow missed that I put in 11 instead of 10.

Other than that, is this a worthwhile endeavor or am I wasting your time?

gingertanker

August 9th, 2013, 03:12 PM

For now, moving along...Even though I said I will run by unit numbers, I really have to jump forward to keep all units of a certain model in a single post( because obsolete tanks for instance are very far down the oob)

Sherman Tanks(gun tanks only for now)

Unit 006 Sherman M1: Should not be available later than 1970. I know for a fact no training for these tanks was made past this year, hence I am convinced they were retired from regular units.

Unit 008 Sherman M50 As with the M1, I know for a fact no training was done for these from 1970 at least. So should not be available from 1970.

Unit 009 Sherman M51: As for the other 2 Sherman variants, should not be available past 1970.

Unit 625 M1 Sherman: All the Sherman units in 1973 were using the M50 and M51. On the other hand I know that some reserve units like the 27th brigade had them in 1956. I suggest a new availability range of 1/1956-1/1972. This is conservative as I cant seem to find anything to prove what I really think(1954 to 1969)

Unit 626 Sherman M50 : Following the remark on unit 008, this should be avilable from 1/1970 at the least. Probably earlier(1/1969?)

Unit 627 Sherman M51 Following on from the remark on unit 009, this should be avilable from 1/1970.

For both units 626 and 627 I would put an end date of 12/1982. I cant source this but the tanks were not used in Lebanon AFAIK by the IDF. They were sold to Chile and some given to SLA as we all know.

DRG

August 9th, 2013, 08:46 PM

Other than that, is this a worthwhile endeavor or am I wasting your time?

It's all going on "the list" but I won't really be starting work on it until at least October - November

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

August 10th, 2013, 03:59 AM

Gingertanker I hope this will help you get off to a good start.
Ref.1 one of the Sh'ot-Kai is worth the time just for the pictorial history shown to include other tanks you might wish to research from this site.

Sh'ot-Kal (British Centurion Mk3 and Mk5.)... These tanks would not have the IR equipment on them at least not from Britain. They would not be put on the British CENTURION until the Mk9 became available. However in ref 1 Israel had full access to the CHIEFTAIN technology so if they didn't have an IR FCS prior to that, they definitely had access to one of the most advanced FCS at that time and I can see where some Sh'ot-Kai units would've been equipped with it. They were in active service until the late 80's then relegated to reserve units until retired in 2002. Ref. 1 is a full on IDF tanker site which I've used in the past most recently in the MERKAVA 4/4b troop carrying issue as the site actually had pictures of combat troops in that situation inside and outside of the tanks which I posted.
http://www.idf-armor.blogspot.com/2009/01/cast-lead-gaza-operation-2009.html
http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=13
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/shot-kal.htm

MAGACH 1-5 (USA M48A1, M482C and M48A5.) then MAGACH 6-7C (USA M60, M60A1 and M60A3.)... Here is where I can see issues beyond dates...six different tanks for one named one. I already knew the M48 made up I thought MAG 1/2 until the M60 series became available for MAG 3 on, well my thinking was wrong there. The MAGACH 6 (M60 version only.) was available for combat service prior to the YOM KIPPUR War and did fight in it. I have an almost even split not on whether the MAGACH 7 is still in service, because it is, but whether it is still currently a front line tank or in active reserve status. The MAGACH 7C was in front line service at least through the end of 2003. One tank not mentioned from the TI thread is the SABRA which is a much improved offshoot version of the MAGACH, that tank complicants this issue further. The variant section of ref 1 will be very important to assess capabilities as they might now exist in the game. I would expect the MAGACH 7C to see service/or be available to this games end due to the currently imposed reduced production of the MERKAVA 4b.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/israeli_israel_main_batlle_tank_uk/magach_6_7_m60_main_battle_tank_technical_data_she et_specifications_information_description_pictures .html
http://www.patton-mania.com/IDF_Pattons/idf_pattons.html
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/magach_7.htm
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3186.html

The above IDF armor site might be useful here as well for date research and these tanks in general especailly in the modifications the IDF made to them.

It's late and I have to work later today. I will try to address/provide info on the SABRA (Still serving in frontline units.) and MERKAVA 1-4 later tonight or on Sunday. There is good info in the reading material that might help in narrowing the date issues brought up and I tried my best to answer the general questions as well that were raised in the TI thread later posts.

Regards,
Pat

gingertanker

August 10th, 2013, 04:29 PM

Thank you Pat.

Some shots certainly had IR before the TI came in I need to look into that. But the dates are after the Yom Kippur war, mid 70s to mid 80s when the TI started coming in. The Shot-Kal Daled/Brak Or was in service with the 188th until 1992. The last reserve unit was shut down in 2002 as you mentioned.

As for Magach variants, fortunatly I did the wikipedia Hebrew page on this a few years ago with a shot list of the models, along with some other tankers. So I know the wiki page is good...So when I get to Magach tanks I should not have too much trouble. Also- Magach 7 is app(I just checked this a few days ago) no longer in service. This must have happened around 2010 or so...It was out of front line service 2003 when they shut down the 500th armored. Sabara was never in IDF service. The Magach 6B Gal was preferred for continued service and is still in reserve units.

BTW the rumors right now are that Merk 4 production will be at full steam- the cost being a reduction of the total number of tanks(meaning retirement of older tanks).

FASTBOAT TOUGH

August 11th, 2013, 02:51 AM

Gingertanker,
Wish I had come across this website and IDF one from yesterday morning sooner when dealing with the Turkish M60T. I needed a "reboot" on the SABRA. The confusion from what I'm reading now stems from the IMI proposal to the IDF to upgrade the MAGACH 7C with a 120mm MG with some other improvements and designate it the SABRA Mk I. A further upgrade would be made to the MAGACH 7C but, as you noted it would be the MAGACH 6B GAL BATASH (aka Magach 7D or 8) as noted by both refs mentioned as well also. So SABRA is the upgraded export version of the MAGACH. The Turkish M60T in reality is a SABRA Mk I-III as it's development between Israel and Turkey progressed.
http://www.patton-mania.com/IDF_Pattons/idf_pattons.html
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/sabra/

I'll just post from one site on MERKAVA as it's comprehensive with dates and variants...

MERKAVA 1 Mk I...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/israeli_israel_main_batlle_tank_uk/merkava_1_main_battle_tank_israeli_army_israel_pic tures_technical_data_sheet_description_identificat .html

MERKAVA 2 Mk II...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/israeli_israel_main_batlle_tank_uk/merkava_2_ii_main_battle_tank_israeli_army_israel_ pictures_technical_data_sheet_description_identifi .html

MERKAVA 3 Mk III...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/israeli_israel_main_batlle_tank_uk/merkava_3_mk_iii_main_battle_tank_israeli_army_isr ael_pictures_technical_data_sheet_description_iden .html
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/merkava/

MERKAVA 4 Mk IV...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/israeli_israel_main_batlle_tank_uk/merkava_4_iv_main_battle_tank_israeli_army_israel_ pictures_technical_data_sheet_description_identifi .html
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/merkava4/

Thanks again about the SABRA again I remember it being a headache at the time the M60T was being submitted.

Regards,
Pat

gingertanker

August 11th, 2013, 09:30 AM

A second go at Shot/Centurion tanks!

Digging in deeper than the TI thread...

Units 011, 012, 014:

*Only 014 is named Sh'ot Meteor, while in reality all of them were Sh'ot Meteor(named so because of the Meteor engine). Not sure how the names should be changed...

*014 Should be available until 1971, I know for a fact training for it was still conducted for regular troops in 1970.

*An obsolete tank unit with the stats from 014 Sh'ot Meteor should be available until 12/73. Sh'ot tanks with petrol engine took part in the 1973 war.

Units 013,015,016-019, 628, 629

*Start date for 013 should be 5/1970 when the first Sh'ot Kal Alef were put into service. As 700 tanks were converted, it is also obvious that an obsolete tank unit corresponding to this should be available starting 1970 and probably available to the late 80s(sorry I cant give a precise end date).

Sh'ot Kal Bet was basically similar to Sh'ot Kal Alef and came about in 1975. The difference between the two is not really relevant to the game(change of turret controls). I suggest not to make separate units for Bet and Alef.

*Unit 017: I had trouble with this. I have conflicting sources on the Sh'ot Brak-Or. This is the best I could come up with, a book about the IDF Ordnance Corps says the Brak-Or conversion was only done in 1984. In 1979 Shot Kal Gimel came into service, with passive IR, better FCS and some with Blazer(but indeed many Alef and Bet were given blazer as well).

So I suggest 017 be renamed Shot Kal Gimel. Given 30 vision for passive IR(had the same M32 sight as the Merk 1). Should also receive LRF and probably a boost to the FCS stat(to 20 maybe?). Stabilizer should be upped to 4, to reflect the new turret control identical to the Magach 6B. Blazer is optional.

This also needs an obsolete tank unit, starting in 1979 and ending 2002. I would suggest using slot 628.

