|
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Don,
1. Thanks! 2. I believe the government in this case as stated "over simplified" the types and "combined" them if you will based on ref 2. Will proceed with the preponderance of the evidence I have, after all you know how I feel on the topic of "reliable" refs. Thanks Again! Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Don,
On the "boats" the only dumb question was the one not asked, so with that in mind and when you get a chance, in the MobHack Unit page does the term "Survivability" under all the FCS info refer to: 1. Turret and FCS survivability or; 2. Overall tank/or crew survivability or; 3. None of the above/other. A simple # answer will do. Will continue with the work and edit as I need to later. Thanks in advance! Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Quote:
See the Mobhack help file, search for the section entitled "survivability" in the design information and standards section. (It should have a paragraph in the unit tab section, but it has apparently been missed) Andy |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Quote:
The closest answer is 2/ but I will add for the longest time many players thought ( and some still do...) that rated crew survival only. It does affect crew survival but it's mainly how tough the tank is overall. The tougher and better made the tank, the better the crew survival Don |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Andy and Don,
Thank you for the "time saver" answer! It all makes sense, had to make sure though. Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Don,
At your convience can you answer the following as I'm wrestling with a couple of issues here. 1. By way of update I am in the SPA and SPAA thread with the final entries to be the Russian TORANDO MLRS and MEADS. What that means is the Helos are next, as I go in order of the threads as started, my question is this, do you foresee any reason for an AH to have a TI/GSR beyond 60 (60x50m=3000m?) given the limitations of the "board" size normally used within the game system? 2. The EFV (USMC UNIT 189) is designated as being "UNKNOWN" can a player still use it? Was going to put the EFV up for deletion again or do you want to go one more cycle? Since MEADS was improved in the last patch with the mobile launcher for Italy (ITALY UNIT 182) will submit MEADS as an add for the USA and Germany the largest contributors financially, but by the same token knowing what we know thus far should not the MEADS program also be put in the "UNKNOWN" category, or do we wait a couple of years? Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
1/ not at this time
2/ Units re-nationalized to one of the "unknowns" CANNOT be accessed by the player and will not show up in the game. The MEADS unit does not appear in the game until 2016 and is irrelavant to the current date. *IF* it is fully cancelled by 2016 we will remove it. If not , we will enter it into any nations OOB that uses it but there is REALLY no need to fuss over it's status as known or unknown. There have already been 10x more posts about MEADS than it deserves at this time. It's a WIP weapons system that may or may not be ready for service 5 years from now..maybe. Don |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Don,
Pretty much as I thought then. I'm sure others have benefited from this information as well, it's god to have a "teachable moment". For MEADS like the F-35 will try to keep it to milestones. RRegards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Don,
For background to this question see Pg.5, first Post, Item C1 this thread. The USMC have since about the early Fall of 2010 been using their MC-130 refueling planes as "light gunships" (HARVEST HAWK.) with "roll on roll off" weapons and support equipment. Before I put time into this I want to know given the slot limitations of the USMC & USA (The Air Force is doing the same with their light tankers.) do we want to go there knowing that we have the SPOOKY and SPECTRE (Fixed in the last patch.) until the current game runs out in 2020. Also note we will probably see a new SPOOKY before 'games end" using the C-130J Spec ops planes if the budgetary issues can get worked out. I can go either way as this was an item I just ran out of time with last year, my refs are in place. Sorry the pace has been slow though about done with land equipment, just lot's going on everywhere. Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Quote:
By mandate/law ONLY the US Air Force is permitted to operate cargo and gunship aircraft. The USMC is ONLY permitted to operate refueling aircraft. The fact that on occasion the discountable internal refueling tanks are occasionally left behind and cargo is loaded or that weapons mounts may be part of that cargo are merely coincidence. The USMC KC-130 is solely a refueling aircraft. The USAF does not allow the USMC to operate any cargo or gunship aircraft. :smirk: |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Got you, but, the question remains is it worth adding to the game given the slot limitations? I do know this that the SPOOKY's just completed a major upgrade that I suspect at a minium will increase the TI/GSR to 50 if not more. And likewise will or should cause a plus in FC as well, remember these are considered precision fire platforms even to danger close inside 100m. That mod will be submitted. So again, to HARVEST HAWK or not, ready to go ethier way. Here's a taste and note the program has been expanded since the first ref. And as you should know this next ref is very through.
http://www.dvidshub.net/news/60315/k...le-afghanistan http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...Tankers-05409/ In the meantime, all OSPREY's to get moded with a new weapon ststem under the Helo section of the PP. Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
My vote would be don't add it.
It's a very limited availability very limited use weapons system. |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
I agree, we're the only country operating truly modern gunships at this time and I've started to feel like the "Soup Nazis" of slot resources, thanks to some, and you know who you are!?! For Italy and a couple of other countries that might follow suit with their
C-27J aircraft (See Jets and Planes...thread Post #42, #4.) that'll be a different story if and when they get there. There will be another issue I will address for both SPECTRE and SPOOKY beyond what I've eluded to already that might cause a bit of a stir. So hopefully I'll get there by the first week of August because I'm submitting what I have at that time regardless as I expect some Q&A right from the very first set of items submitted. Thanks for looking at this item for me as I know the work you've put into the CORPS for the game. Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Quote:
Contrary to popular opinion I do believe in the KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid.) principal. :D |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
5 Attachment(s)
Patch Post #1 for the 2011/2012 campaign. I respectfully request that all well intentioned inputs not be posted here, this is for Don, Andy and others directly involved with the patch.
