battles for NZ and AU

[rich4421972]

This one is for the Major,

Is it tenable to someday wish to see solitaire scenarios written that would illustrate the fighting capabilities of the AU and NZ Armies against regular formations of modern OPFOR?

I say this because both armies seem to have excellent capabilities (when planted in the midst of a Canadian scenario, say) and I think it would be interesting to use them ( AU and NZ) in either solitaire games or IPX games. Mostly solitaire, I guess, because it would be instructive to learn the rest of their OOB and how they use it in a real situation.

I know there is no wish list any more, but it would be interesting to know what these units would used for in the "grand scheme of things."

In the Australian and New Zealander versions of the game, are there such scenarios?

Thanks

Rich

[MajorH TacOps Developer]

> Is it tenable to someday wish to see solitaire scenarios

> written that would illustrate the fighting capabilities of

> the AU and NZ Armies against regular formations of modern

> OPFOR?

Yes.

>I know there is no wish list any more ...

There is still a wish list. It currently contains 1,255 items.

> In the Australian and New Zealander versions of the game,

> are there such scenarios?

No.

[rich4421972]

Originally posted by MajorH:

[QB]> Is it tenable to someday wish to see solitaire scenarios

> written that would illustrate the fighting capabilities of

> the AU and NZ Armies against regular formations of modern

> OPFOR?

Yes.

>

OK, I would like to ask you to put such AU and NZ scenarios on the wish list if they are not already there.

This is good news.

Thank You,

Rich

[Mike Robel]

You can of course use the tools in the simulation to change weapons and equipment to change existing solitare scenarios to anything you wish to add.

To do so, go to OPTIONS|Change Units & Weapons Blue (or Red/other color), and change the pieces of equipment you desire.

I have done this many time to change a scenario using one type of equipment (such as the M1) to the IAV/Stryker to play against the AI.

You can also change the AI's units in the same way, so as to change T-80's/BMP-2 to T-55/BTR-60 if you wish to model a less capable OPFOR.

I have not had any problem doing this, however, adding additional units to the AI side can have an unanticipated effect on play.

Hope this helps.

[rich4421972]

Originally posted by Mike Robel:

[QB]You can of course use the tools in the simulation to change weapons and equipment to change existing solitare scenarios to anything you wish to add.

This is great advice. I guess I forgot all about it

I want to be as accurate as possible in my "new" scenario and, once again, I need to study up before making any comment. Perhaps some of you are familiar with these two countries and could say what structurte their OOB follows. How do they march into battle? Attack fortifications? ride in convoy formation? Conduct mobile defense (as in Team Ostle)? Do they use HMMWV platoons? Griffon helicopters or Kiowas? There is so much to think about! I didn't think any body would even appreciate this aspect of the game.

I am also very interested to starting a PBEM game featuring New Zealand versus OPFOR on a good map (like the one for Team Ostle or Hill)with anyone who would like to explore this concept with me (but I want to be realistic so maybe it would have to be a stationary defense of an objective (not a mobile one )). My email is in the profile (I think). I can't find the old TacOps web page where you could get maps and set up an IPX with somebody.

Thanks for your help, Major and Mike!

Rich

[ June 23, 2002, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: rich4421972 ]

[MajorH TacOps Developer]

> I can't find the old TacOps web page where

> you could get maps and set up an IPX with somebody.

http://www.battlefront.com/resources/tacops/

[gibsonm]

Rich,

The ADF (Australian Defence Force) does train for high intensity conventional Ops within a coalition framework but we (like the Kiwi's) don't have the same massive budget as the US.

We have basically one heavy (mech) Bde with an Armoured Regt (Tk Bn - Leopard AS1), a Mech Bn (currently M113A1 but upgrading to M113A3), a Mtd Bn (currently M113A1 but upgrading to M113A3 but not integral) and a Mdm Arty Regt (M198). There is also a light Bde trained for airmobile ops (Blackhawk).

There are also several leg Inf Bn's trained to rotate through the Mtd Bn position (as happens in Timor) or the Light Bde.

There are also some LAV-25 equiped Recce units.

No HMMWV I'm afraid. Nearest thing we have is Land Rover (a 4x4 like Jeep).

The current doctrine is that in a suitable scenario (say Gulf War '03) we could provide an organisation similar to an ACR (but with less cbt power) to be used as a flank guard for say Seventh Corps. However this would require almost all of the Army's units (especially once a rotation model was in place).

In terms of generic doctrine such a force would have a screen, adv guards, flank guards, main body etc.

Hope that helps.

[rich4421972]

Thank you,

I changed a scenario to use the said units and was surprised to find how well I did. The 4X4's seem to be as quick and dangerous as a HMMWV but still hasd trouble taking on heavy armor.

The AU infantry P9 units are excellent, The hardest part was ferrying them around since a 4X4 only carries 4!