*Unit 018 Sh'ot Brak-Or: . Should have TI, LRF, Stabilizer 4 as in previous model, and FCS similar to Magach 6B Gal(32).End date should be 12/1992.

*Unit 019: Can be removed as its start date is so close to the end of centurions in regular IDF units . Another option is to copy the revised unit 018 here and re split the dates to 1990, as to allow use of the improved Is90 gun....

*Unit 629 Should be available from 1/1993, to reflect the tanks being moved from regular to reserve units.

I am so tired now :) Why did the IDF do so many conversions:)

gingertanker

September 13th, 2013, 01:09 PM

Magach Chaos!

Here we are than, took a break and back. The IDF had 11 to 15 models of the M48 and M60 in service. It is really, really hard to know when each model entered service and when it was retired. Iwill do my best, fixing here what i can. I am sure alot moire can be done but honestly it would take the curator of Latrun to do it, and I am not him.

M48A1 and A2 tanks were sold to israel from 62-64 by the US and west Germany, and are accurately represented by unit 020. So far so good. **** will now hit the fan.

Unit 021 Mag'ach 3, Unit 022 Mag'ach 3:
As far as I could figure out, the tanks were all upgraded with L7 guns. There is really no need for two versions of the tank(both weapons have identical stats as it is)I also suggest an obsolete tank unit added for this tanks(start 1969 end 1980 ish). I haven't been able to find information about dates, but I would think the current dates are p. much on the spot.

Unit 023 Mag'ach 5, Unit 024 Mag'ach 5:
Start date for 023 should be 1979, Mag'ach 5 was the M48A5, only sold to Israel that year...Obsolete tank unit should exist from 1970 at the least.

Unit 025 Mag'ach 5A I havee no idea what this is. It might have existed but was probably a minor change from 5. End and start dates make no sens. Could not find it in searches. I think it should be removed.

Okey so far for today, I will try to post next on the rest of the Mag'ach units in the OOB(there are alot).

gingertanker

September 14th, 2013, 08:22 AM

Magach Chaos 2!

Correction to my previous post which I cant seem to be able to edit:

Obsolete tank unit for Mag'ach 5 should be avilable from 1980 and not 1970. my finger slipped.

And back to the frying pan(no joke when talking about Pattons):

Units 026 to 029 Mag'ach Blazer
These, I assume, are meant to represent Magach 3 and 5 tanks with Blazer armor, as seen from the early 80s. This is a good idea, the Magach 3 and 5 are nearly identical there is no need to have 2 different units for them with Blazer( also as we dont know the end date of their service in reserves and can only guess). Howerver-
Unit 026 and 027 seem to be identical to me aside from their ammo load. I very much doubt there was any change in ammo loads in the IDF during that time. Moreover ammo loads vary according to sector and operations. I suggest the units be merged to save space.

Unit 029 is available until 1999, extremely unlikely date. Though the IDF had standing Magach brigades past that year, by that time we had cut down our armor corps significantly(in the mid 80s and again in the early 90s), and had received many M60 and M60A1 tanks. I suggest Unit 029 removed, and unit 028 set an end date of 1986. However, as there were probably 1,200 M48 of all types in the IDF, the reserve units with blazer probably survived until the early-mid 90s. Obsolete tank units should be made to reflect this, with the last one ending around 1993(conservative. It might have been 1988 and might have been 1995. I cant find it).

Units 030 and 031 Mag'ach 6A The Magach 6A is the M60A1 with elongated turret. the tanks were sold to Israel in 1971-1972. They were converted to Magach 6B in 1980. I think this doesn't justify two separate units. Suggest putting the stats from 031 in slot 030 and giving start date of 1/1972 with end date 12/80. An obsolete tank unit for reserves should have roughly the same end date, with a start date of 1974 or so...

Slot 031 can now be used for Magach 6C:the M60A3 supplied to Israel from 1985 to 1990. It should be identical to the original M60A3 but with IR. Availability should be 1985 to 1993 in standing units, and a corresponding obsolete tank unit for reserve units available from 1985 to the late 1990s.

Units 033 and 034 Magach 6B should have ERA.

Units 035, 036 and 037 Magach 6M 035 and 036 seem Identical to me...Am I wrong? Suggest they be united and renamed Magach 6R(early 6M). Should have LRF. Use start date from 035 and end date from 036.
Unit 036 can be moved to 035. This is the REAL 6M...The 6M had not only ERA, but a very good fire control system(a high 20s or even 30 for FCS is warranted)and LRF. Slot 36 can now be used for the past 1986 Magach 6M, with improved engine (900hp) and hence greater speed).
I think that as far as obsolete units, only one for the Magach 6R and 6M is needed. This should start around 1986 for comfort(to have only one and not 2) and should be available until late 90s. It should be a copy of the new unit now in 036 Mag'ach 6M.

God this is really hard to do. Luckily I am almost done with the tanks. Only a few more Magach variants in the next post, and than Merks.

gingertanker

September 14th, 2013, 11:23 AM

Magach Chaos- The End!

Score. Found a detailed Hebrew explanation about the Magachs. too late for my last post..but now we can rock and roll on the rest.

As for my last post I mentioned that the Magach 6M should have a high FCS figure. I failed to understand how high. The 6M in fact had the Nahal Oz FCS. This is the same as Merkava 2b and Magach 7. In the OOB these are different. I suggest making them all the same. The FCS figure for Magach 6M, All Magach 7 variants, and all Merkava 2b should probably be around 38. I know this changes alot of things but it reflects reality better, as you will understand from the next changes I propose.

Mag'ach Gal units 038 and 039
Should be renamed Mag'ach 6B Gal.In reality these were Magach 6B given the Gal FCS. This is not represented, as the current unit has FCS 32...Gal is better than Nahal Oz, and is the base for the Baz FCS(as in Merkava Mk 3 Baz). These units should be given a FCS rating of 40(assuming my previous recommendation to change FCS on Merk 2b and Magach 6M+7 is accepted), showing their advantage over the Merk 2b and Mag'ach 7 when it comes to FCS. Its worth mentioning that even during my time in service in 2006-2008, the 6B Gal was considered a "sniper", and usually reserve units with these tanks hit better than standing units with Merkava 2b.

As far as dates, the end date for this should be 2004.Obsolete tank unitd should be added for the 6B Gal, running from 1988 to 2014(status is currently uncertain for the future).

An interesting unit which does not exist in game is the Magach 6B Baz. It saw the replacement of the Gal system with the Baz system. If brought into the game, it should only exist as an obsolete tank from the mid 90s until 2014. The 6B Baz was only introduced to reserve units. This should have the same FCS rating as Merkava 3 Baz- 48.

Unit 040 Mag'ach Batash This should be the 6B Gal already discussed with an improved armor design. However in the OOB the only difference I could spot was a change in ammo load. In reality the change in protection included both passive and reactive armor improvements. The units armor stats should be improved to represent this. End date for the unit should be 2004, and an obsolete tank unit should be made with start date around 2004 and end date 2014.

Unit 041 Mag'ach 7 Alef In the name of uniformity, I would change name to Mag'ach 7A. As I mentioned I would up the FCS to 38. End date should be set to 2003 when the 500th armored brigade was cut.

Unit 042 Mag'ach 7 Gimel Again, should be renamed Mag'ach 7G. FCS should be 38. End date should be 2003 like 041.

For both 041 and 042 there are doubles in 634 and 635. The class for these doubles was left 59, should be made 102 to allow the purchase as reserve units.

NO MORE MAGACHS! Hurrra!

Next post will be on Tiran tanks. I would do it now but this post is already very long.

gingertanker

September 14th, 2013, 04:43 PM

Tiran tanks

found a good, but unfortunately hebrew source for this topic:
http://www.yadlashiryon.com/vf/ib_items/3604/sefer274.pdf

This is about the first Tiran brigade in the IDF, its actions in the Yom Kippur war, and also a small section about the Tirans after Yom Kippur. This makes it very easy to fix dates and other issues.

The first thing to note about all of these units, is that if we maintain the current way the IDF oob works, that reserve formations use the obsolete tank unit class, than all of these need to be change to obsolete tanks. All Tirans were used by reserve units. IF(and personally I think this is a big if) IDF reserve tank formations need to have a -5 moral and exp modifier, than so should the Tiran units.

Unit 043 Tiran 4 were captured T54 tanks with minimal changes. These were all converted by summer of 73 to Tiran 4Sh. End date should be 8/1973 and not as it is now. Some Tiran 4Sh(those built off of T54A) had no electric stabilizer, setting them apart from the Tiran 5Sh discussed latter. I am not sure if this warrents adding the Tiran 4Sh as a separate unit. If it does- It should be identical to Tiran 5Sh, aside from having 1 stabilizer instead of 2.

Unit 044 Tiran 5 Should have end date of 8/1973, for same reason as unit 043.