MBTs The matter of the Turkish LEOPARD tanks needed updating as the refs will show, this is to include increases in service life, to allow for the M60T development and to keep and update their newer tanks to retire the M48 tanks. More importantly all LEOPARD 1 tanks bought by Turkey (As well as the LEO 2A4.) would prove invaluable as test beds for the ALTAY tank program, specifically in regards to the ASALEN VOLCAN FCS. The LEOPARD 1 series would incorperate MK I FCS w/2nd Gen TS which prompted my TI/GSR ? in Posts #49 & #50. Note: The order of upgrades below is simply an educated guess based on the fact that it maDe sense to upgrade the older tanks first and leaving the newer tanks in the field as the upgrade progresses. All we have are the start and end dates of the upgrade from the Turkish government and other sources. The LEO 2A4 would constitute the further improvement of the VOLCON FCS to include the EAGLE EYE TS this would be the MK II system. These tanks would constitute the 1T and 2T sets. The ALTAY will incorperate the MK III system when it comes online. The ASALEN program started in 2002 and ended in 2009, so the end dates should be close based on the number of tanks upgraded, I'm allowing for production time as these are almost taken back to a RESET condition as extensive turret and rewiring work had to be done to include internal hull work as well for additional cooling and rewiring required by the updated systems as well. The previous follows the same logical conclusions as to the start dates when the 1T versions first became availble. *There are some "rumors" that some armor work was done as well on the LEO 1 tanks but I can not support that. All Turkish LEOPARD tanks came from German stock. C1. TURKEY/LEOPARD-1A3T1/UNIT 035/CHANGE/DATES to SEP 1982-DEC 2020/As noted above in para./Total ordered 77 MBT + 4 ARV. All operational units NOT converted to the LEOPARD-1T. C2. TURKEY/LEOPARD-1A1/UNIT 033/CHANGE/To LEOPARD-1A1A1/JUN 1991-JUN 2004/Use GERMAN UNIT 012/The 1A1A1 had a heavier armor package on it in particular around the turret. I can find no evidence that these tanks arrived in Turkey prior to 1990. However as with all the Turkish LEOPARD tanks they are still in service today and into the foreseeable future unless noted otherwise. Total ordered 80 MBT, All operational units CONVERTED to the LEOPARD-1T see A1. A1. ADD/TURKEY/LEOPARD-1A1A1-1T/JUN 2006-DEC 2020/USE Turkish UNIT 037 for TI/GSR, FC, RF, & STAB. this is to maintain continuity in the VOLKAN FCS MK I upgrade program & GERMAN UNIT 012./These were the first to be upgraded with the VOLKAN FCS MK I. Only 171 LEOPARD I Series tanks were converted to this standard, see below as to why. Again only the LEOPARD-A1A1 and A1A4 made up the LEOPARD-1T A1. ADD/TURKEY/LEOPARD-1A4T1/JUN 1990-JUN 2007/USE German UNIT 023./German unit 023 is the best match as the TI/GSR value matches the above unit (C1) to reflect the upgrade to the Carl Ziess EMES-12A3 FCS which Germany also put on their LEO 1A4 tanks. Total ordered 150 MBT. All converted to the LEOPARD-1T. C3. TURKEY/LEOPARD-1A3T2/UNIT 037/CHANGE/To LEOPARD-1A4-1T/JUN 2007-DEC 2020/USE German UNIT 023 for ARMOR and WEAPONS./ Note: As of 9/4/2011 I've come back to fix this section again, but as I noted above in error* and correctly below* (Back in June.) the armor levels were not updated for the LEOPARD-1T upgrade program as it only dealt with the addition of the VOLKAN FCS MK1. This situation there for doesn't allow for adding just a LEOPARD-1T because the two tanks used retained their original armor levels which is why A1 & C3 are the way they are to show the tank it was derived from and to identify it as the LEOPARD-1T by adding the -1T at the end. It was really the only practicle way I could see to show the transition from orgin to finished product. D1. TURKEY/LEOPARD-1A2/DELETE/Turkey did not buy this version of the LEOPARD. * I'm putting in a break here to remind everyone that these are "living" documents with information changing due to newer sources etc. becoming available. Here is an example of how this works, almost three weeks just on the above and the process to finish the LEOPARD issues below, this was brought up in a thread. So... The LEOPARD 1 tanks did not recieve any armor upgrades during the 1T program it was simply for the VOLCAN MK I FCS . Also ref 1is supported by pic (Poster.) as regards to the dates presented above. Am splitting the refs at this point to avoid confusion between the FCS marks for Turkeys LEO tanks. http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product152.html Focus on Varient section A1 TO A14 and Turkey section near bottom. http://www.tanknutdave.com/component/content/article/75 See Turkey section at bottom. http://www.military-today.com/tanks/leopard.htm http://www.ssm.gov.tr/home/projects/...d1A1A1A4T.aspx From the Undersecretariat for Defence Industry, the office is responsible for procurment, R&D and the cordination of government. private and joint defence industry companies. http://www.aselsan.com.tr/urun.asp?urun_id=79&lang=en Aselsan is government owned. VOLKAN FCS MK I. http://www.defensenews.com/story.php...59&c=EUR&s=LAN Pic:Attachment 11276 Pic is posted here as a reference which I came across while researching the LEOPARD-2T. Also from the Undersecretariat for Defence Industry, responsible for procurent, R&D and the cordination of government. private and joint defence industry companies. This shows not only accurate dates (HIZMETE GIRIS TARIHI = SERVICE ARRIVAL DATE.) but also the unit designation within the Turkish military. Note the date of MAY 2010 Rev. 2. As you'll see the 2T below does not match the picture here. A4. ADD/TURKEY/LEOPARD-2A4/JAN 2006-DEC 2008/USE GERMAN UNIT 030/Turkey requested no mods be done by ethier KMW or MAK in Germany. All these tanks would end up being RESET to the LEOPARD-2T standard as shown next. Relaying on the fact that the M-60T and LEOPARD-1T series were finishing completion of their programs, Turkey started to feed all 298 MBT ordered into the assembly line for upgrade. This is all ALTAY program driven. http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1645.html Lower left contract section. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...