It was still nearly impossible to get some headway in a scenario without the use of at least som LAAW-type rockets. I think that you already said this, but perhaps if the AU units were used as part of a mixed battalion and not a stand-alone, they could do really well in a venue like this (take any one of the CA or US scenartios and switch all units to AU/NZ including small arms). I know I shouldn't do this without more info

Now, the game uses the M72 as part of some of the

AU units, so Australia must buy those from America and mount them on their M113's, or something. Right now, I am thinking that Australia's military has a similar situation to that of Canada --only upgrade when the politician says "OK."

I have had great fun and have learned a lot, though.

What is a qualitative difference between a M1A6 rifle and a Steyer rifle? ( those of you who have used both or one can answer this, if you want)

[gibsonm]

Rich,

We don't have units based around Land Rovers so you can't really just replace HMMWV with Land Rovers. A std AU Leg Inf Coy has one organic Land Rover (and trailer) for the Q (logistic spt). After getting off the trucks - everyone else walks! the Land Rover isn't uparmoured or anything (imagine taking a Range Rover or Land Rover Discovery out of a dealer's showroom and painting it and you will get a good idea of its protective capability).

The std Coy has M-72 LAW in the sections with the Bn having 84mm as the main Anti-Armour wpn. In the pam there is Javelin but on the ground its the ever reliable Charlie Gustav ("anti armour weapon psychological") as we "black hats" (Royal Australian Armoured Corps soldiers) call them.

As for the AusSTEYR versus M-16 its pretty close (one plastic rifle versus another) however the AusSTEYR does have an optical sight which does improve accuracy somewhat.

[ June 24, 2002, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: gibsonm ]

[rich4421972]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

Rich,

We don't have units based around Land Rovers so you can't really just replace HMMWV with Land Rovers. A std AU Leg Inf Coy has one organic Land Rover (and trailer) for the Q (logistic spt). After getting off the trucks - everyone else walks! the Land Rover isn't uparmoured or anything (imagine taking a Range Rover or Land Rover Discovery out of a dealer's showroom and painting it and you will get a good idea of its protective capability).

I think that that might be a limitation in the representationof the AU Army in this engine.

The std Coy has M-72 LAW in the sections with the Bn having 84mm as the main Anti-Armour wpn. In the pam there is Javelin but on the ground its the ever reliable Charlie Gustav ("anti armour weapon psychological") as we "black hats" (Royal Australian Armoured Corps soldiers) call them.

I could not find any of these Javelins in the game. Nor a "Charlie Gustav," either. It would be really nice if I could locate some of these units -- they would sure help against a BRDM or two.

As for the AusSTEYR versus M-16 its pretty close (one plastic rifle versus another) however the AusSTEYR does have an optical sight which does improve accuracy somewhat.

I shall have to study more and more to keep up with all of this.

Your advice has helped me immensely. I should very much like to kep trying to make a good AU scenario out of the old Canadian and American molds.

Thanks

[ June 24, 2002, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: rich4421972 ]

[gibsonm]

Rich,

I'm sure the 84mm Carl Gustav is in the game (the link from the Battlefront home page to TACOPS 4 is a picture of one - manned by a brave Canadian by the looks of it).

Carl Gustav is the original Swedish name our soldiers (and no doubt others) have corrupted that into "Charlie Guts ache" and "84" and a few other unpublishable versions.

Basically it is a two man Anti Armour weapon that fires an 84mm round out to 450 - 550m but it has a pronounced signature (i.e it gives away its position as soon as it is fired). We first used it in the mid 60's (in fact there were problems with it in Vietnam because the Swedes refused to sell us ammunition to use it there). The Brits used it in the Fauklands (including disabling a surfaced submarine - if I recall correctly). It fires HEAT, HE and Illum.

Javelin is a true missile and is a major advance over the 84 but unfortunately its not deployed yet.

[ June 24, 2002, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: gibsonm ]

[rich4421972]

I have tried to make a purely "Australian" scenario. I noted that every time there is a Canadian ATGM team that I want to convert to AU/NZ, the only option in the Change units and Weapons menu is that of the AU Infantry P9. This unit includes the Steyr rifle, grenade launcher and M72 LAAW (both Canadian and American versions supported).

I suppose that the new version 4 has added some new, more appropriate units (the Charles Gustav, for example). I saw that picture, too. Did you know that they were Canadian just because they looked brave? I should think that the Australian must needs be pretty brave, too. Anyway, the engine just keeps getting better.

[gibsonm]

Rich,

No "brave" was a tounge in cheek comment referring to the fact that as soon as he fires every AFV within range is going to make life hell for him.

We call this "attracting the crabs" when infantry try to use these on massed AFV's.

[Allan Wotherspoon]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

Rich,

We have basically one heavy (mech) Bde with an Armoured Regt (Tk Bn - Leopard AS1), a Mech Bn (currently M113A1 but upgrading to M113A3), a Mtd Bn (currently M113A1 but upgrading to M113A3 but not integral) and a Mdm Arty Regt (M198). There is also a light Bde trained for airmobile ops (Blackhawk).