Units 045,046,047 Tiran 5Sh The Tiran 5Sh originally was a very small conversion- replacement of the 100mm to the 105mm M68 Shrir main gun. Unlike it is portrayed in the game, the FCS was not changed. The FCS stat should be reduced to 5. The smoke discharger should be removed(it was added later)

Units 049,050,051 Some Tiran 5Sh were given a second round of conversions in the late 70s. I suggest the name be changed to Tiran 5Sh M. (M for Meshupar=improved in hebrew). The improvements included- smoke dischargers, ERA armor, fire supression system and other things but NOT an FCS change. The FCS for these should remain 5. No LRF was added! As hard as it is to believe the IDF never put new FCS on its captured T-55 tanks. It was planned and a few prototypes were made(T-55 Samovar), but was never done on great scale. I would also up the smoke dischargers to 2. In addition, an extra 7.62 machinegun was mounted, so the tank should have 2 7.62 machinguns apart from the coax, and no 12.7mm. As for end dates, the T-55 was being taken out of service in the mid to late 80s. none were around in 1993. Therefor unit 051 should be deleted.

Unit 053 Tiran 6 and 054 Tiran 6 Blazer unit 053 is a good representation of the T-62 in Israeli service. Only 100 or less were used. No major conversions were made at all. Even the coax mg was the russian one and not as in game(but this is a minute detail) The end date for 053 should be 12/1992. Unit 054 is redundant. While experiments were made, there was no major installment of Blazer on T-62 tanks in the IDF, certainly no change in range finder. AND MOST certainly no TI for the Tiran 6. I suggest deleting unit 054 and keping only 053 with date extended to 12/1992.

Next we dive into the fantastic world of merks and their endless developments.

gingertanker

September 15th, 2013, 01:49 PM

Merkavas 1 and 2

Now, pat has done a lot of work on this. In general the Merkavas in the OOB are p. good representations of reality. However I do have some things I think need changing. The biggest issue is that info is confusing and contradicting as all of these tanks are still in active service(aside from the mk1 which is only in reserve service).

Units 055 and 056 Merkava Mk 1 start date for 055 should be 9/79. Also, I don't see the need for two units- suggest to delete 056 and extend date on 055. The difference is only the gun, and since the start date is late 79, I see no issue with having weapon 27(105mm M68 78) as what the Mk 1 starts with. Ammo load out for original Merkava Mk 1 was 62(not 60). This was changed later on.

Unit 057 Merkava Mk 1 As mentioned the ammo load for the main gun was later reduced to 54, and should be done in this later unit. This was done to add storage space for the 60mm mortar ammo.

Unit 630 Merkava Mk 1 This is the obsolete tank unit for reserve companies. Date should be extended to 2014(future is currently unsure). Main gun ammo reduce to 54. In reality some of these received TI, but this is not an issue, because at the point of getting TI, along with other improvements over the years, they are basically Merkava Mk2b.

Units 058 Merkava Mk 2 Should have TI(lol one got missed huh?). Ammo load should be 54 for main.

Unit 059 and 060 Merkava Mk2b I think in the name of uniformity with earlier tank variants, should be Renamed Merkava Mk2B. Ammo load should be 54. FCS should be 38(or what ever you guys choose to give the tanks with Nahal Oz- as you recall, the Magach 6M, Magach 7, Shot Brak Or and the Merk 2b all have the same system- superior to the one in Merk 1 but inferior to the one in Magach 6B Gal). 060 dates need to be extended to 2014(current status- will possibly be replaced by Mk 4 this year).

Unit 631 Merkava Mk2b- this should have a start date around 1988 as well.

An interesting Merkava variant that isn't in the game is Merkava Mk2B Kasag/Batash/Dalet. This is the Mk2b with applique passive and NERA(non explosive reactive armor) suit.

This package can be seen in the pics on this thread:
http://www.fresh.co.il/vBulletin/showthread.php?t=156008

*Naturally I have no idea what kind of armor values this justifies(classified), but certainly an increase of 15-20% is warranted for the turret sides. Probably a major hike in turret top protection. A moderate increase in hull front and sides.
*The added weight is hardly offset by the engine tweaking(the tanks managed 1,000 horses after some modifications, but not all tanks received these modifications) so these tanks are even slower than the already lazy Mk2B.
*The load out for these tanks should be high on HE and HEAT rather than AP, as they are rotated between units serving in Gaza and Lebanon.
*This probably would need an icon, the turret shape is quite different as you can see in the pics.
*Does not need an obsolete unit, start date should be 9/1997 and end date 2014 for now.
*As for naming, the most common term used by tankers was Merkava 2B KASAG(Kav Sagol=Purple Line: a reference to the border with Lebanon). However the terms Merkava 2B Batash and Merkava Mk2D (Dalet) are also correct, the first being used sometimes by tankers and the second being the official designation of the tank.

This tank would be specifically relevant to Lebanon and Gaza scenarios in the late 1990s to today.

gingertanker

September 15th, 2013, 05:16 PM

Merkava 3

My knowledge on these is more limited. However I do have some ideas as to changes that should be made.

Unit 061, 062, 063 Merkava Mk3 Three units with the only difference being radio and ammo load out. 061 has 91 radio and 062+063 have 92. 062 and 063 differ only by their ammo loads. In any case all ammo loads are wrong. the correct number is 46 for the main gun and not 50. I suggest keeping 062 and 063 and getting rid of 061. Date for these should be 5/1990-1/1997(When 188th, the only standing MK3 brigade was converted to BAZ).
Theoretically the FCS should be lowered to match what I suggested for the Merk 2b and others. However this is not a very good idea in my eyes, as the Mk3 did use the same computer as Mk2b, but had far better turret controls and optics allowing better hits(especially on the move and long range).

Unit 632 Merkava Mk 3 ammo for main should be reduced to 46. Dates should be changed to start 1992-3 and end 2020.

Units 064, 065 Merkava Mk3 Baz as mentioned, ammo load should be reduced to 54. The armor should be the same as units 061-063, for reasons mentioned below. Icon should be like 061-063, for reasons mentioned below.

This is where this gets a little complicated. The best I could figure is that there are 3 different Baz sub-variants:
*Mk3 Baz is just the Mk3 with Baz(hence my reservations about the armor rates and icons for 064 and 065)
*Mk3 Baz KASAG is MK3 Baz with applique armor(like the Mk2B KASAG previously described here).
*Mk 3D Baz- better base armor,applique armor.

I am not sure what should be done, as this will consume alot of unit space. If I have to recommend any action, its the addition of only the Mk3D Baz. The armor used for it is similar to the Mk4 armor(in materials), and it is a significant variant(currently 1/3rd of the standing tank fleet).

My suggestion on how to add the Mk3D Baz:
*Simply copy the CURRENT 064/065 units. They have the correct icon and upped armor compared to the vanilla Mk3.
*Make the changes to 064-065 as i suggested, making them a true representation of the original Mk3 Baz.
*As all current standing Mk3 units have Mk3Ds, the split in dates should probably be-
Mk3 Baz from 1997 to 2002 and Mk3D from 2001 to 2020.

It's a mess I know :(

To make things worse we need an obsolete tank unit for 064+065 Mk3 Baz(but not for Mk3D, those are all in standing units AFAIK) with dates 1999-2020. I think we should probably skip the different ammo loads considering the already horrid expense in unit space.

Unit 066 Merkava 3 Lahat Honestly I still can't find any open source proof this is in service. Non the less ammo load should be reduced further 40 for the main gun to make room for 6 LAHAT missiles in their cases.

I originally planned to do the Mk4 in this post as well but I feel like I went down the rabbit hole.

gingertanker

September 15th, 2013, 05:22 PM

@Don
Also at this point as this clearly becoming a long undertaking(as expected) is there anything in the format of my posts that needs changing? I have looked forward on the OOB. There are a few dozen things more...Some are minor and major date issues(like decades off), some are units that never existed in the IDF, etc. So this is a long ordeal I just want to make sure it will be easy for you to use this thread....

Amit.

DRG

September 15th, 2013, 07:15 PM

No, it doesn't seem so, I've only just been looking them over quickly before putting them on the list but all in all it's looks good

Don

gingertanker

September 29th, 2013, 04:24 PM

THE LAST TANK

Okey now we get into the Merkava 4...I am aware that alot of work has been done by others here.

I do have some ideas though, here they are:

Units 067 and 068 Merkava Mk 4

Ammo load should be 50 for main gun.

Unit 069 Merkava Mk4b
* AFAIK and according to most hebrew sources this should be named Merkava Mk4M (again Meshupar=Improved).
*More importantly, the changes made to fit the LAHAT have screwed up the weapons on this unit. The coaxial on Merkava 4, as with all IDF tanks, is the 7.62mm FN-MAG/M240. The 12.7mm is an optional coaxial. If we must choose one, I would go with the real, internal coaxial(this is true for unit 066 as well, I missed it).
*ammo load aside from the LAHAT should be increased to 44 total.
*I think that a identical unit without the LAHAT should be made. but this is just my opinion. To allow the use of Merk 4 with CIWS but no LAHAT.

Two Mk4 units are currently missing:
* Merkava Mk4TWMP
*Obsolete tank unit for Mk4. Availability should be from ~2006 all the way to 2020.

gingertanker

September 29th, 2013, 05:03 PM

APCs

Unit 081 M3 Halftrack This should be around untill the early 1990s. I Saw these in a reserve unit with my own very young but at that time still sharp eyes when I was 3 or 4...So 1992~ they were still around. Suggest new end date of 1993.