-turkey-01473/ http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard/ Pic ref above. M1. TURKEY/LEOPARD-2A4T/UNIT 039/MODIFY/To LEOPARD-2T/Dates to JUN 2011-DEC 2020/Main Gun 120mm L44 to 120mm L55 with turret mounted RWS 12.7mm, or optional 7.62mm or 40mm AGL./Armor as required/All TI/GSR & FCS info as required./NEW ICON./All 298 tanks were taken off the line to be RESET with many of the features that will be found on the ALTAY tank. The pictures speak for themselves especially the one showing the LEOPARD-2T along side a LEOPARD-2A4. We have seen how far a LEO 4 can be upgraded just look to Canada with the LEOPARD-2A4M CAN and Chile with the LEOPARD-2A4CHL among others. Again this tank will incorporate the ASELAN VOLCAN MK II FCS. It needs to be remembered they are recieving some coorperation from Israel (M60T with KNIGHT III FCS as carried on late model MERK 3 and early MERK 4 tanks also with part of the current model MERK 4 armor package.), Germany in the LEOPARD support area and the techinical licensing with S. Korea with the K-2. They have all the tools, money and techincal support needed internally and externally to make things happen. Not "flag waving" here, as most know I've been following Turkey and a handful of other countries MBT development for quite sometime, if you will, because "that's where the action is" in new tank development. Except for the FCS (Might be better?) info, I would recommend the armor set at a level equal to the newest current German LEOPARD-2A6 UNIT 277 or 267 if splitting the difference, unless you can get something more out of the refs and pics I've submitted. This tank could be that good and it is the build from for the ALTAY using some of the armor tech for that MBT. http://www.aselsan.com.tr/urun.asp?urun_id=79&lang=en VOLKAN FCS MK II. http://www.aselsan.com.tr/urun.asp?urun_id=55&lang=en EAGLEEYE FCS. http://vimeo.com/23746043 I understand the connection limitations you had with your computer but this video plays clean but covers the LEOPARD-2T upgrade pretty well mixing real video of the tank with computer generated images. http://www.turkishjournal.net/index....d-2-tanks.html http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.p...nks-2011-05-06 http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/...106ee4ca41a52a http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/landw...solution/9013/ Pics: Attachment 11277 M2. CHILE//LEOPARD-2A5/UNIT 028/MODIFY/To LEOPARD-2A4CHL/Main Gun 120mm L44 to 120mm L55/Armor levels to the LEOPARD-2A6. German UNIT 037 would be a good fit, better then UNIT 035 that came off the line in 2008./These tanks were 2A4 tanks modified by KMW in Germany at Chiles request to the 2A6 level. See M1 lead in para. http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1645.html Para. 6. http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm See Para. 5 & 11. Also supports M1. above. http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard/ http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...le-sold-04316/ http://www.deagel.com/Main-Battle-Ta...000451001.aspx http://www.leopard2.com/variants/ Pic: Attachment 11278 C4. NETHERLANDS/LEOPARD-2NLA6/UNIT 038/CHANGE/End Date MAY 2011./A victim of hard times, at the height of the Cold War the Dutch had almost 1,000 MBT's and what was left were 63 LEOPARD-2NLA6 tanks. The CV-90 will serve as the backbone of their "armor" with a heavy relience on their AH's for anti-tank support. A proud tradition has passed from their armed services of almost 90 years with recent deployments to both Iraq and Afganistan. Also they will be selling their COUGAR helos as well along with the LEOPARD tanks, how about it Canada, need more LEOPARDs?. http://www.defensie.nl/english/lates...ds_with_a_bang http://www.defpro.com/news/details/24905/ http://www.army-technology.com/news/news120180.html http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...-up-tanks.html R1. INDIA/ARJUN/ARJUN+1/UNITS 020 & 021/REMINDER/CHANGE/HF HEAT value./I can't seem to locate the Posts involved but what I believe what you considered was something between 80-85./To the poster who caught the error, my apolizies for not remembering your "name" please feel free to remind me here when posted, it was a good catch that I missed as well. R2. NORTH KOREA/P'okpoong-Ho/UNIT 025/REMINDER/CHANGE/Main Gun to 115mm/Up armor to T-72 (?)/See MBT thread Posts...never mind Pages 10 - 15./I believe we did settle on the gun issue (Pg. 11 Post #108.) but based on the posts we had the discussion about why the extra 2m lenght (Pg.14 Post #139.) and extra set of road wheels. Your thinking and I agree based on "hints" in the refs suggust besides having a larger engine (Fact.) it was was probaly up armored as well. Your thinking was something in the line of a T-72 (Pg. 15 Post #144.) though the "Po" was derived from T-62M1 tank. Thanks again to Marcello for his inputs. On to something else this is giving me "daymares" before I go to bed for the "nightmares" within the hour, in fact I'm stopping here!?! APC Development and... Was going to post about the German BOXER but as the fielded date falls within just less then six monthes as agreed to a couple of years ago with Don I won't. See Pg. 11 Post #104 for further details. Also still going to hold off on the ARMA 6x6 however I found a source that says Bahrain has bought them for their Army NG Here is the ref for ARMA and they are the first to report it on these type of sites that I can find. This will be transferred to this thread later as always for all PP segments.. http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?optio...asia&Itemid=56. This will be brief: R1. THAILAND/BTR-3E1 IFV/REMINDER/ADD per Posts #105 (Data in normal PP Unit Format.) - #107./The additional 126 units were ordered but it always helps when the exporter (Ukraine) throws in free units to "sweeten the pot", I'd just settle for some free gas myself!?! http://www.army-technology.com/news/news121016.html http://www.armyrecognition.com/june_..._vehicles.html http://articles.janes.com/articles/J...m-Ukraine.html A1. ADD/KUWAIT/DESERT CHAMLEON/JAN 2011/C3 P7/RMTS Bushmaster 30mm Rds UKN as Primary Weapon and 12.7mm Rds UKN versions./This is a very versitile turret that is field changeable to carry a range of weapons from a 5.62mm to a 40mm cannon. The USMC is looking at the vehicle but more the turret as a possible upgrade to the LPPV-7 as the EFV is now dead. The turret is U.S. made. http://www.armyrecognition.com/us_ar...mation_uk.html http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Sec...0771295027994/ http://www.janes.com/products/janes/...1&rd=janes_com http://www.defenseprocurementnews.co...nnel-carriers/ Posts #93 & #94. D1. POLAND/BWP-2000/UNIT 442/DELETE/The BWP-2000 program was developed in the early 90's and cancelled by the end of the 90's by Poland. Only two prototypes were built. This program would eventually lead Poland to develop the ANDERS IFV which however suffered the same fate as the BWP-2000 and itself was cancelled in 2010. What killed ANDERS was the economy and the fact that Poland was already contracted therefore committed to the ROSOMAK 8x8 of which 800 were ordered. No further development is underway for the BWP-2000. The ANDERS IFV and Light Tank versions are being marketed for foriegn sales at this time. ROSOMAK is fielded and still under delivery status until I believe 2013. http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1015.html http://www.armyrecognition.com/polan...rmation_d.html http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=25654 Post #1 last unit before "NEW UNITS". http://aus.krakow.pl/army/polish-com...ly-of-vehicles See lead in para on ANDERS Light Tank status and note last sentence in the first full para below for BWP-2000. Note the word "demonstrator" is used to describe both pieces of equipment. Also see THREAD "Polish Anders AFV" currently on Pg. 1 of threads Posts #5 - #12 to include the first few sentences of Post #13 with focus on the refs. D2. USMC/EFV/UNIT 189/DELETE/Though I brought up the "UNKNOWN" issue as to what it meant, I just can't ignore the reality of the situation at this point given the refs already presented in the last past PP #2 I think, but also since and as presented below. We'll not only need the slot for the likely "improved" AAV-7A1 but also for it's eventual replacement. Here's another example for some (present company excluded) about putting in future systems some have asked about, the work involved in putting the unit "together", at some point changing the status in this case twice if deleted, and making room for the replacements. I believe this is what happened with the above D1 unit as well. http://www.defense.gov/releases/rele...eleaseid=14179 The Commandant. http://www.defense.gov/speeches/spee...?speechid=1540 Para 2 & 3 starting w/Secretary Gates... http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbu...ation_Book.pdf Pg. 10. http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=63557 Para 7. http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news...hicles-022111/ http://www.marines.mil/community/Doc...