Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Aircraft - continued.


601 PWS-26 [AOP aircraft] - this in fact should be available since 9/39 only (now 1/37), because it was a trainer during a peacetime.
Same for 616 RWD-8

607-612 Fokker VII/3m - according to A. Morgała, military variant was named Fokker VIIm3W. In fact, max speed was only 185 km/h (now speed 3)

As for units 609 and 610, the sources don't give details as for its load (1000 kg), but it seems very doubtful, if Fokker could carry 300 kg bombs. 200 kg bombs were unknown in the Polish service at all.

464 PZL P-23A Karas - name should be just "PZL-23A Karas".
It was introduced to units from 9/36 (now 5/36).
MG should be #190 wz.33.
Due to weaker engine, more likely armament of A version would be 8x50 kg bombs rather, or 4x100, 4x50 max (now: 5x100, 4x50)

613-615 PZL P-23B Karas - name should be "PZL-23B Karas". B variant was introduced to units from spring 1937 (now 11/36)

9 bombs is too much, it could carry 8 big bombs only.
As for unit 613 it would be 6x100 kg and 2x50 kg (though practically used load was up to 600 kg)
As for unit 614 it would be 8x50 kg

There could be added variant with 24 x 12kg bombs, if it's useful.

Weapon 194 100kg Bomb could in fact be changed to 110 kg Bomb, which was its real mass according to a monograph on PZL-37 Łoś (they were German WW1 PuW bombs and Polish Ż wz.31)

Weapon 196 Myszka Bomb should be named ".. bombs", or in fact "bomblets".
BTW: all weapons "Bomb" could be renamed "Bomba" in Polish (like in Italian oob)

617 PZL L-2a - name was just PZL L-2. Precisely, used from 9/30 (now 1/30 - at that time, a prototype haven't flown yet)

618 RWD-14b Czapla - serial variant was named LWS Czapla. It was introduced to units from 5/39 (now 8/38)

619 LWS-3 Mewa - should be available from 9/39 only (7/39) - few introduced in a hurry after a start of war.


620-622 Farman Goliath - speed was 154 km/h, so it should be 2 (now 3). As for unit 622 - last were cancelled by 11/35 (now 12/36)

624, 625 Potez XXV A2, B2 - name of both bomber variants should be B2.
Morgała's book mentions max bomb load: 4x50 kg and 24x12 kg, without 100 kg bombs. Unit 624 could be armed eg. with 24x12 kg only. There could be some 12 kg bombs added to unit 625 or not.
There should be only 1 fixed MG.
Max speed of bomber variant was around 190 km/h, so it should be 2.

627 Potez XXV A2 [AOP aircraft] - Potez modified with radial engine should be rather Fighter-Bomber class, with armament as above, but speed 3 (232 km/h), used in some 8/38 - 5/39. Name should be Potez XXV B2-BJ

.

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Ammo-related question:

You write here http://derela.republika.pl/weap.htm#am that the Polish army had AP and API ammunition for the 7.92mm machine guns. Were those ammo types commonly issued to armored vehicles and do you have any data about their armor penetration capabilities? Is there any evidence that they were used against German armored vehicles in 1939? I suppose they were of conventional design with steel core?

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

There must have been an error in source, because now I read in other books, that PS should be APT round, not API. Anyway, P bullet was an equivalent of German WW1 steel core SmK, and APT was its modification.

In case of infantry wz.30 HMG, for 2000 rounds there should be 1766 ordinary SC, 200 P (AP) and 34 PS (APT). I have no idea how they were belted. Unfortunately, I haven't found information how common they were in armoured vehicles. I may assume, that more common, than in infantry.

I have no data as for armour penetration, but it should be no more, than some 8-9 mm - enough for own tankette, but not enough for PzKpfw I...

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

We are NOT adding armour piercing 7.92 ammo so forget the idea ever occurred to you

Don

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Don, when I wrote that question, I already knew I would get that knee-jerk reaction from you, since I remember it being discussed way back in DOS times with a similar response.

What I don't remember is exactly why you deny even the possibility with such vehement determination. Too much work? I don't think that would necessarily be so, since not every country had AP rounds issued in significant numbers, and even among those that did, they were rarely issued in such numbers to infantry units.

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Mistake as for year - it should start in some 8/37. We don't need another type of spotter plane, but it
According to Morgała, all Potez XXVs (units 624-627) should be armed with #190 wz.33 MG, not Vickers.