Unit 572 M3 Halftrack Same goes for this.

Unit 083 Bardelass This is the vanilla M113, and still exists(sadly enough for our brave mech infantry) to this day in some standing and reserve units. End date should be 2020 really, we have so many we will never rid of them.

Unit 097 Namer MICV RWS This is still not in service AFAIK, and I don't see it happening anytime soon. Specifically the 30mm and Spike...This just is not how IDF infantry like to roll, they would need serious boosts to the ordnance platoons in their battalions as well as a major increase in time spent training with AFVs(they hate AFVs). For the foreseeable future IDF infantry will have nothing larger than the 12.7mm/40mm AGL on its RWS...

That is it for today. See you soon:)

FASTBOAT TOUGH

September 29th, 2013, 08:15 PM

I just have a quick thought here. I tried to get the 60mm Mortars in while researchimg the Turkish M60T which led me back to the MERKAVA. Do we delete tank rounds for what we know is a real life issue (To make room for the 60mm ammo.) when we are game limited to the weapons slots we have availble? I seem to remember when this was brought up I was asked whether we should give up a MG for the 60mm mortar. My answer then was basically keep the MG as it was a better direct support weapon against infantry (I do remember being "coached" to think about it, must have been that Submariner thing? ;)). We might need a game comprimise here as the 60mm mortar cuts across the whole MERKAVA spectrum pretty much.
Ammo loads have always been an issue to some degree depending on sources and have been known to cross the "PITA Line" here at times.

Great Work!

Regards,
Pat

gingertanker

September 29th, 2013, 09:13 PM

Pat,

I really think the 60mm is best left alone. I have said before, there is no way to model the Merks weapons fully in game. you would need 7 weapon slots:
1)main gun
2)7.62 coax
3)12.7 upper coax
4)TC 7.62mg
5)Loader 7.62 mg(aside from mk4)
6)60mm mortar
7)WP smoke dischargers used as a weapon(major thing against close range inf)

It just cant be done. Worse still, the 60mm is not just on merks! Some magachs and some Tirans(!) had them as well, mounted externally.

The truth is the 60mm is not meant to be used as a direct fire LOS weapon. it is meant exactly for when you don't want to be in LOS. It cant be done well in game.

As far as ammo loads, there is no issue, the ammo loads i specified are accurate to tanks carrying the 60mm and its ammo.

Honestly I think the solution for the merkava series should be:
Slot 1: Main gun
Slot 2: 7.62mm CMG
Slot 3: 12.7mm CMG
Slot 4: 2X7.62 AAMG/7.62mm AAMG

And what do you know, thats the way it is with most of them...If anything I might have an issue with older tanks having 12.7mm AAMGs on them, as the IDF usually(read always) preferred the 0.3 for both commander and loader.

Amit.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

September 29th, 2013, 10:08 PM

Amit,
Trust me I fully agree. Just pointing out the fact you recommended a main gun ammo reduction for one of the Merk 1 inputs provided because of the storage requirments to store 60mm mortar rounds unless, I misread the item (I believe it was the 2nd MERK 1 item down.) it just puts a ? on the issue of anyones (That means me as well.) ammo sources that does not specifically break them down by type and weapon for any OOB such issue.

So again should we reduce main gun ammo (5 or 6 rounds) for a weapon we can't even "enter" (Slot limitations.) or use? All I'm saying is in our AOR we didn't get the tanks with the mortars and need our AT/HE main gun rounds to meet our tactical needs. Sorry that was the best analogy I could come up with at the moment. ;)

Regards,
Pat

gingertanker

September 30th, 2013, 08:20 AM

no no, you did not misread.

I think that we should use what we think the ammo load is IRL. On the tanks that carry mortar. Just to be as close to RL as possible. Honestly Merks are such powerful units I doubt 4-6 rounds less will unbalance anything.

Amit.

gingertanker

September 30th, 2013, 10:57 AM

Units 100 and 101 Chaparral
*Name should possibly be changed to "Drakon", the IDF name for the SP-Chaparral
*Dates should definitely be shortened.The only source I have for this is hebrew wiki(I know, I know), which states:

"In April 2003 the 3 Drakon batteries of the 946th Battalion were shut down."

A quick Hebrew search found some backup for this, a few forum posts and CVs from people saying they served in that battalion until it was shut down and the vehicles sold to a south american client.

I suggest new end date 2003.

Units 105 Hovet and 106 Machbet In 2006 the final Vulcan units were shut down, I remember this from my time in service. This is also mentioned in the Hebrew wikipedia and reliable Israeli military forums.
I realize this will make a hole in the Israeli OOB, but I am just giving you the info :)

Unit 116 Sherman Dozer If we are not going to do a M51 Dozer I think this should at least be extended to match the life span of the M51.

Unit 117 Shot Dozer Again, assuming we are not going to do a version for the newer shots, should have end date 2002.

Unit 118 Tiran Dozer should match life span of Tiran 5.

Unit 119 M728i CEVI dont think this was ever in Israeli service, is there a source that says it was?

DRG

September 30th, 2013, 01:51 PM

Do all the Mekavas use the Nochri Dalet Mine type Roller System ? If yes I'll fix those Icons that show the plow attached

DRG

September 30th, 2013, 01:54 PM

Unit 119 M728i CEVI dont think this was ever in Israeli service, is there a source that says it was?

It's been in the files for at least 10 years and it has it's own unique Icon so all I can tell you is someone thought it was but IDK who

Don

DRG

September 30th, 2013, 02:19 PM

I found one reference that says....

.....one book that lists the m728 as having been used . The book is Chariots of The Desert by David Eshel.On page 196 He lists it as M728 combat engineer vehicle with dozer blade.Wether they were used is anyones guess. I would however venture that during the Yom Kippur when they received replacement m60's they might have been included

iln82

September 30th, 2013, 03:39 PM

I have this book:
http://www.mheaust.com.au/MHE/Books/IDF1.htm
No mention of M728 there...
Probably added by the same person who came up with the Israeli M1A1 Abrams...:rolleyes:

iln82

September 30th, 2013, 03:43 PM

Unit 116 Sherman Dozer If we are not going to do a M51 Dozer I think this should at least be extended to match the life span of the M51.

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

gingertanker

September 30th, 2013, 05:01 PM

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

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

Also Don,

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

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

Suhiir

September 30th, 2013, 08:40 PM

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

gingertanker

September 30th, 2013, 09:42 PM

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

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

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

http://2004.uploaded.fresh.co.il/2004/07/22/669248.jpg

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

http://2004.uploaded.fresh.co.il/2004/07/22/128059.jpg

FASTBOAT TOUGH

September 30th, 2013, 11:44 PM

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

Regards,
Pat

gingertanker

October 1st, 2013, 09:21 AM

The Puma:

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

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

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

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

DRG

October 1st, 2013, 09:37 AM

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

Don

gingertanker

October 1st, 2013, 09:52 AM

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

Never mind just checked the help file and its not:)

DRG

October 1st, 2013, 10:33 AM

hardcoded

gingertanker

October 1st, 2013, 12:14 PM

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

Mobhack

October 1st, 2013, 03:29 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andy

gingertanker

October 1st, 2013, 04:40 PM

You guys are awesome.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 3rd, 2013, 03:06 AM

All I've come across thus far was...
1. Non-Winch equipped M3 Halftracks carried a roller which laid down a material that allowed the M3 to cross some trenchs of limited width.

2. The SdKfz 251/5 was a designated version typed as an "Assualt Engineer Carrier" still trying to find particulars on this, but my guess is it's more heavily armored.

A couple of other types that came up in that search I don't know are in the game (WinSPWW2) are...

3. The SdKfz 251/20 Uhu (Owl). These vehicles were designed in support most notably of specialized units trained in night combat with supporting PANTHER tanks. They were equipped with IR search lights and "other specialized equipment".

4. And finally the BREN "WASP" flame-thrower carrier. If you own the Blu-Ray (Don't know about other formats.) of "A Bridge To Far" at the beginning of the movie (Using actual WWII footage of this and other...) they show 3 or 4 on the move attacking a position.

But I feel Andy is right about the "APC" engineer type vehicles, seems more a post war item. Items 1 & 2 are the closest I can find so far.