-11/index.html First two articles are both worth a look, though second is on topic. MRAPS Nothing much happening here right now except for the below item. The sector has been very busy in the area of orders for existing equipment. The only other new piece of equipment to fit this catagory is Paramounts MATADOR & MAURADER (Pg. 8 Posts #75 & 76.) however Aberbazan is not in the game and they are currently the only operators of these vehicles which some have dubbed "the best in their class". The deal with Jordan never got done. See Posts # for further information. A1. ADD/NORWAY/DINGO 2/JAN 2011/C1 P7/ARROWS-300 FULL SYSTEM ROT w/40mmHV AGL Rds UKN & M3S 12.7mm w/300RDs./See Ref 3 which shows the turret as described and ordered by Norway./The DINGO 2 is a much improved version of the DINGO 1 that's better protected and much more mobile. http://defense-update.com/wp/20101029_dingo_norway.html http://www.kmweg.de/2922-YWt0X3BhZ2U...ws_detail.html http://www.kmweg.de/2922-ZG9tPWRvbTE...ws_detail.html http://www.army-technology.com/proje...rotecetedvehi/ http://www.armedforces-int.com/artic...on-system.html Also Pg.6 Post #51. A2. ADD/UK/HUSKEY/JUN 2009/P4 RECON-SPEC OP versions/RWS 12.7mm w/UKN Rds./C2 P2 for Transport, Command or Ambulance versions. Also known as the MXT. The Recon-Spec Op versions are uparmored from the others and since all retain the bed portion of the vehicle besides extra fuel and other gear to cause the enemy some havoc, I'm sure there's plenty of room for ammo, I would think 1500 - 2000 Rds would not be unreasonable in this case. This vehicle represents the third in the triad of better protected vehicles UK MOD had sought to lower the casuality rates of the ones used prior to them which is why Ref. A is where it's at. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6695154.ece http://www.army-technology.com/projects/husky-tsv/ http://www.army-technology.com/proje...tsv/specs.html http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...178/#more-5178 http://www.defencetalk.com/work-begi...sh-army-17274/ Pics: Attachment 11279 Well I did say this was a living document... A3. ADD/POLAND/ZUBR/JUN 2011/C2 P10/RWS 12.7mm or optional 7.62mm and 30mm AGL w/UKN Rds./SPro 4 grenade dispensers./This vehicle is availble in four varients two of which will be addressed here. The ZUBR has protection against 12.7mm rounds and arty shell splinters. Also it has a tow capcity of 3,300lbs (1500kgs) a feature not normally mentioned in the refs. Blast protection against up to 8kg. It is also air portable. http://www.army-technology.com/projects/zubr-apc/ http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor...p?armor_id=451 http://www.military-today.com/apc/zubr_mrap.htm Pic: Attachment 11280 SPA and SPAA... Just a couple of items here with a reminder. M1. FINLAND/M270 MRLS/DEC 2011/UNIT 557 & 554(?)/MODIFY/Finland has only been operating the system since 2007. This upgrade provides for Precision Fire FCS, GPS Targeting, extends ordance options and ranges. http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/p...3_million.html http://www.defpro.com/news/details/24639/ http://www.deagel.com/news/Finnish-A...000008771.aspx http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mlrs/ http://www.asdnews.com/news/30848/Fi...em_Upgrade.htm Pics: A1. ADD/RUSSIA/TORNADO MRLS/APR 2011/C2/6 or 12 ML 300mm SMERCH Rockets/These are updated versions of the SMERCH rocket that are GPS guided. It can carry multiple munitions types and can still launch the unguided versions. The key here is the improved operability of the system from the launcher which is much more manueverable, air mobile and much easier and faster to reload. This is the replacement for the BM-21 GRAD which is taking place at this time. The Max. range is 70km and 90km with a specilized rocket. http://www.armyrecognition.com/russi...formation.html See Page 3 Post #30 Item #2 A2. ADD/FINLAND/NASAMS II FIN/JAN 2015/C 4/6 Multiple Launcher AIM 120 AMRAAM/USE UNIT 551 TRUCK/Modify UNIT 559 accordly./The truck used in UNIT 551 looks like the SISU 8x8 that will be the primary carrier for the system. This system will be more advanced then shown by UNIT 559 which was probaly based on NASAMS as used by the Norweigns for the past ten years. I also believe the Norweign system is mobile as well but might not get to it this first time around and I think they also use the same truck as well. Most Refs below were pulled from the "Transport for U.S. Patriot..." thread Pgs. 3 & 4. As you can see I built on to this one, didn't expect to see it, and missed it at first. http://www.defpro.com/news/details/23345/ http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...Systems-05398/ http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4313048 http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/fea...aam/index.html http://www.armyrecognition.com/april...y_0804113.html http://www.sisudefence.fi/node/29 http://www.sisudefence.fi/product/8x8 A3. ADD/POLAND/ZUBR P/APR 2011/C2/RWS POPARD SAM w/12 PZR GROM-2 AA missiles./To be honest I'm making an educated guess on GROM loadout based on size and payload capacity of the ZUBR-P and size of the missile. Retains towing capcity. http://www.army-technology.com/projects/zubr-apc/ http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor...p?armor_id=451 http://www.military-today.com/apc/zubr_mrap.htm http://articles.janes.com/articles/J...om-Poland.html Pic: R1. THAILAND/CAESAR/REMINDER/ADD per Post #32 (DATA already in PP format.)./USE FRANCE UNIT 050 or 051./Post #7 provides additional background information. R2. SAUDI ARABIA/CAESAR/REMINDER/ADD per Post #32 (DATA already in PP format.)./USE FRANCE UNIT 050 or 051./Post #7 provides additional background information. Alright had a good Labor Day weekend hope you did as well!?! Cleaned it up (Again!), kicked the tires and added some options (Sorry Top Gear is on!). Regards, Pat Monday, 05 September, 2011 23:47:48 |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
5 Attachment(s)
PP#1 2011/2012 add on. Had 1.5 hrs almost of heavy editing to make the last fit due to length. Here are the additional pictures.