There should be also added Breguet XIX B2 - there is already icon 2906 with Polish signs. Used in 1/30-12/36. It could be copied from Spanish Republic 410, as Level Bomber or Fighter Bomber or both. It could carry 8x50 kg or 4x100 kg bombs, was armed with 1 x 7.9mm Vickers MG and max speed was 213 km/h (2? 3?).

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

I'll let that comment pass this time and put it down as a "language issue". Next time you're gone. I've been doing this too long to put up with crap like that more than once. Strange you remembered the answer but not the reason. Perhaps you need to pay more attention or maybe think things through better ?





"Too much work"...... what a joke. You have NO IDEA how many hours we spend on these patches do you ?. Your welcome.

Here's the answer. It's SP101. The lowest number besides zero we could give for AP penetration for a round like that is 1. The game is a random number generator. That's what kept it fresh for so many years.......... that and us making improvements. Our job is to balance that randomness and if you give 1 AP pen to a round like that you make it far more potent than it was. You could conceivably get 2 pen at point blank range and it's absurd that a 7.92 round could penetrate 2 cm of armour. It would be lucky penetrate half that but we don't deal with fractions of centimeters but the way the AP routine is set up would allow up to 1 penetration out to it's maximum range with is also absurd so we don't give rounds like that AP pen...........and NO we are not going to screw around with the AP calc routine.


Don

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

I'm NOT suggesting, that we should add Sabot ammo to machine guns, but the later example might represent case, when a driver and a commander forgot to close their vision hatches and got shot in heads... :D
Just joking.

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Maybe it really was a language issue. I honestly didn't know saying that someone had a knee-jerk reaction to something is a major personal attack. I apologize if I hurt your feelings or sense of pride for this great product (no sarcasm intended). But I hope we can discuss the matter at hand rationally, even if I don't except you to actually make any changes based on my arguments.

What I meant that perhaps it is too much work on top of everything else you do for relatively little gain from a gameplay point of view, but I admit it didn't come out quite right.

Now, for the actual issue: like you said, the problem especially at the low end of penetration and armor are the relatively high randomness and low granularity of Pen/Armor values. A rifle caliber WW2 technology AP bullet wouldn't penetrate 20mm of armor, that is quite true. However, it might under optimal circumstances penetrate 15mm at point blank, since many of the test values at 50 or 100 meters are fairly close to that. Armor thickness of 15mm is nearly always rounded up to 2 it the OOBs. This is my minor point.

My major point is that basically anything with armor plating will get Armor Value 1 in SP, even if the historical plate thickness was just 5mm (occasionally even less). 5mm of armor plate does not reliably stop even a ball round fired at point blank, but the way it is now it gets to stop pretty much anything that doesn't penetrate at least 15mm. In essence that makes thin, less than 10mm armor plate "far more potent than it is" to quote your words.

As for the maximum penetration, which would be 1 up to max. range. If the WW2_APCalc_Help.TXT file is to be believed, the chance of getting the best AP penetration is less than 1%, and even if it happens, the actual effect on the vehicle will often be quite small due to the small warhead size. Do we really have to think that is somehow significant and would ruin the experience, or make the game less "realistic"?

In real life, armored vehicle protection levels have for a long time have separate categories for protection against rifle caliber ball (i.e. soft core FMJ) and AP ammunition, simply because the armor required to stop the latter is much thicker. 7mm is enough to protect against rifle caliber ball rounds, whereas AP requires about ½ inch / 13 mm of armor plate to stop reliably at point blank range. Admittedly, a reasonable protection at 100+ meters range can be achieved with "just" 10mm of armor. Of course the exact numbers depend on the armor plate quality and whether the AP bullet is steel or tungsten core.

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

The game engine cannot deal with rifle calibre AP ammo without making riflemen and LMG etc light armoured vehicle slayers, which makes APC and armoured cars rather pointless things to have. Thus it is not going to be done ever. (Rifle calibre AT rifles are an exception.)

Game armour is a minimum of 1 cm - even if the vehicle had only 5-7mm or whatever. Light armour is bullet proof.

Subject done and dusted, we have heard this topic several times before and we don't want to hear it again.

Andy

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

By the way: I've just recalled, that PzKpfw-I in Spain were able to destroy T-26 (15mm armour) using SmK(H) tungstene-cored ammo up to 150 m. A hunting ended, when the Republicans started to keep a distance and use gunnery advantage. So maybe this MG should be given short-ranged Sabot, as an exception? (I don't insist, because it would be fear for Polish tankettes, or even 7TP ;))

BTW2: frontal armour 3 of T-26 is too much - but it's another story.