I'll amend the above for the German side the SdKfz 251/5 and 251/7 WILL fit the bill this ref. shows a rendering of the latter but the descriptions of each would to my mind "seal the deal" below. Further down based on my search is info on the UHU/OWL note from it's rendering the night binos that seem to have some kind of tech associated with them mounted on the forward MG. They don't look like typical Naval night search "binos" of the era. Interesting.
http://axistanksworldwarii.devhub.com/blog/655996-hanomag-sdkfz-251-mittlerer-schtzenpanzerwagen/
http://fallschirmjager.tumblr.com/post/10233788370/sdkfz-251-20-uhu-sdkfz-251-20

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 3rd, 2013, 03:56 AM

Wanted to post this ref as well it notes that the SdKfz 251/20 worked in a Unit of one of these with 6 IR equipped PANTHERS and Infantry with specialized night combat equipped weapons (With VAMPIRE scopes.) to protect the 251/20 UHU, Range of it's IR Searchlight was 1.5km.
The troops were carried in the SdKfz 251/21 FALKE (See REF 1 from previous post. Also these were IR equipped as well.) These units/battle groups saw combat on both fronts from 1944 on.
http://www.pietvanhees.nl/251/251-20.htm
http://www.pietvanhees.nl/251/infrared.htm
http://www.pietvanhees.nl/251/vampire.htm
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/german-infrared-night-vision-devices-infrarot-scheinwerfer.htm

Sorry I strayed with this last, but can you imagine if they had more of these units/battle groups?

Regards,
Pat

DRG

October 6th, 2013, 07:44 PM

Is the "doghouse" on the Nagmachon fixed ? I assume it is but I thought I'd ask. Also, still waiting for an answer to post #26

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 7th, 2013, 01:08 AM

Don,
Until Amit gets back to you this is what I found in the short term. Appears the KMT-4 and NOCHRI DALET are the same, with that in mind I got the M60A1 Mag'ach BLAZER & Mag'ach 6A (Both pictured below.), MERKAVA Mk II (Seems all types.) and the MERKAVA Mk III BAZ (Strange but this is the only variant I could confirm in the Mk III) and nothing came up for the Mk IV. Of course the PUMA is already in the OOB.
http://www.online-utility.org/image/gallery.jsp?title=Merkava+tank

Pics:
12644 12645

Regards,
Pat

DRG

October 7th, 2013, 07:27 AM

OK thanks. I've prepared revised Icons that show rollers rather than plows on the Merks

DRG

October 26th, 2013, 03:53 PM

Magach Chaos!

Yep....

Unit 023 Mag'ach 5, Unit 024 Mag'ach 5:
Start date for 023 should be 1979, Mag'ach 5 was the M48A5, only sold to Israel that year...Obsolete tank unit should exist from 1970 at the least.

Okey so far for today, I will try to post next on the rest of the Mag'ach units in the OOB(there are alot).

Start date was 1969 with an end date of 12/71 all you tell me is to change the start date to 10 years later but nothing about end date......should I just guess it's 10 years later as well ? Also you give me unit 23 start date but nothing about 24 and if the start date is 1979 then the gun ( ammo ) should be upgraded to w27 so this fix created more questions than it solved

Don

DRG

October 26th, 2013, 04:05 PM

DRG

October 26th, 2013, 04:22 PM

Magach Chaos 2!

Slot 031 can now be used for Magach 6C:the M60A3 supplied to Israel from 1985 to 1990. It should be identical to the original M60A3 but with IR. Availability should be 1985 to 1993 in standing units, and a corresponding obsolete tank unit for reserve units available from 1985 to the late 1990s.

Units 033 and 034 Magach 6B should have ERA.

so what happens to unit 32....... is it OK ? I don't think so based on the changes you asked for with the others

DRG

October 26th, 2013, 05:22 PM

Tiran tanks

The first thing to note about all of these units, is that if we maintain the current way the IDF oob works, that reserve formations use the obsolete tank unit class, than all of these need to be change to obsolete tanks. All Tirans were used by reserve units. IF(and personally I think this is a big if) IDF reserve tank formations need to have a -5 moral and exp modifier, than so should the Tiran units..

I am going to maintain the Tiran units separate from the " obsolete tank " class ( looking to change that UC to "Reserve Tank" )

Understand RE Tiran units should have the same moral and exp modifier and I also understand your " big if " reservations about -5 but the Israeli OOB already has one of the highest ratings. Do you REALLY think reservists are no different than regular units ?

Don

DRG

October 26th, 2013, 07:41 PM

merkava 3

units 064, 065 merkava mk3 baz as mentioned, ammo load should be reduced to 54. .

54 ???

FASTBOAT TOUGH

August 2nd, 2014, 03:27 AM

Don,
At your convenience but, how much of Amit's work here were you able to incorporate into the last patch? Or maybe better what didn't get done if easier to answer. We had been on the PM side until about mid winter or just before. Turned out we would follow the same/similar career path after our military careers. Anyway the MEGACH SPIKE NLOS got me thinking about his work here and I would like to see any loose ends addressed if I can help make that happen.
Thank You.

Regards,
Pat

gingertanker

February 15th, 2015, 11:57 AM

So...I join in the question...How much of this has been done already? A quick check showed me that at least some has. Just wondering if to move forward along the OOB or not, now that I am back?

gingertanker

February 15th, 2015, 12:42 PM

ill just start by reading through the last questions here and seeing to them.

gingertanker

February 15th, 2015, 01:09 PM

Magach Chaos 2!

Correction to my previous post which I cant seem to be able to edit:

Obsolete tank unit for Mag'ach 5 should be avilable from 1980 and not 1970. my finger slipped.

Could you give me a hint how long they should be kept in service ??

Early 90s would be my best guess.

so what happens to unit 32....... is it OK ? I don't think so based on the changes you asked for with the others

Magach 6 Gimel, or 6C as per the oob format right now, were M60A3 tanks delivered to Israel directly from USA stockpiles in europe. They should be identical to M60A3 in its USA form, only with TI. I actually did mention that in the Magach post. So actually, I think the unit is OK(!!)

I am going to maintain the Tiran units separate from the " obsolete tank " class ( looking to change that UC to "Reserve Tank" )

Understand RE Tiran units should have the same moral and exp modifier and I also understand your " big if " reservations about -5 but the Israeli OOB already has one of the highest ratings. Do you REALLY think reservists are no different than regular units ?

The experience -5 is rather okey, considering it represents not only actual combat experience but level of routine training. The -5 moral is odd to me but I can understand it as well. I think your solution is very good. In any case as you mention the IDF oob is very strong this is almost a non issue.

A Note: IDK how I wrote 54 for the Merkava MK 3 ammo load- the number is 46, as I mentioned in the same post(i guess i was doing that late at night or something?!)

shahadi

February 15th, 2015, 01:16 PM

gingertanker

February 15th, 2015, 01:20 PM

ill just start by reading through the last questions here and seeing to them.

In the Artillery Corps, in either of the several battalions, which one of them are towed field guns? I have not found a battalion fielding any piece other than self-propelled guns in the publicly available sources.

Yet, the Israel OOB: obat04, has several towed pieces, most prominent is the 155mm.

-----

The M71 Towed Howitzer was used by certain reserve units...Specifically for airborne operations. The last ones were withdrawn from service 2014.

152H55

February 15th, 2015, 01:54 PM

Glad to see the revival of this project, especially in the fields of mortars, inf-AT and artillery.

gingertanker

February 15th, 2015, 02:11 PM

Glad to see the revival of this project, especially in the fields of mortars, inf-AT and artillery.

All three of which will be incredibly hard to get right btw. I just spent one hour trying to figure out what light AT/RPG types actually saw service with the IDF and which did not.

shahadi

February 16th, 2015, 02:40 AM

gingertanker

February 16th, 2015, 03:37 AM

I think that this requires a more in depth check before we remove towed guns from the oob completely...I need to try and find a person who knows if there are other towed guns I don't know of. You have to remember the IDF has a massive reserve force with many strange units and capabilities. I will get to towed guns it will just take a while.

shahadi

February 16th, 2015, 10:51 PM

I would not favor removing towed guns because that would hamper the development of scenarios for earlier periods. I'd say, cap the availability of towed guns to 2014. No purchases beyond 2014 if it is true that the Artillery Corps removed towed pieces in 2014 in favor of SP units.

----------

gingertanker

November 28th, 2018, 03:32 AM

Okay we need to roll back now for a few moments:

Unit 70: "Nagman" - an extremely confusing unit. Nagman is a M113 with protected superstructure from the early 1990s. But the unit is date to 2000, and the image is of a modification named "Kasman Magen". These had larger fully enclosed superstructures for operations in the West Bank and Gaza. They also had Vayzata armor and sometimes Classical armor! I am not sure if it's worth going into this mess at all? Thoughts?

Units 071 and 078: I remain skeptical that the 30mm Eitan will happen, but if it will it has not yet. As I mentioned elsewhere the current status is the IDF ordered several hundred Eitan AFV's in 2018. They have gone through some training with the Nahal brigade but are not fully online yet. I suggest: Unit 071 and 078: Change start date to 6/19.

M113 chaos:

Unit 083: "Nagmash" - I see this was changed from Bardelas to Nagmash. That's fine. This is, as I mentioned in this thread before, the vanilla M-113. It is very much still in service with reserve units. I will repeat this comment for all M113s- the vastly common armament is the MAG and not the M2HB(source: I was a M113 commander for the last 8 years) suggest:
Unit 083: Change end date to 12/25, change weapon slot 1 to weapon 052 7.62mm FN AAMG

Unit 084 and 098: "Vayzata" is a type of armor applied to M113s. It is a statistical armor meant to cause tumbling in MMG and HMG rounds before they reach the main armor of the vehicle. As it is spaced from the vehicle it gives somewhat of a poor addition to HEAT protection (probably not enough to even stop a rifle grenade). An M113 with this package on is called Nagmash Vayzata or Zelda, this does not merit two units and there should not be different stats. Again the common armament is MAGs. I suggest:
Give unit 084 the armor values of 098(which are slightly loweer). Change armament to 1 MAG AAMG and if you wish another MAG in slot 2.Keep current name of 084.