There are also several leg Inf Bn's trained to rotate through the Mtd Bn position (as happens in Timor) or the Light Bde.

What's the difference between the Mtd Bn and the Mech Bn?

Allan

[Allan Wotherspoon]

The Carl Gustav resides in the database under Canada, as does the Milan ATGM. You should be able to add them to scenarios without any problem. The game doesn't care if they are wearing berets or slouch hats.

Allan

[rich4421972]

I think a Canadian ATGM might do the trick, but there is something that doesn't quite seem right about it (If it says "from Canada," I will never feel that I put the right unit in --it's like a Soviet M3 tank (sounds funny)). Thanks for the great tip!

[MajorH TacOps Developer]

> I think a Canadian ATGM might do the trick, but there is

> something that doesn't quite seem right about it (If it

> says "from Canada," I will never feel that I put the right

> unit in -- it's like a Soviet M3 tank (sounds funny)).

Usually I prefer to not duplicate equipment in the game data base if the only thing different about it is the name of the country using it. It wastes memory and contributes to users needing newer computers.

I did duplicate many items for the Canadian Army plus I added some obsolete and pretty much useless items (such as the Carl Gustav) because ... well ... they paid to do so .

>I suppose that the new version 4 has added some new, more appropriate units

v4 does not add any more Australian units nor does it correct likely problems in the current Australian units. My contacts with the Australian Army over the last few years have been unsatisfactory and I have accordingly lost interest in the Australian and New Zealand data base entries.

[rich4421972]

How can I tell which instrument is the Carl Gustav?

Does it have unit designation? (I think that Carl Gustav is a "nickname")

[ June 25, 2002, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: rich4421972 ]

[gibsonm]

Alan,

Mech means the unit owns the APC's (they are integral to and owned by the unit). Mtd means a leg infantry unit and an APC unit join for a specific operation. The APC unit provides a taxi service for the Inf unit.

The Mech Bn trains constantly with vehicles whereas the Mtd organisation consists of two groups who know what to do but not necessarily to the same std.

Major: Happy to review the V4 database when it comes out and provide updates for 4.1 (or whatever) within the limits of security (although I don't think there's anything I could tell you that isn't in Jane's). Can't help with Kiwi stuff though.

[gibsonm]

Rich,

Gun L14 84mm Anti Tank - does that make you any the wiser?

[rich4421972]

That's fantastic! I was really hoping I could use that once I found out what it was. You have been more helpful to me than you could ever know. I am so glad that we have an option of using these units in lieu of the Royal Canadians.

Thank you for all your input!

Rich

[MajorH TacOps Developer]

>Major: Happy to review the V4 database

>when it comes out and provide updates for

>4.1 (or whatever) within the limits of security

Security is one of the problems that I have had with the Australian Army. There doesn't seem to be anything that you guys do not consider to be classified .

Have you checked your Army web site lately. Everything has been removed that has anything to do with what one normally associates with a military organization. Leaving only clean, smiling faces engaged in sports activities, community help projects, ceremonial events, and such .

A slight exaggeration but not by much.

[ June 25, 2002, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: MajorH ]

[gibsonm]

Ah you have seen through our strategy!!!

If we published pictures of 30+ year old AFV's it wouldn't be very impressive let alone people doing war like stuff.

Much better to show sporting pictures and other politically correct images ....

Excuse me but I think I hear the foot falls of the Thought Police coming down the corridor. Ah well at least I've spent 20 odd years using the best off road recreational vehicles German industry could make (pity we could never afford to fire the big pole thing at the front).

[Allan Wotherspoon]

Originally posted by rich4421972:

How can I tell which instrument is the Carl Gustav?

Does it have unit designation? (I think that Carl Gustav is a "nickname")

It's in the database as CA SRAAW Team.

It's not that obsolete. The US Army Rangers bought a whole bunch a few years ago. While its capabilities against a modern tank are marginal at best, at least from the front, it can easily handle anything else on the battlefield as well as fulfilling a useful role against bunkers and buildings. Rounds for a CG are a lot cheaper than using an ATGW for the same thing!

Allan

[rich4421972]

I was able to find the AU M113 with 76mm gun and thought that it was similar to this "Charles Gustav," but I wasn't sure what I was looking for. Now I know

If the purpose of the unit is to draw fire an not necessarily to destroy hardened targets, I can see why Canada would use it. On the other hand, I think that neitherOttawa or Washington would ever send their bravest into battle with something that could get them hurt. I remember seeing a Canadian-built Easy-eight parked out B.C. Place and I remember thinking that I was glad they didn't use them currently, but rather have changed to Leopards and such. Perhaps the SRAAW will end up in a glass case someday as well. I think they are quite good (from a gaming perspective, that is).

By the way, I never realized that some things in TacOps are touchy with the participating governments. I didn't mean to ask too many questions.

[ June 26, 2002, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: rich4421972 ]