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

There is really no reason to give infantry and LMGs AP rounds, since they most of the time didn't have them in real life, either. AP rounds were typically issued to HMGs/MMGs in limited numbers (often they were not available in practice), and especially to armored vehicles which had no better anti-tank weapons, for example the PzKw I, German halftracks and Italian tankettes.

That said, I won't be pressing the matter any further, since you seem to be firmly decided that it's not open to discussion and I don't want to waste my time on a fool's errand.

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Back to the Polish:

After re-thinking, it could start around 8/36, Unfortunately, available publications don't mention when they entered service, but a conversion of 50 aircraft was ordered in 1936, and a prototype flew in 4/36. After tests, it underwent some fixes and was tested again in 7/37 (hence 8/37), but the series might have been already used. It wasn't an advanced design anyway - a modernization of old airfames.

I wanted to write, that we don't need another spotter, so it's better to turn it to an actual bomber. Bomb load should be 4x50 and a bunch of 12 kg bombs (it could take 24, but too big number won't be practical). Possibly after modernization it could take more bombs, but there is no information.

And a self-correction - all Potez XXVs (units 624-627) should be armed with 7.9mm Vickers, not 7.7mm Vickers (it was late at night, when I wrote it...).


Captured tanks:

628 Panther G - best icon would be sand 4091 for all uses - they are always depicted as sand, and obviously weren't repainted green

BTW: formation 254 Captured Tank should have experience modifier around -10 (two tanks were captured during Warsaw Uprising, and their crews were improvised - luckily they didn't have to fight against German tanks, though appeared useful in support)

There should be also added captured Hetzer and SdKfz-251 in 8/44-9/44.

629 PzKw IIIg - a book says, and photos confirm, that they were Pz IIIJ (short gun), so armour should be modified according to German tank.
At least in one memoires they were called "Mk III" - I don't know if it was a rule, though I don't expect Polish soldiers to call them "PzKpfw".
They were used since 7/42 only (now 6/41)
Proper icon is desert 4029 only (used in Egypt)

Apart from formation 252 Captured Tank (used since 5/42 - see below), there should be created 3-tank Capt Tank Plt, used since 7/42 (Polish Carpathian Lancers were assigned for the Nile Delta defence in Egypt, in case of German breakthrough).

By the way, I've just found source, that Pak-38 AT guns were used by the Polish in 7/42 - ? (possibly 10/42, when the regiment was withdrawn)


630 PzKw IVh - I don't know what it is supposed to be - there is known a tank manned by the 2nd Corps in Italy, but rather as a mascot. It could remain as for now, as a curiosity.

631 AB-41 - according to one source, it was acquired in 5/42 (now 6/42). Only one is known to be used, but as a commanding vehicle.
The only icon should be desert 350.
Rear-shooting BMG could be removed.

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

This actually raises another question: do such "one-off" or "disposable" vehicles need to be included in the OOB at all? Aren't they already covered by the "Set Captured" function under the "Allies" tab?

Also, I think vehicles used purely for training and "mascots" shouldn't be included.

Of course, it's Don and Andy's decision in the end.

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Pretty much the case - such items can be left for scenario designers to utilise for one-offs.

Things like the the Australian captured Italian armour, which was used fully for a few months, do deserve inclusion since someone just might want a few in his campaign core.

Of course - every OOB designer is free to add such things to say a training or captured tank formation for "flavour". But 2 items used for a month or so, likely not.

Andy

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

I won't defend PzKpfw IVH (unless I find it actually fired at Germans), but the rest may stay - one should first know, which captured equipment could be used, to be historically accurate.

There was a whole platoon of PzKpfw-IIIs used, and they had a chance to see action (bigger, than Polish Crusaders used for training in the UK). Autoblinda was, sadly, only one, but it gives much flavour (http://odkrywca.pl/forum_pics/picsforum25/ab41_d10.jpg) and it also could see action.

As for Warsaw Uprising vehicles - Panthers were two, and they fought actively. Also at least two SdKfz-251 were used. Hetzer was one, but, shamefully, it wasn't actually used (kept in reserve, until it was bombed in a garage).

BTW: it would be good to add also insurgent Kubuś improvised APC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kubu%C5%9B
As Błażej suggested, a good-looking icon is 2845 (possibly even it's the one?). It could be used in 8-9/44, crew=2, size=4 (quite big), carry=10, weight=10, speed=some 15 (no precise data), no radio, no FC, no RF, armour 1 all around (or 2 - it was of thin plates, but double-layer spaced, and well-sloped).
The armament is usually given as 7.62mm DP LMG and flamethrower, though it probably was variable through service.

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

I think the standard has been that rear-facing machine guns are modeled as normal machine guns as long as there are enough weapon slots to do so after all forward-facing machine guns and TMGs have been included. Or do you mean that the machine gun was physically removed from the captured vehicle?