Unit 085: "Zelda 2" - the later ERA add on plates for M113s never really went into service, but what did is the Classical which is infact the image used for this unit and what the icon looks like. I would:
Rename unit 085 "Classical" and change armament to weapon 052.

DRG

November 28th, 2018, 06:47 AM

70 is easily adjusted for date and armour I have no idea how that could be turned into something described as "this mess" unless you feel it shold not be in the same class as the other Heavy APC's

85 used to be the "Classical".... I'm not sure why it was renamed Zelda 2. Now.... you say it should be renamed back to classical.......OK easy to do and so is changing the 12.7 to a 7.62 FN.... but you say the ERA never happened but don't say they should be removed

??

83 has now been adjusted as has 84 and 98 is "re-nationalize"(so it's still in the OOB but won't show up in the game)

gingertanker

November 28th, 2018, 07:42 AM

The issue with 70 is it can be either of 3 different M113s with superstructure. And I am not sure which it should be. To be honest the practical differences for the game are small.

You see Nagman is short for Nagmash Memugan...This would be IDF M113s with protected superstructures. At first with pen roof, later with closed roof. This started being a thing probably in the mid 80s...Now by 2000 there were two major types of this superstructure. They were generally referred to as Kasman. Kasman/Magen is a large superstructure, Kasman/Maoz is a small superstructure.

And I am not sure this merits 2 or 3 seperate units...
As far as being a HAPC...I guess? In hull protection it is just a M113 with Vayzata. The superstructure is probably MMG proof. Sometimes they had cage armor for RPGs...It's a mess because these are all add ons. To make things worse these were not even that numerous, they were spread out in FOBs that needed them...

Zelda 2 vs Classical: Re-reading my message I see the confusion. Classical was the common name for M113s with ERA and small open top superstructure (as well as an improved break system). Zelda 2 is the name of an armor package which I believe is later to Classical, but even if I am wrong (and they are the same) no one ever called any vehicle in service Zelda 2.

What is the "???" for?

gingertanker

November 28th, 2018, 07:43 AM

I am sorry that this is so weird but the IDF just has a whole mess of M113s and official names and common names are not always the same at all.

DRG

November 28th, 2018, 07:54 AM

The "Heavy APC" unit name is not always an indicator of what the actual function of the APC is... it just one way to differentiate between different apcs my point in this case was should it be in the same formations as the others in that class..( forget what the class is called )

70 can simply be an amalgamation of subtypes of the same basic vehicle

gingertanker

November 28th, 2018, 07:58 AM

If that is the case I would change the Name to Kasman, give it similar hull armor to 084/098.

DRG

November 28th, 2018, 07:58 AM

What is the "???" for?

You said "Unit 085: "Zelda 2" - the later ERA add on plates for M113s never really went into service"

OK.....The name is back to "Classical" but do I remove the ERA that is now added to unit 85 ?

gingertanker

November 28th, 2018, 08:00 AM

Ah I confused the hell out of you. Sorry.
No, keep the ERA.

DRG

November 28th, 2018, 10:05 AM

No problem. This is minor stuff compared to some for the WW2 game.

The units in the Israeli OOB that use the "Heavy APC" unitclass now......

Units of class 120 Heavy APC

070 - Kasman - Available 01/092 to 12/125
420 - Nagmachon - Available 01/104 to 12/125
421 - Nagmachon - Available 01/082 to 12/103
422 - Puma - Available 01/091 to 12/125
423 - Nakpadon - Available 01/094 to 12/125

are "orphans" not used by any higher formation involving infantry and only show up as "3 Hvy APCs" under Misc. when a player needs "3 Hvy APCs" for their infantry. ( which probably means they are rarely used ) as they seem to be more "security" APC's as opposed to combat APC's like the Achzarit and Namer and therefore more of a "scenario" unit

gingertanker

November 28th, 2018, 11:02 AM

DRG

November 28th, 2018, 12:05 PM

You are correct indeed. With the exeption of the Puma which was (I think still is in some units) the main APC for combat engineers. All the others were sed in outposts and not in maneuver elements.

BTW there is actually an entirely new command APC missing from the OOB I will get the details tomorrow.

OK but the Puma is still in the engineering formations but only with dozer blade or Roller on the front. The one in the Heavy APC formation represents the ones that are not used by engineering units

I noticed the Nakpadon did not have it's own Icon

it does nowhttp://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=15606&stc=1&d=1543421132

gingertanker

November 28th, 2018, 12:26 PM

I came very close to stealing one of those once to tow my tank but luckily even 20 years old me was not stupid enough.

gingertanker

November 29th, 2018, 02:56 AM

Unit 086 Achzarit. As far as I know and Hebrew wikipedia supports me on this, the vehicles were put into actual service in 1988. At the least they were produced that year and entered service 1989. In addition there are actually two marks of the Achzarit, and several rounds of improvements in between...
The Mk 2 has a stronger engine and other internal improvements. Some also have a protected commanders "aquarium" and remote weapon system with 0.5 M2HB. The Mk 2 started production in 2010 and AFAIK all Achzarit were to be upgraded. That said in 2014 I still saw operational Mk 1 during my service in the war. For simplicity I suggest splitting to two units:
Unit 086 Achzarit: change start date 1/1989
Create a new unit named Achzarit Mk 2, it should be based on 086 but have: higher speed (maybe 15?), weapon slot 1 changed to weapon 055 M2HB AAMG. Vision,Fire control, LRF and stabilizer identical to unit 087 as it uses the same "Katlanit" RWS. Icon could probably do with a slight change to reflect the different look. Start date 1/2011 end date 2025.

Pictures for reference:

https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%9B%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%AA#/media/File:IDF-Achzarit-2016-Zachi-Evenor.jpg

https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%9B%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%AA#/media/File:Armored_Vehicles_Near_the_Gaza_Border_(147538 70844).jpg

Also there possibly is an issue of the vision stats for the Namer which I have just noticed. AFAIK the night sight clearly visible in the images is a Thermal Imaging sight. Vision for the Namer units and any others with the Katlanit should reflect this...

DRG

November 29th, 2018, 05:13 AM

The photos didn't appear but I started looking around on the net and ? perhaps ? the photo we are using now for unit 97 Namer MICV RWS is, in fact, an Achzarit Mk2 ?

........ and could it be that this...

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=15610&stc=1&d=1543484314

is the Namer MICV with the 30mm cannon ? ( which it appears is not actually in service...yet ? )

gingertanker

November 29th, 2018, 06:17 AM

I believe the photo for 097 is an Achzarit with an auto cannon in a large variant of the Katlanit. The Achzarit 2 does not have an auto cannon. But yes, it is for sure an Achzarit and not a Namer, it's probably a test vehicle or prototype that never went anywhere.

The turreted Namer you linked a photo of is indeed the latest (in a confusing series) of turreted Namer variants. However this one seems to be very close to going into service. It is being displayed again and again. I believe it's in operational trials.

You can see here on display in IDF officer course ceremony:
MLRS Menatetz
PUMA with the new Drakonit 12.7mm RWS (similar to Katlanit, and **** now we have to deal with that...We will get to it)
Eitan with I think a Katlanit 12.7mm
Merkava Mk 4M
Namer with 30mm unmanned turret
Ofek heavy command vehicle (which we will need to deal with down the line)

https://2018-uploaded.fresh.co.il/2018/06/21/98121629.jpg

gingertanker

November 29th, 2018, 07:02 AM

Lets try those Achzarit Mk.2 photos again:
https://imgur.com/a/yqYX5Hn

gingertanker

November 29th, 2018, 07:37 AM

Units 087, 088 and 096 I would suggest vision upgraded to 40 to reflect the TI of the Katlanit RWS.

Unit 097 should have a new icon, to reflect the image you shared. I can send you further images if needed. Vision should probably be 50 like the Merkava Mk 4M. I would remove the SPIKE which is not in the images we currently have.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 29th, 2018, 07:48 AM

Amit,
Just got home from a lovely cold 12+ shift, and I see you haven't wasted anytime! So I was saving this until I could start "knocking out" the APC Thread issues, but no time like the present...
Israel UNIT 071 EITAN showing fully operational/accepted status entry date as 01/2018, but I came across the following ref that indicates it didn't go into operational testing and evaluation until April this year and now I quote the article dated May 22nd 2018...
"Last April, drivers from the 50th Battalion underwent intensive training with the APC. They spent a week in operational driving conditions and brought the Eitan to a battalion-wide training exercise.

So two things pop into my mind, it's not been fully accepted into the IDF and by definition, not in full production pending acceptance into the IDF.