MBTS M1. LEOPARD-2T Attachment 11283 Attachment 11284 MRAP A2. HUSKEY Attachment 11282 SPA and SPAA M1. M270 MRLS Attachment 11285 A3. ZUBR P Attachment 11281 Now I'm tired, so good night and have a GREAT Day! Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Don,
I guess I was more out of it then I thought. In the MBT section the second A1. should read A2.. This is to avoid confusion with the below para. Also A4. should also read A3. Had made some changes to better consolidate the inputs and forgot to re-letter the section. Feel free to fix if you have that ability. Hittin the rack. Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
All,
A quick note, it seems that the defencenews.com site after changing to it's new look did not link their older articles to their archive system. The affect of this is of course that basically anything used as a ref before ~ August appears to be useless including most off this last Patch Post. Any saved articles off the current site seem to be "recalled" without any problems thus far. Sorry for any inconvenience just noticed this issue a short time ago while researching some items for my next submission. Not seeing any problems with the army-techonlogy.com site in this area as they've just upgraded their site a couple of days ago. So it's not your computers. Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Don,
In regards to MBT Post #151 OPLOT to Thailand, I intend to move forward with it. As reported the contracts were formally signed about a month ago, this next ref provides me with the contract dates I needed will use JAN 2012 or JUN 2012 which ever you like best, closeout for the contract is 2013. Total units 49. Will be on my next patch post (#2). http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product4221.html Click on note for COMBAT missile shell, Thailand is getting them as well. Got to get ready for the daughters wedding rehearsal, have a great weekend!!! Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
2 Attachment(s)
Don,
I have solid information to support that the SPECTRE/SPOOKY AC-130 gunships have a normal 200 meter attack radius and can track and attack three separate targets simultaneously, will the current codex support this within the game? If code limited I'll just highlight the information, but if the game will support it I'll need to further "word tech" it to justify the change and your time to make it happen when submitted. There might be some information as already submitted from last years Patch Post and or the "old" SPOOKY thread I had, will try to reenter the posts as an edit before the 30 min. clock runs out. I'm not there yet, my focus is to tie up a couple of loose ends in the MBT, APC and MRAP world first (About six more units in four countries.) and the HELOS in the next post, once that's done I know how to make contact to discuss Patch Post #3 or put this off again as #1 for next year to include this topic item. As always thanks for your time. See JETS & PLANES...Post #21 first two items. TO&E Page 3 Upper 1/3 AC-130U Time to Upgrade? thread. Ahh Hell why not since people liked it! Attachment 11489 Attachment 11491 Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
The code is set up to circle and area and fire into it. That's it
Don |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
They certainly circle the target hex and fire into it, and given the number of weapons on the aircraft and the number of times they fire one would expect them to obliterate everything in the target hex. Sadly this has not been the case in my experience. I used them several times in Vietnam era scenarios and counted myself lucky if they caused one or two casualties to a squad and only recall a single instance where one destroyed a vehicle. But as with anything I'm sure others have seem them decimate regiments single-handedly.
|
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Don,
To be clear... 1. Target hex orbit circle cannot be expanded out 200 meters around the hex. 2. Can only attack one target per turn while on the game screen. 3. Will have to rethink options for submission to include at the extreme recommending deletion based on normal operational orbit while attacking targets which is at ~5NM. There are other enhancements I can move forward with though as well. But I like them. Suhiir, It is my understanding that the 7.62mm twin Gatling guns carried on AC-47 "Puff the Magic Dragon" could drop a round every square foot along it's "run line" a few feet deep/wide. Things got better with the more capable AC-119 SHAWDOW and STINGER gunships leading to SPECTRE. Basically "Pops" and his friends @ the VFW were grateful to be able to have fond memories of some of what "Puff" did in the field over there, and are my reference for how effective they were at removing small trees, bushes and mowing down the grass and anything that moved in it. I guess based on that it's almost the perfect yard maintenance tool (Though expensive!) and will keep that annoying neighbor in check as well!?! Anyway might need to rethink these a little on target effectiveness. Can see Jets and Planes already slipping into the abyss of next year. http://www.ac-119gunships.com/ http://www.ac-119gunships.com/scrapb...shdwphl003.htm http://www.ac-119gunships.com/scrapb...shdwphl008.htm http://www.ac-119gunships.com/scrapb...shdwphl055.htm http://www.ac-119gunships.com/scrapb...shdwphl056.htm http://www.ac-119gunships.com/scrapb...stgrphl003.htm http://www.ac-119gunships.com/scrapb...stgrphl006.htm Enjoy! Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
1 Attachment(s)
Don,
This is at your leisure to answer, just something I "stumbled upon", is there a difference between the Rifled 100mm D10T Ro95 game carried on Romania's TR-85M1 NATO upgraded tank vs Rifled 100mm A308? This pertains to UNITS 17 & 18. Also I can thus far find no reference to a MK II type as Unit 18 represents pending further investigation on my part. For everyone else here's one of my refs to show the tank in question which is a highly modified T-55 brought up to NATO standards with exception of the main gun. http://www.military-today.com/tanks/tr85m1.htm Pic: Attachment 11593 Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Yes, 100mm D10T Ro95 = 100 mm A308 gun
Yes, 100 mm A308 gun is an adaption of the M1977 gun Yes I will be looking into the stats for both as one or both may need adjusting Don |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
About ERA, a quick question do you differentiate between the various types out there, to include also NERA and SLERA types?
