.com.unity Forums
  The Official e-Store of Shrapnel Games

This Month's Specials

Air Command 3.0- Save $15.00
BCT Commander- Save $8.00


Go Back   .com.unity Forums > The Camo Workshop > WinSPMBT > TO&Es

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 19th, 2022, 03:47 AM
DRG's Avatar

DRG DRG is offline
Shrapnel Fanatic
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: GWN
Posts: 11,347
Thanks: 2,989
Thanked 4,590 Times in 2,274 Posts
DRG will become famous soon enough
Default Re: APC Development and related topics.

I'll figure out how that can all mesh with the game restrictions.....eventually
Reply With Quote
Old June 19th, 2022, 04:56 AM
Mobhack's Avatar

Mobhack Mobhack is online now
National Security Advisor
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dundee
Posts: 5,787
Thanks: 204
Thanked 1,710 Times in 1,127 Posts
Mobhack is on a distinguished road
Default Re: APC Development and related topics.

The 6 vehicle double-platoon really does not fit the 10 item formation formation.

It will likely best be done with a platoon of grunts and then a platoon of carriers, for the human player only. He will have to manually load up the platoon. Option A.

Option B would be to make a "part A" and a "part B" each as a platoon, one would be notionally controlled by the armoured force Lt, the second by the infantry leutenant. Option B has been used before for some complex platoons.

The (leg) platoon formation is supposed to use the traditional 9 man section size - but it will have to be spread out into 6 man teams to fit the Bradleys carry capacity in the game.

Its actually a sensible way to do mech inf, with the carriers in a separate formation rather than crewed by the dismount platoon, methinks. So once the grunts are debussed, the APCs can go off and do somehing different (ie like the Russian concept of the Bronigroup, where the "Zulu pigs" are concentrated to form a company-level fire support element).
Reply With Quote
Old June 19th, 2022, 09:00 AM
DRG's Avatar

DRG DRG is offline
Shrapnel Fanatic
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: GWN
Posts: 11,347
Thanks: 2,989
Thanked 4,590 Times in 2,274 Posts
DRG will become famous soon enough
Default Re: APC Development and related topics.

I was thinking more along the lines of adding a new "Mech Sec BFV-C" to 184 "Ind Mech Pl" ( also renationalized so it only shows up in the Pl) starting ?????? but this one would be all infantry with 2X 713 instead of 480+ ATGM team

What I don't know or missed at 3:47 am was how that changes the Co formation but I am sure someone will enlighten me.

That said the fact that Mech Inf Co is already maxed out makes this "interesting" ( Although..... I think I see a workaround )

Last edited by DRG; June 19th, 2022 at 11:21 AM..
Reply With Quote
Old June 20th, 2022, 03:34 PM

Major General
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Kingsland, GA.
Posts: 2,421
Thanks: 598
Thanked 1,049 Times in 783 Posts
FASTBOAT TOUGH is on a distinguished road
Fallout Re: APC Development and related topics.

To say I'm "a little anal" about tracking weapons programs over decades in some cases, might be seen as an understatement to some out here.

But it's what I do to the best of my abilities, and this brings me now to the troubled AJAX/ARIES (ARIES is now as of last Summer being evaluated for the same issues to a somewhat lesser degree of severity.) Programs.

My first ref. was one of the last published before the end of the last year 2021. To fully understand what's going on with AJAX/ARIES and as it will turn out, a realistic look beyond Oct. 2021 when it was written. To compare AJAX to the NIMROD and other failed programs doesn't bode well for the future.

I further agree MOD made a serious error in dropping the WARRIOR CSP (In game as the WARRIOR "W"CSP UNIT 276.) upgrade program that would've made that platform viable until 2035 or 2040. It was cheaper, already started w/a couple of PROTOTYPES on a very reliable platform. That money invested went to waste with the rest I understand going to the AJAX/ARIES program and the additional funding not helping to resolve their issues.

" Press reports this morning suggesting that even though, due to safety concerns in relation to vibration and noise, Army testing of Ajax was halted a year ago, GD UK was still able to book a £75m profit on Ajax IFV last year which hardly helps. Neither does the knowledge that subsequently came to light of just how much of the capability is being built in Spain for onward assembly, complete with problems, into GD’s purpose-built plant in Wales."

The next is from March 2022 after the afore mentioned (Ref. 1) NOA released their report. As a "note" I quote from refs in the order they appear in the articles.