I have not seen anything from reliable sources that the IDF to this point has accepted it. I know the IDF can move fast once this has been done. My guess is they are on the "cusp" to do so. Based on this my thinking is 06/2019 or 10/2019 would be a better date(s).
http://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_industr y/eitan_first_wheeled_apc_to_enter_service_in_israel _defense_force.html

Your thoughts please.

Since this is a date issue as well UK AJAX UNIT 602 is in the same situation with entry date 06/2017. My ref. dated 15 JUN 2018 is indicating it's still in OP EVAL status with units not reaching the field until "...early 2019...", so my thinking having more info on the AJAX is that 06/2019 might be a better entry date.
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/uk-issues-several-fres-transformational-armored-vehicle-contracts-01130/

As some know, I've been posting on all things FRES since it started. That being said and having used it in my long campaigns (17-29 battles), I have to say the AJAX as in the game plays as I would expect it to perform in the "real world" based on all the data I've been able to collect on it over the years. WELL DONE Don!!

Well I need to "hit the rack" so I can have more such fun later to day into tomorrow morning, as I just experienced!?

Have a good day everyone!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

gingertanker

November 29th, 2018, 08:00 AM

Unit 090 White Armored Car.

These were manufactured/restored/converted based mostly on M3 scout cars. At the peak the fleet included 40 of these, which is quite a large number in 1948 IDF terms.
The early versions were available as early as 5/48. They were armed with MG34s only. Later, in October 48, they started arming them with cannons. The first were armed with the cannons of H-39 tanks which were found mechanically serviceable and so the guns were reused for the armored cars. others were armed with 2pdr captured guns.

I suggest splitting into 2 units:
Unit 090 should have the 37mm replaced With an MG34. Start date changed to 5/48.

A new unit identical to the current 090 but with weapon 080 37mm SA37 M.39 or weapon 240 2pdr gun. The 2pdr was probably more common but the 37mm is more historically interesting. should be created with start date 10/48.

gingertanker

November 29th, 2018, 08:11 AM

gingertanker

November 29th, 2018, 08:13 AM

Frankly I am shocked that the 30mm versions are happening.

DRG

November 29th, 2018, 10:53 AM

DRG

November 29th, 2018, 01:34 PM

Unit 097 should have a new icon, to reflect the image you shared. I can send you further images if needed. Vision should probably be 50 like the Merkava Mk 4M. I would remove the SPIKE which is not in the images we currently have.

I found a much better photo of it undergoing trials but methinks the name needs to change as well....that is more than "just" a "RWS" that's a IFV..do you know if it has the same carry capacity ?

DRG

November 29th, 2018, 01:57 PM

Ofek heavy command vehicle (which we will need to deal with down the line)

Close enough ?

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/ofek-heavy-armored-personnel-carrier.416398/

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=15614&stc=1&d=1543515746

The question is how far back the superstructure goes and if its square or hexagonal that is not really clear in the photos.

gingertanker

November 29th, 2018, 04:44 PM

Okay so let's get all these older Armored Cars out of the way.

Unit 091 "GMC A/Car"
This is somewhat confusing but as far as I can tell from various forums as well as a book about IDF ordnance in the early years, these were GM Canada made Otter Light Reconnaissance Cars that were used by the British Police in the Mandate of Palestine. ~10 of these were stolen in various and hilarious ways (Imagine getting off your A/Car to get a pack of smokes and the Hagana steals the thing before you get back).
I have 2 images of the modified Otters in IDF service, both have machine guns only and no guns. Both have a M1919 in the turret, and the hull gun on one is an MG34 while the other has a second M1919 in the hull. The M1919 was quite rare in 1948, the MG34 was far more common. I suggest therefor:
Change unit 091 name to "Otter A/Car". Replace weapon in slot one to MG34. Remove the weapon from slot 3 entirely. Change start date to 5/48.

Unit 092 Humber Mk II is okay, there were some other variants but they are not really that different to the other A/C in the OOB. Do you wish me to specify or should we live this alone?

Unit 093 "Marmon-Herr IVF" as with 092 this is fine, however there was also a turretless version captured and used. Not sure if worth the trouble.

Unit 095The Panhard had a very short career in the IDF. Yes, even shorter then depicted in the OOB. They were only purchased in 1966, for Duchifat - an airborne recce/AT unit. The idea was to use them as AT support/armor for the paratroopers. But they were too heavy when combat ready to be used well by IAF transports of the time. They were used in 1967 and in 1968 and took horrible casualties. Hence they were removed from service. I suggest:
Unit 095: change start date to 1/67 and end date to 12/68

DRG

November 29th, 2018, 06:02 PM

We'll leave 92 and 93 alone the rest is now done

DRG

November 29th, 2018, 06:13 PM

Heavy Metal on the move...
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=15616&stc=1&d=1543531487

edit....forgot one the first time. There may be further adjustment before release. I'm not entirely happy with the Namer 30mm turret

scorpio_rocks

November 29th, 2018, 06:54 PM

gingertanker

November 30th, 2018, 03:04 AM

Air Defense

This post was sourced using the IAF website and IAF Air Defense School website.

A recorded kill for the Chaparral on the 6th of May 74. This is the first recorded kill by the system world wide and also means we must change the start date to early 74. Also Unit 100 is named M730 while 101 is named M48A3. We either go with 730 or M48. In the USA OOB it is M48.

Unit 101 unless I am missing something is there to represent the Block 6 systems exported to Israel in early 1999. The difference in game seems to be better EW and vision. The weapon is identical(and should probably be renamed MIM-72). However in 1993 the IDF made upgrades to its Chaparrals, installing the "Aramit" system which improved the RADAR display and "improved target acquisition"...

I suggest-
To represent the original Chaparral from 1974 until IDF upgrade
Unit 100: change name to "M48 Drakon" change start date to 1/74. End date to 12/93. Copy Stats from USA OOB unit 049, as currently this units is better than it's US counterpart which makes 0 sense.

To represent the IDF upgrade in 1993:
Unit 101: change Name to M48M Drakon . change start date to 1/93. Give it the EW and vision stats currently in unit 100.

To represent the systems imported in 1999:
Create a new unit copying the stats from USA unit 207, and name it M48A1 Drakon. Start date 1/99.

All of these can use the current icon 2223 so at least no modeling work!

gingertanker

November 30th, 2018, 05:12 AM

Unit 112: I can not source it but as mentioned in hebrew wikipedia and as AFAIK the HAWK was retired in 2014 to allow budgeting David's Sling/Magic Wand. To be conservative David's Sling became operational in 2/2016.

I suggest adding David's Sling to the OOB in the following manner:

Unit 112 : change end date to 12/16

Create a new weapon: "Stunner SAM" as for stats I am not sure because frankly I do not know how every stat works. But:
Range should be maxed out.
Minimum range should be quite short.
The warhead is not an explosive one but very fast and meant to kill targets by directly hitting them with KE. So it should probably have high HE pen and low HE kill?

After the weapon is sorted out -
Creat a new unit "David's Sling". Start date 2/16 end date 12/25. General stats should probably be similar to Unit 112 but with better radar (because it has both a more advanced radar and an electro optic system). In slot 1 weapon should be the one we just created "Stunner SAM". HE ammo should be 12.

For an icon reference:

https://www.idf.il/media/8681/3.jpg

https://www.idf.il/media/8680/2.jpg

gingertanker

November 30th, 2018, 06:41 AM

Unit 114 "Ha'Poretz" - do we know where the name came from? It translates to "The Breakthrough(er)". This seems like it was a name of a specific Sandwich with dozer blade. If so I would suggest - Change Unit 114 name to "Sandwich Dozer"

Units 117 and 123 should match the latest reserve Sh'ots in the OOB.
Unit 117 change end date 12/02
Unit 123 change end date 12/202

Unit 118 "Tiran Dozer" - I suggest change end date of Unit 118 to 12/89 to match the latest Tiran 5 date in the OOB.

Unit 124: as we don't have a reserve unit for the 90mm Mag'ach, I think we can change the end date to match unit 020. so Unit 124: change end date 12/69.

Unit 125 "M60 Mine Plough". The only Patton not renamed to Mag'ach in the OOB. Change unit 125 name to "Mag'ach Mine Plough".

Units 127-129 are Mine Roller variants of Merkavas. However dates and stats are mismatched with the MBT and Reserve Tank units. To fix this as much as possible I suggest:

Unit 127 Merkava 1 MR : Change start date 9/79 end date to 12/14.Match all stats to unit 057

Unit 128 Merkava 2 MR : Change start date 1/84 end date to 12/20.Match all states to unit 058.
You may notice this is past the latest Mk 2 in the OOB, but my old unit STILL runs them, so we must extend that date forward to reflect they were not removed!
So as a side note:
Unit 631 Merkava 2b: change name to Merkava 2B and change end date 12/20.
Unit 622 Merkava 2b: change name to Merkava 2B

Unit 129 Merkava Mk 3 MR : Change start date to 05/90. Match stats for unit 062 or 063

DRG

November 30th, 2018, 06:52 AM

Done.

side note "Mag'ach Mine Plough" will not fit the allowed number of characters.......but "Mag'ach Plough" will

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 30th, 2018, 07:35 AM

Amit,
I'm finding that the "STUNNER SAM" is more like what "AEGIS" is to the USN...simply put, a missile killer. It's designed to shoot down short range (i.e. Iranian SCUD), Ballistic (i.e. Russia's latest MSN system) and cruise missiles.
This ref. I deem pretty reliable based on source and some might recognize some refs. I've used over the years that have been more then reliable as listed on the bottom of the ref. below.
http://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/missile-defense-systems-2/allied-air-and-missile-defense-systems/allied-intercept-systems-coming-soon/davids-sling-israel/
https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/irondome

It should be noted this missile represents only 1/3 of the missile capability of the IRON DOME System.