My thinking is simply this, if I know the type would it be useful to you for me to add it as a ref (Or two.) and in the write up to any MBT/APC or even MRAP submitted? Of course I would do this for NO ADDITIONAL COST! For instance NERA is what will be on the ARJUN MK II. For others some background info below; http://defense-update.com/features/d...tive-armor.htm Where NERA at the time of this article would rate about a 3 or 4 in ERA qualities only in 2004 today with technical advances made since it would today rate be closer to 6 or 7 GENERALLY speaking. Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Pat..... there is early ERA ( <10 ) and advanced ERA >9 and that is it. We generally increase the number of charges for "more advanced" types so the Arjun Mk II in the current working set of OOB's has an 18 ERA rating
Don |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Don,
I think I follow that older tanks etc. will have the negative factor applied while newer ones will have the positive factor applied if we keep this in the KISS frame of mind for guys like me. What I'll simply do is provide the info as to type (If any applied to the tank or other.) without comment and let you do the math. This way there'll be a record of it to avoid or minimise any further discussion of a piece of equipment down the road. In another words I'll try to make the package more complete as I started doing to include ATGW self protection equipment last year. Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Don,
1. Started on the items as discussed, if you have time for them at the start of next month. I know!?! ;) 2. Need clarification of the following like myself this could be a "teachable moment" for others as well; just finished OPLOT issues for Ukraine and Thailand. Using Ukraine Units 061-063. What is meant by the following: 061 OPLOT (V) 062 OPLOT (R) 063 OPLOT (VR) For the record recommending 062 for deletion for other reasons beyond the lettering question, and think one more for redundancy reasons unless those letters mean something I'm missing looking at Mobhack Editor. Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
061 OPLOT (V)-------- Has VIRSS , NO reactive armour
062 OPLOT (R)-------- Has reactive armour, NO VIRSS 063 OPLOT (VR)------ Has both reactive armour AND VIRSS This allows them to be bought in any configuation Don |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Note to self-listen to CINCLANTHOME more often. :clap: You see I've been told not too over analyze things when the answer is right in front of me at times. :shock: So with that in mind-thanks Don! :doh:
Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
It makes alot sense,if you consider the world economics,there will be little improvements if any at all in arms development.
France just lost it's high credit rating also,expect the the rest of Euro's will soon follow There is serious debate on the US congress floor and those that want to take command in the white house, on serious decreasing of defense spending,and more on making more jobs,but this is maybe purely political camoflage. |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Quote:
Don |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Quote:
...Pat, there are ammo upgrades made which means it's a waste of time to simply extend Turk Leo 1s to 2020 because the older versions are carrying old ammo and that's why the Leopard 1A3 T2 is set up to run alone from 1/110 with the latest ammo upgrade. If the T1 versions are indeed still in service then they need to be copied and have the latest gun added into weapon slot 1 but with all the change this and change that I'm not clear on when you are suggesting the Leo 1's first made it to Turkey. It *appears* to be SEP 1982 Don |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Don,
The Turkish LEO 1 tanks are definitely still in service of this I have no doubts about at all based on the volume of refs pointing to it besides what I supplied. However if you feel the issue is similar to the M-60 Rise issue of a couple of years ago which also dealt with ammo and gun issues, 1) We can leave it as is like back then or 2) Maybe increase the service life as you feel comfortable doing based on your current info and notes to reduce your work load. The other Turkish LEO issues are more important to me and to be perfectly honest for the weeks put into just that "rabbit hole" and with all due respect; I'll have to break out my entrenching tools!?! ;) See Pg. 1 Post #3 A3. and Pg.2 Posts #14 - #17 (Didn't remember until I just checked previous; on Turkish LEO Pg. 1 Post #3 M3. - C6.) in this thread as a reminder of that M-60 situation, as always I'll defer to your decisions since based on the body of the work submitted in this area of my passion for the game I really can't complain about the overall results I've had thus far. For this I'm grateful for in doing the above and maintaining a professional working situation. Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
I'm going to go over all the Leo 1 changes again tomorrow because after all the add-this-change-that-delete-this-add-that there appears to be some serious problems with T1 units going to 2020 but no T2's
|
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Don,
Three weeks on the first half alone a month off for the middle section and start of the last probably 7-8 to weeks alone between life issues just to get through the volume of refs to get about a 90+% consensus of all the sources. Bottom line it was the toughest equipment issue to date for me and there fore I would prefer you not to get bogged down here based on everything else on your plate. The last two Turkish LEO issues are easier to deal with and are more straight forward I hope and think. Would rather the other items on PP #65 go first as they are also more to the point if you will. And did I mention about three pages of legal paper with the complete Turkish LEO OOB UNITS on it as well to compare against those refs!?! :banghead Ping Pong balls come to my mind right now or better a tennis match. The clock ticks on unfortunitly and it can wait besides after today on here and there I owe CINCLANTHOME a day away from the house with a nice dinner and I know you can relate. If we have time at the end we can hit it and as the CORPS would say "GIT SUM" ALONG WITH SOME :cheers: while we're at it. So as I save the following for motivaition and aimed at this issue I leave with this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM82Vuq3PdM Followed by a fine Irish song and one for the Scotsman across the pond as well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fdxgn...eature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do_o5...layer_embedded I love the pipes that's why I had them at my retirement. I hope you all will enjoy the interlude. Now I ramble so off to the shower and a good nights sleep. After... Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
From post #65
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Don |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
1 Attachment(s)
Don,
Yes. I had to take what info I had including that picture ref. from MAY 2010, again posted below from their Defence Directorate in charge of R&D, Procurement etc. for those dates. Attachment 11617 Two other things drove that decision to go with the dates as well... 1. The LEO A1 and A3 series MBT's just completed the last of their upgrades with the ASELAN FCS MK I System in 2009. 2. The M60T RESET Program was also finishing up around that time as well. The only option and I believe you might have it in the back of your head as well for the A4, is to extend the end date to either DEC. 2009 or NO later then JUN. 2010. I have to tell you I was totally "locked on target" with the whole LEO issue and refs at hand and had to have a little faith in something at that point. But I am open to the above as well if it'll serve the game a little better. Off topic to an extent and now for next year, you'll see the same sort of thing with SAAF ROOKIVAK helo that was grounded then RESET over 18 months. As a reminder for others the LEO A4 were bought with no mods from Germany because of the huge capital investment being made to totally RESET all 298 of these tanks. Providing the ALTAY program stays on track these LEO-2T tanks represent the final step to reaching that goal. Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
