Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Yardstick

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    271

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Yardstick

    M1117 Armored Security Vehicle Family

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Well yea, obviously...It's kind of been a concern I've had for a while...the military has invested billion upon billions building up this pool of theater specific vehicles that don't belong on any MTOE and have no real stated purpose once our current wars are done. It's kind of up in the air I think...I mean, noone has really answered the question of what we are going to actually do with all this equipment in our inventory when we've closed up shop in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think it's an interesting question to pursue...could they be integrated into our current MTOE? Could they have a place in a conventional war scenario? I could see the MRAP or ASV taking the place of certian HMMWV roles. You could easily replace the HMMWV's in a light battalion's AT platoon with either of the vehicles for example.

    More than likely they will be either "sold" to the Iraqis or moved to Kuwait as PREPO like we did after DS/DS. Look at the fleet of M1114s, they are practically giving those away to the IA and INP.

    0

    M1117 Armored Security Vehicle Family

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    It isn't part of the standard MTOE, but it has been used occasionaly depending on the mission. The A Co of my Combined Arms Battalion in Iraq had a set assigned to them for operations around Habbaniyah for the 16 months we were there. They loved the things.

    I would say you guys were the exception not the standard. Though I see your point on the MTOE, the MRAP certainly isn't on it thought we had them coming out of our ears. I think the bigger issue with the ASV is, neither it nor the MRAP are going to be seeing front line duty in an invasion. The ASV is an Armored Security Vehicle after all.

    0

    How does ECM work?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Yip. It's not difficult to see why that would be the case. Hopefully the game is a little more forth coming. It could get a bit tricky developing force packages without the data.

    I'm surprised that the US vehicles that would normally have ECM don't appear to have any even in 1.20. You would expect them to have an ECM capability on at least some of their vehicle types.

    I asked a very similar question about the US CREW systems. Steve's response was something along the lines of "the US vehicles have a lower base chance of falling victim to remote IEDs". He also said that they would look into it to ensure that it was functioning, or something like that.

    0

    M1117 Armored Security Vehicle Family

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    "...Used by U.S. Army Field Artillery Combat Observation Lasing Teams (COLTs) in both Heavy and Infantry Brigade Combat teams" - Textron

    You took that out of context, they were describing the M707, which is in-game already.

    The U.S. Army is developing the M1200 Armored Knight to provide improved survivability over the current M707 Knight (HMMWV based Knight). Used by U.S. Army Field Artillery Combat Observation Lasing Teams (COLTs) in both Heavy and Infantry Brigade Combat teams, the Armored Knight will combine the proven Armored Security Vehicle (ASV) with the M707 Knight Mission Equipment Package (MEP).

    "Is developing" means was not in service during the time frame of the game. The 200 or so that were in service at that time would have been assigned to MPs and FA guys pulling MP duty.

    0

    Updates to the US Army/USMC with British content

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    (i.e. all US units use M4 despite vast amounts of issued M4A1 and even vehicle crews using firing port high RoF low magazine size weapons regularly for close in suppresion/protection).

    Not so. As far as the Army is concerned, the M4A1 is only in service with SF and the 75th Ranger RGT. The M231 Firing Port Weapon is also a rarity. That being said, I have been asking about the M249 Para for the US Army for a long time, it appears that BFC is too busy/not concerned about it. As I have said before, the short barrel and collapsing butt stock for the M249 has been the standard for infantry units since pre-2005. Maybe one day we will see it in-game. I hope. Please?

    0

    Floating Icons

    in CMSF Scenario and Mod Design Forum

    Posted

    I changed the INF icon to represent a generic "rifle/automatic weapon" symbol in order to better represent the FBCB2. I also noticed that the circle with the x in it is actually a marker for a "coordination point", according to FM 1-07 Operational Terms and Symbols. The original INF X symbols are still in the mad folder, you would just have to rename them. I probably should have put all of this in a "read me" lol.

    0

    Your Best Screen Shot 2

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    And of course, the new truck... with some wall jumping soldiers

    TRUCK1crop.jpg

    I'm guessing from this photo that the M1114 isn't getting a proper turret. Is this correct? I find it odd that the LMTV has a fully enclosed turret that was designed for the M1114/M1151 series. In fact, I have yet to see an 1114 with out an enclosed turret IRL. Can some one confirm or deny this, please?

    0

    Beta Testers - Does the BF Module plays differently

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Angryson,

    IIRC we gave all US vehicles a base ability to decrease the chance of falling victim to remote detonated IEDs. However, you are correct that we should make sure of that. It's not possible to do for v1.20, however it is a fairly simple fix that can be put in after if we think it's needed. At the very least perhaps we should toss up some more icons in the Defenses Report :D

    Steve

    Cool. Thanks for the reply.

    0

    M320

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    AKD,

    I honestly forgot about looking into the option of having the Marines Rifle Squads optionally have no M32s but instead have good old fashioned M203s on their M16s. It's too late for v1.20 release, but I'll see if it might be possible to do for another release.

    Steve

    That would be awesome.

    0

    M320

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Yup, we were going to put in the M320 until it looked like it would be pushed off for a long time due to other funding priorities. We were correct, BTW, about it being fielded much later than it was supposed to be.

    The opposite seems to be the case with the Marines M32. When we had to make the decision about putting it in or not we were being told it was already being trialed in combat. That and some inside information made us think it was going to be coming into the field, en mas, very quickly. Guessed wrong on that one :D

    Steve

    Ya win some, ya lose some, right? ;)

    0

    M320

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Juts side loading, and can be removed from the underbarrel. Although, I'm not sure who in their right mind would want to do that

    No doubt the same guys that wanted us to carry M79s during OIF III.

    IIRC BFC originally intended to put the XM320 into CMSF, as is evident by the "Green, Yellow, Dead" weapon icons in the info panel. My question is, are they are going to change the icon or update the WPN system or say f-it, it's fine as is? I remember this being the debated here back in '05, so I wonder where BFC will go with this one.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...