I'm thinking this might be the wrong missile for the game?

Now "DAVIDS SLING" is the one we want and represents another 1/3 of the "ID" system, were the "STUNNER SAM" is the long range missile killer, "DAVIDS SLING" is the Medium Rng. missile killer that's also designed to take down very accurately, aircraft as well.
https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/davidssling

Getting short cycled to end my work week to a "normal" so for to...well you should know by now! :D

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

gingertanker

November 30th, 2018, 08:02 AM

I was under the impression there is only one missile for the David Sling system and the English name for it is Stunner. It really is more a matter of naming as long as in game it works as we want it to represent David's Sling medium range AA ability. Name the missile itself whatever.

DRG

November 30th, 2018, 08:06 AM

Yeah BUT Pat...... that link says........"David's Sling's maneuverable, two-stage, hit-to-kill Stunner missile destroys threats through sheer force of impact."

so the initial post is correct --David's Sling uses the Stunner missile

and another source says it will replace the Patriot..but doesn't say when

gingertanker

November 30th, 2018, 11:44 AM

Light AT units:

On the 21st of October 1973 during operation Magbit 16, S-13 operators already used M72 LAW launchers to attack Egyptian missile boats.
This confirms the LAW was delivered during the Yom Kippur war.
I suggest either
Unit 132 : Change start date to 10/73
Or making some sort of SF unit that brings the LAW into play from 10/73 till the currently in OOB 1/75 start date. Further down I will explain why this may possibly be relevant to the Shipon team, Unit 138.

Going from this unit 133 AT4/M136. I simply can not find a source for this ever being in the IDF. I found one picture of an IDF soldier posing with it, but he was training with US troops and just posed.
Possibly remove unit 133?

Unit 137 RPG-7 Team : Change end date to 1/08. this is conservative. Only in late 2007 did the IDF release that it is retiring the RPG-7, and I am not even sure it fully happened by 01/08 but let's be optimistic. This is also going to be important down the line for infantry units...

Unit 138 Shipon is quite a challenge. The Shipon is indeed around from 2000 or 2003, depending who you ask...But it's not serving like the LAW or RPG-7. It is fielded by special forces. It's use in the OOB as a Inf-AT unit is problematic. Is there some solution you can think of? It is also worth mentioning that the weapon itself (Weapon 19) has weird stats. For one thing Shipon is a tandem warhead rocket but it is not classed like that. Also it's accuracy is identical to the RPG-7 in the Israeli OOB, but really it should be far higher. The SMAW in the US OOB is based on the B-300 like the Shipon, and is a cousin of Shipon. It has 10 accuracy in game while Shipon has 5...Shipon, it is worth noting, has a LRF and digital FCS...
I am not suggesting anything just sharing the info waiting for replies.

DRG

November 30th, 2018, 08:13 PM

gingertanker

November 30th, 2018, 09:22 PM

I'll look into the Shipon issue at some point. I have a note to do so

Note what wiki says........."various reports stated in error that it was an Israeli improved and manufactured version of the Russian RPG-7."

that would explain why it had the same rating as the RPG

The range we have is also too great so this thing probably should be integrated into a Sayeret Section and not be an AT team

That would probably be best. In that case I would suggest doing the same with pre 01/75 LAW.

More to come soon. I think if I run with it we can get her done in a couple of weeks.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 1st, 2018, 01:45 AM

Just walked in the door so, first off my apologies to Amit and Don I got systems crossed with missiles.

That being properly done, I think and in keeping with established practice "David's Sling" should be used in naming the Med Range. Yes it uses the "Stunner" missile, however, the "Patriot" is a Missile System not a missile it actually uses the MIM-104missile and now the newer "PAC-3 MSE.

The PATRIOT System has also since inception used the STANDARD, PAC-2 ATM, GEM-T and GEM-C missiles.
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/fy2014/pdf/army/2014patriot.pdf

This is marketing no one remembers MIM-104 but most everyone knows the PATRIOT System as the also "PATRIOT" missile.

Have a great weekend!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

gingertanker

December 1st, 2018, 03:05 AM

Pat re read the post pls. I wrote that the weapon should be named Stunner. The unit David's Sling. ;)

gingertanker

December 2nd, 2018, 02:45 AM

Okay so now we reach ATGMs. As with everything else this is quite a mess. The issues are not only in dates but also in formations...
I first want to draw a broad stroke of ATGM usage by IDF and please let me know if something is unclear before I move on to dealing with the units, as probably it will take your understanding and experience in building formations and units to fix at least some of the mess.

Chronology(missing some esoteric stuff that really does not matter):
In the late 50s and early 60s the IDF purchased several hundreds or maybe thousands of SS-10, Cobra and SS-11 missiles.

After 1973 it captured AT-3 missiles and bought/got TOW missiles from the USA.

In the mid/late 70s it bought/got Dragon missiles from the USA

In the early 80s it started to use locally produced missiles that will eventually be know as the SPIKE series.

Formations:

The SS-10/11 and Cobra actually belonged to the Artillery, and were organized in a special unit. This unit was later discontinued when the IDF was disappointed with the performance of early ATGMs, but not before it saw some fighting in 1967. One could say this unit was the foundation of the "Orev" companies.

Following the impressive performance of Arab and specifically Egyptian ATGMs in the 1973 war, the IDF reorganized ATGM companies. Equipped with Sagger but mainly TOW missiles, eventually each infantry brigade (standing and reserve) would get such a company. These were semi-elite troops used not only in the AT role but also as recce elements when needed.

Some time after that, in the mid-late 70s the Dragon missile started arriving. As it was a short range missile it was adopted into the battalion level, in the support/weapons company level. Because the TOW was named "Orev" (raven), the units were named Orev Company.

In the early 80s when the first early SPIKEs were online, they were organized into a unit in the artillery core (what is old is new again, eh?).

So in the early or mid 80s we see the hierarchy of IDF AT/ATGMs as it basically is to today:
Level 1 : RPGs/LAWs at the squad and platoon level of rifle companies.
Level 2 : Short range ATGM (Dragon) platoon at in the battalion weapons company.
Level 3 : Long range ATGM (TOW) company on 4WD vehicles or APCs at the brigade
level 4 : NLOS ATGM unit as a strategic asset.

Current weapons:
Level 1 was covered previously.
Level 2: The Dragon was replaced by the SPIKE MR
Level 3: The TOW was replaced by the SPIKE LR or ER
Level 4: SPIKE NLOS remains, although upgraded

I just wanted to make this pre-post to make sure we have all the general frame before we go forward.

DRG

December 2nd, 2018, 06:13 AM

The branch of the service is really irrelevant for game purposes so they will not be changed as to where they are offered in the game ( as an infantry units Vs Artillery ). They are either "AT" or "ATGM" depending mainly on if they are guided or not and the date they go in and out of service depends on if one day all were removed and replaced by a new type or the new one was phased in gradually.

Don't expect to match game reality and RL reality exactly. You can post your suggestions and I will determine how they will best be integrated into the game ..or not

gingertanker

December 2nd, 2018, 07:36 AM

Oh I am not trying to match anything I am merely setting the stage for me to go deeper into it. The reason I am detailing where the different systems were used is in case it affects formations in some way. For instance if Dragon is only available to para weapons companies but should in fact be available to other weapon companies.

Matching reality is impossible.

shahadi

December 4th, 2018, 12:26 PM

Unit 138 Shipon is quite a challenge. The Shipon is indeed around from 2000 or 2003, depending who you ask...But it's not serving like the LAW or RPG-7. It is fielded by special forces. It's use in the OOB as a Inf-AT unit is problematic. Is there some solution you can think of? It is also worth mentioning that the weapon itself (Weapon 19) has weird stats. For one thing Shipon is a tandem warhead rocket but it is not classed like that. Also it's accuracy is identical to the RPG-7 in the Israeli OOB, but really it should be far higher. The SMAW in the US OOB is based on the B-300 like the Shipon, and is a cousin of Shipon. It has 10 accuracy in game while Shipon has 5...Shipon, it is worth noting, has a LRF and digital FCS...
I am not suggesting anything just sharing the info waiting for replies.

In my scenario, "I Bring the Sword" the shipon is fielded. Now, am I correct that the SMAW from OOB12 or the USMC (OOB13) variant maybe substituted for the Shipon?

<br>