2 Attachment(s)
OK
Found this shot below the one posted the other day. Information is not clear but I suspect the tank beside the basic 2A4 is the Altay and what's in the parade is the Leo 2T. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...8&d=1327370166 One thing is clear they are not the same tank and the top photo beside the 2A4 is more refined. I picked up that photo from a Turkish blog. Needless to say, I don't read Turkish so I don't know what the text said that accompanied it and now I cannot find the website again.... However... if the top photo is indeed the Leopard 2T ( Next generation )then what are the ones in the parade........ AH HA !! http://military21.blogspot.com/ It **appears** that the lower photos is a parade of Singaporean Leopard 2SG and they were ( I'm guessing ) Used to compare to the 2T http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1327373901 Don |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
3 Attachment(s)
Don,
Gave me a scare there! Yes top photo compared LEOPARD-2T to the Turkish LEOPARD-2A4. I don't know if it was mentioned but, yes the LEOPARD-2T is also known as the LEOPARD-2NG (Next Generation-Trade name.). Below are more photos to offer a different prospective for the Icon, these were taken at IDEF 2011. Attachment 11620 Attachment 11621 This is a mock up of the ALTAY from the same show. Attachment 11622 As a side note going back to the "poster" showing all the Turkish tanks look at the LEOPARD-2A4, what's missing from all the others? The standard Turkish practice of adding the "T" designator to their tanks. Could be relevent to our earlier discussion on dates maybe or not. Before I forget from the gun/tank maker of OPLOT. http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/kba3.php Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
MBT…
By time this gets posted; the following issues are being resolved for all OPLOT units including Thailand’s: 1) Will get the KBA-3 125mm vice the current 120mm L55 Sw01. 2) Thailand will receive the modified Ukrainian UNIT 063 OPLOT with the NOZH-2 ERA as carried on the OPLOT-M. 3) Thailand’s fielding date will be JAN 2013. 4) This completes the OPLOT package not all was passed via PM. 5) The refs. are for everyone else and is how I've always operated, it’s my standard, and lord knows I've harped about that enough in the forum. So below completes my entries for the 2011/2012 campaign, Patch Post #2... C4. UKRAINE/OPLOT (T-84)/UNIT 061/CHANGE/120mm L55 Sw01 to the 125mm KBA-3/ERA equal to value of UNIT 062/Start Date to JAN 2000./The only “OPLOT” tanks to carry the 120mm were produced as demonstrators for the Turkish MBT competition in 2000 though the actual tank was the export version better known as the YATAGAN (KERN2-120) which was designed to meet NATO standards. All OPLOT MBT’s have ERA installed on them. The OPLOT MBT was offered to Greece in 1998 and Malaysia in 2000 with both the YATAGAN and OPLOT offered. Greece went with the Leopard and Malaysia went with a heavily modified PT-91 TARWDY. The OPLOT entered service with the Ukrainian Army in 1999 according to the manufacturer. Seems to be a split with the 1999 date and when it was first seen in 2001 in a military parade in Kiev with the refs available. The Greek tender is well documented which would support the 1999 date. The armor of the OPLOT is multi-layered, with many surfaces having ceramic/steel/aluminum sandwich-type applique armor. A lesser form of this armor is also found on the turret roof and hull floor. The standard ERA is still the Kontakt-5-type ERA of the T-80UD, but the lugs allow for the mounting of virtually any ERA in the former Soviet/Warsaw Pact inventory, as well as allowing for new forms of ERA in the future. The hatches for the commander and gunner are much more armored, and have hydraulic assists to help the crew open and close the now-very heavy hatches. Like the T-80UD, the OPLOT uses both the Varta and Shtora-1 active protection systems, and have the same thermal and radar signature suppression design features. D3. UKRAINE/OPLOT (T-84)/UNIT O62/DELETE/This MBT does not fit with the refs provided above or below and is redundant to UNITS 061&063 C5. UKRAINE/OPLOT (T-84)/UNIT 063/CHANGE/120mm L55 Sw01 to the 125mm KBA-3/Start Date to JAN 2011/ERA to the level of UNIT 064/By 2010 the decision was made to significantly decrease production of the OPLOT in favor of the OPLOT-M. Further it was decided an easy and inexpensive method to provide an upgrade to the OPLOT was simply to add the NOZH-2 ERA which could be done in the maintenance depots thus not interfering with the OPLOT-M production which would not be fielded until JUN 2011. Click on first ref. upper left for further system info; note KBA-3 info provided in second ref. and finally evaluation info as described in C4 above. On the last scroll down about 1/2 way. http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/t84.php http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/t84armament.php http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/t84participation.php http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/T-80U.htm C6. UKRAINE/OPLOT-M/UNIT 064/CHANGE/120mm L55 Sw01 to the 125mm KBA-3/Increase EW to 5 or 6 VICE 2./The OPLOT-M is considered one of the best protected tanks in the world for the reasons below and should reflect that in the EW rating increase over the above current OPLOT units (EW 4) to which this tank is a much improved version of. The OPLOT-M has an actual ECM system as well as IFF and IRCM system based on their aircraft counterparts; these degrade radar users’ attempts at detection by one level and users of IR-guided weapons by two levels. The ERA of the OPLOT is the more advanced Nozh-2, which protects against both tandem HEAT warheads and provides some protection against AP and KE-type rounds. Machine gun ammunition is somewhat increased over the OPLOT. The OPLOT-M uses the 1200-horsepower turbocharged 6TD-2E, which gets better fuel mileage and emits a much less-obvious exhaust plume with the advantage that it’s faster. The OPLOT-M has a 10kW APU, versus the 8kW APU of the other models of the OPLOT. * NOTE the KT 12.7 12.7mmMG is a remote operated weapon on all OPLOT versions* http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/oplot_mbt.php http://www.ukrspecexport.com/index/c...lang/eng/id/42 http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/T-80U.htm A4. THAILAND/ADD/JUN 2012(NOW JAN 2013)/OPLOT (T-84)/USE UKRAINE UNIT 063/Some refs point to the OPLOT-M as being the tank being bought by Thailand, if true I would think it to be a “dumbed” down version since the technology is new and probably proprietary. This is why I think Ukraine UNIT 063 will cover this situation with the side skirts added. Date chosen based on early production rate of ten units per year for OPLOT-M from manufacturer site. This seems reasonable based that the tank is in production as noted and the initial Thai order of 49 tanks is to be completed by DEC 2013. http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product4221.html See the following for further information; Post #151 Page 16, Post #169 NEWS Item #4 from MBT section of Patch Post #1 for 2011/2012 submitted in SEP last year. To start the 2012/2013 campaign some MBT fix issues M60T, ARJUN MKII, APC ADDs to include one from the first year I submitted equipment inputs, MRAP ADDs again new equipment, HELOS are off to a good start already thank god before...well use your imagination there and the big JETS and Planes project which I have the info for again...as previously described. BUT FIRST DOWN TIME WITH CINCLANTHOME IS NEEDED and time off from life in general. So if you live in a state bordering NC and feel an earthquake sensation in a couple of weeks or so...don't worry it's only me "stumblin n bumblin" down the ski slope, IF THERE'S ANY SNOW LEFT!?! Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Quote:
For tanks there are 4 "EW" settings EW 1 & 2 = "CIWS" which is the closest and shortest abbreviation we could put in there to indicate active defence systems. EW 1 gives you one active defence measure, EW 2 gives you two. EW 3 & 4 = "VIRSS" which is the closest and shortest abbreviation we could put in there to indicate passive defense measures like "Visual and Infrared Screening Smoke" There is nothing above "EW"4 and 1 is not less than four, just different AND ( what follows seems to have confused people in the past so I'll explain it again ) it's a ONE EVENT DEAL so popping a VIRSS cloud ONLY AFFECTS THE INCOMING MISSILE that tripped that event. It does not linger like a normal smoke cloud and it does it that way because that's the only way we could find to bend this code to simulate this. Quote:
"EW" 1 gets you one Trophy / Arena type active defense against an incoming missile and "EW" 2 gets you two There is no EW 5 or 6 Don |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Don,
The CINCLANTHOME "over analyzing" discussion comes to mind again from an earlier post. The last was...let's call it a former occupational issue and leave it at that. Thank you for the clarification on behalf of myself and others who'd honestly say "I didn't know that." I will refer to last post as an update to the beginning of 2011/2012 PP#2 before putting it into it's "home" thread. THANKS! Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Don,
I saw the reply to Suhiir on the USAF/USMC thread and was just wondering from a layman's point of view if this OPED couldn't be an option to relieve some of the OOB slot issues that exist in some of the more proliferate defence spending countries such as the U.S., Russia and China and others. Given I would assume that we have eight years worth of equipment left to put into the game, and besides the possible need to cull the more critical countries of redundant equipment including the possibility of removing fighter types of aircraft to only direct ground support types (And yes everyone that pains me to suggust it.) such as the A-10, F-15, Hornet, B-52, B-1 and B-2 in the current era by example. This can be argued as feasible, I've personally have read many documents that have suggested during the "Cold War" the Fighter issue would've cancelled each other out for air combat reasons and would've only played a minor or no had no role in the ground war, again I'm just trying to offer long term solutions here. Secondly I see that there are 7 R&D slots, could we not on a "as needed" basis use three of them in a regional plan as follows 1. The AMERICAS slot from Canada down to S. America and within that OOB assign X number of slots to cover the expected needs of Canada etc. again as needed based on that counties "home" OOB slot availability. 2. Europe 3. Asia and possibly 4. Africa maybe at the end of the cycle. Entry into this "club" would have to be restricted by priority of new equipment, RESET, or other major modification not covered by the RESET standard. Again these are just food for thought but, I'll just throw this out there again given the choice as an air commander tasked with a ground support mission what would I rather use given the option between F-16's and F-15's for the mission? I would do the following my F-16's would sweep the skies of the enemy, while my more capable with a larger payload F-15's took care of the ground support mission and would still be more then capable of fighting on it's way home if required to do so. http://www.af.mil/information/factsh...t.asp?fsID=103 http://www.af.mil/information/factsh...t.asp?fsID=102 There is almost a 50,000lb difference in the Max. takeoff Wts. which isn't all for fuel and favors the F-15 Strike Eagle. I don't like short term fixes as they don't take into account the long term ramifications of the initial problem at hand. In the Silent Service from day one it is instilled into us "that the only stupid question is the one not asked." So I'm asking and will gladly become put of the solution. Like current Defense Spending in most countries I'm not afraid to break out the scalpel "to cut the budget" and that goes for all the other countries in the game as well. However I do recognize some smaller countries have to use fighter types in a multi role fashion that the F-16 fills the niche for again by example, but then again most of them aren't or don't have a pending slot issue at this time or are likely to in the future. Just some thoughts on a cold beautiful day in SE GA. Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
The short answer is there are other solutions that we have had under discussion for some time
Don |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Don,
The bold part is the heart of the question for you. The rest you pretty much know about already. I don't need an immediate answer as I know this is Andy's and YOUR down time. This question covers a little of what was discussed in the last two posts in this thread about of equipment slots. As a reminder to others, Russia that I posted elsewhere is down to ~25 slots and the probably near the same for the USA. However technology moves (As does the news.) on and I'll be posting issues dealing with both items just noted in the MBT Thread within the week. So the related question is this, what TI/GSR value would be given a unit that can see and fire beyond 4000m? My thinking is this at least 50 based on the IDF MERKAVA 4 series tanks now in the game that have that very capability. Until I post, I'm looking at possibly 3 countries, 1 MBT & IFV and 1 MBT for each of the other two countries. I'm not playing a game (Or the game either.) here for others, I just need to verify the info for country three first. Country One has just fielded theirs, Two will within the next two years and three will be longer. My Thai troops don't need me yet as the monsoons are still occurring!?! :rolleyes: Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Right now, for ground units tanks max out at 50 and some few specialized scout / FO units getting 60. Bumping tanks to 60 has never been discussed because there has been no real reason to
Don |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Don,
I'll post what I have and you guys will have to make the final determination, but as I indicated, TI/GSR 50 is my thinking minimum based on this new information. Regards, Pat |
Re: The FASTBOAT Patch page.
Don,
No immediate reply is required. In this thread I asked the question (See posts #49 & #50.) of what rating for VISION TI/GSR would be assigned a tank with a modern 2nd GEN FCS and the answer was 40. I know you've seen my post concerning the vision being increased to 50 on MBTs based on them being able to identify and hit a target out to 4000m. Not having this range information, would you have an issue if it is equipped with a verifiable 3rd GEN FCS (These started to appear in a reliable form ~2005.) and submitted for a particular tank? Italy's ARIETE MK II comes to mind as I just came across it today. I would like to clear this issue up as item #1 on the MBT input for the 2012/2013 Campaign. With the number of tanks thus far named, I would like to get ahead on this to research and supply specific FCS info from the manufacturer as well when submitted. Everything else I feel is at hand, I just need to pull it together from the last two years (Jets) and threads posted thus far, a little :cool: with some :rolleyes: and I hope nothing too much more! Thanks in advance!!!! Regards, Pat |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:22 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2024, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.