" The National Audit Office (NAO) warned there was a risk that troubles with the project "might prove insurmountable".

A Ministry of Defence (MoD) spokesperson said it would "not accept a vehicle that is not fit for purpose". "

" As of December 2021, more than 300 personnel may have been harmed by vibration and noise during testing, which has led to the significant delays. "

" Its report (Mine-NOA) found that the MoD itself has no confidence in its own target for Ajax to be fully operational by April 2025.

It also warned that it could take until the end of 2022 to find a solution, because the MoD and the manufacturer disagree on the safety of Ajax.

Meg Hillier, who chairs the House of Commons' Public Accounts Committee, said the NAO report "reads like a checklist for major project failure where almost everything that can go wrong, did go wrong".

The MP said: "Ajax has now joined the sorry pantheon of government projects which have gone off the tracks. "

"Ajax was supposed to be ready in 2017 but has already been pushed back twice. "

Labour's Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney MP, Gerald Jones, said the NAO report "makes for very grim reading".

They would further state,
" This damning report shows that the Ministry of Defence has not just let down staff, but also our armed forces who are in great need of vital new armoured fighting vehicles. "
(Note additional links at bottom of the article.)

My final thoughts: Based on tracking this program for at least ten years now, when you have serious in fighting occurring between MOD and the in this case GD on the direction of the program with both being at fault as I've reported beyond the current safety concerns, modifying which side you load the breach from etc. when the French left theirs unmodified and all things are working properly who do you think is meeting their FOC goals first?

And now the Gov't's involved and not happy about the delays, cost over runs, the wasted taxpayer's money (I think they elect those same MP's. ) and safety of the troops.

This "toxic" soup is not a good mix and at a minimum I see MAJOR delays and feel NOW more than in the past, this program has a real chance of meeting the same fate as the NIMROD.

What we need to consider is that the WARRIOR CSP UNIT 276 be pushed back to JAN 2024 START. This will give the Gov't and MOD more than enough time to determine whether to restart the WARRIOR CSP and IF THEY MAKE A DESCISION THIS YEAR to have it fielded by that date. The program was in a "mature state" when cancelled with field testing of the PROTOTYPES already have started. If anything, the MOD completed field testing and maybe reduced the number of the upgraded units to act as a "stop gap" while the AJAX issues got resolved. Also, WARRIOR CSP UNIT 276 was to get an armor/ERA(?) upgrade as well.

AJAX UNIT 602 before I go further, I feel it necessary to state that I REALLY like this piece of equipment. We have it working with the resources we had at the time and since (As we've pushed it back more times by one or two then the program itself was delayed and I believe we made some "tweaks" also along the way.) it's certainly as one of the best I feel we've done.

That being said, I feel at this point that to move the START to JAN 2025 is being generous.

ARES UNIT 908 the current START is off the mark, but it "got lost" in the AJAX issue. I'm more optimistic about this unit even though late last summer it got "dragged" into the same safety evaluation as the AJAX as reports to a somewhat lesser degree were happening to the crews on that platform as well. I think a new date START OF JAN/JUN 2023 is doable for ARES providing nothing more arises from the evaluations. remember ARES is in IOC with ONLY 14 units as of last fall.
(ONLY 14 units with IOC PLANNED for late summer last year.)

That's the best I can do for now

"If something is not impossible, there must be a way of doing it." - Sir Nicholas Winton

"Ex communi periculo, fraternitas" - My career long mentor and current friend -QMCM/SS M. Moher USN Ret..
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FASTBOAT TOUGH For This Useful Post:
Old July 24th, 2022, 04:26 AM
blazejos's Avatar

blazejos blazejos is offline
Second Lieutenant
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Pila, North west Poland
Posts: 455
Thanks: 203
Thanked 142 Times in 90 Posts
blazejos is on a distinguished road
Default Re: APC Development and related topics.

Future APC in Poland

Intended replacement for BWP-1 is Borsuk[Badger] which production already starting.

Poland also plan to buy South Korean AS21 Redback but a little bit different than this on photo with ZSSW-30 tower from Borsuk

Borsuk probably will be ordinary an APC and AS21 an Heavy APC becuase can't 💦

Last edited by blazejos; July 24th, 2022 at 05:41 AM..
Reply With Quote


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2022, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.