Expeditionary Forces Compatibility

[PabstMirror]

No description provided.

[veteran29]

LGTM

[mrschick]

Could this also add realistic names? i.e: for the new M-ATV variants.

[Apricot-ale]

Thanks for your work.

I think AH-99J (RAH-66 with external stub wings) should have a real name like M-ATV (because the base is already a real name), but I don't know what's the best name for it.
Should it be called Heavy Attack or Armed? Or should it just be RAH-66J?

And should the new types of vehicles added this time, AAV-9 (EFV/AAAV), LCC-1 (EDA-R/L-CAT), and Combat Boat (Stridsbåt NY or CB90 NG), have real names?
I personally think it's fine to keep the names as they are, but Combat Boat might be changed. What do you think?

I don't know much about infantry equipment, but I think it's fine as is. NVG (PVS-21?) is also fine as is.

[mrschick]

Or should it just be RAH-66J?

IMO that's the cleanest one.

[Apricot-ale]

Or should it just be RAH-66J?

IMO that's the cleanest one.

Yeah I think too, It's feels like A-10D (A-164 Wipeout)

[PabstMirror]

Would there be any overpressure on the 50mm autocannon? I didn't think so but wasn't sure

[Apricot-ale]

Assuming that it's clear that it's an XM913.
This is just my opinion, but I think there is some overpressure.
It felt the same as a 57mm naval gun to me.

I think it would be natural if it was about the same or bit powerful as the BMP3/BMD4 2A70 100mm low-pressure cannon.