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

I meant, that IMO rear-shooting MGs should be removed from all vehicles, but of course it is up to decision of SPWAW staff.
Since armoured cars usually attack targets in front of them, it would be impossible to fire a gun and CMG, then to turn back to enemy and fire rear MG in the same move (unless the car wanted to withdraw). Rear MGs were in reality useful only in peculiar and probably rare conditions, so IMO it's more accurate to never use rear MGs, than to use them all the time.
BTW: it's the same for T-35, which could not fire from both 45mm guns at the same target without turning a tank, but it's another story.

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Don and Andy may not know that they belong to the SPWAW staff now. Besides, I thought that game ceased development years ago :D
(on a related note: I can't believe Matrix still charges €53.99 + VAT for the Download General's Edition; the game is 13 years old and has not been upgraded in any way since 2005!)

I tend to agree with you that the rear guns should be removed, but that would require modifying many other units as well beised the AB 41, so there should be an "official" decision from the SPWW2 (;)) staff to do so, and then it should be done for all the OOBs in the same update, if possible. Since it would not affect the actual gameplay much and having the rear guns probably does not give those vehicles too much unfair advantage, I don't know how high priority such a project would get. But yes, it's up to the staff.

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Oopss... Old habits. :doh: Seems, I'm like Dr. Strangelove... ;)

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Rear Mgs - it is up to the OOB designer to determine if they are usefully placed or not. As with some odd armoured car I added to Swiss "blue" OOB that had one in each corner - there I made the decision to give it 2 since probably 2 would bear in each direction.

Many Japanese tanks have their "co-ax" in the turret rear, as do some KV and IS series.

SP does not have any concept of "rear" armament - see the UK Archer tank destroyer.

In the great scheme of things, its neither here nor there quite frankly. It might get some rivet-counter's underwear in a twist should you include one, but who really cares about that?:happy:!

Andy

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Just do like to mention about subject of horse carts with Machine-gun called Taczanka. They were invented by Russians during civil war after revolution and they were intended as a machine-guns which can follow cavalry and give them immediately support without complicated unpacking and preparations. Poles copies this idea from soviets during 1920 war they were used by Cavalry army. Around 1928 standardisations happens and first model Taczanka wz.1928 was created with german maxim 1908 HMG was build icon for such type is 3491 they was equipped in three horses and can keep the speed of cavalry units but wasn't prepared for AA shooting.

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Indeed, if there's an icon, it's worth to add earlier model of taczanka, with wz.08 MG, available in 1/30-9/39, with radio 01. But, probably, its wz.08 MG should be AAMG as well. It isn't written directly, but according to a new booklet on Polish Maxims, a cavalry mount for wz.08 HMG, taken from the Schwarzlose, "enabled quick conversion for AA fire", comparing with MG-08 sledge mount. Probably there was an additional mast mounted (it could be mounted on some Polish trucks, carts and even horse wagons). I'll attach a photo of early taczanka.

Then, unit 548 Taczanka, apart from icon 3492, should be available from 1/36.
There could be "wz.28" or "wz.36" added to names, but it's not necessary IMO.


649-654 Austin AC's - in fact, in cars, that survived until the end of 20s, most probably armament was changed to standard-caliber 7.92mm MGs, first of all wz.05S (German MG-05/S). Weapon #200 could be renamed so, #202 is redundant.
(more on Austins http://derela.republika.pl/austin2.htm)

655, 656 Ford Tf-c - one of them is perfectly redundant - they differ only in a machinegun's name, with the same performance.

BTW: weapon 207 7.92wz.08/15TMG has class 3 instead of 5, and range 30, while weapons 200 and 202 have range 20 (they were all the same Maxims - it should be at least 24 - or 30 since they were water-cooled?)

668 Wz.29 [armoured truck] - it should be renamed Ursus and represent a different Police lightly armoured Ursus truck (it had no specific name, but I'd call it: "Ursus (panc.)" - short for "armoured"). I'll attach a proper photo - a current one shows unarmed loudspeaker car of unclear purpose (it isn't known, if it belonged to the army or police).
It actually could have an armament of rifles in loop-holes, maybe even wz.25 TMG (it had even a turret with some weapon mounting, but the photos doesn't show weapons).
Carry capacity was probably more - some 10.

693 Fiat 3000 L5/30 - Poland bought one Fiat 3000 in 7/31 (now: 1/30), most probably with MG armament (twin MGs, #224 fom Italian OOB) (if it was armed at all...).
"L5/30" Italian designation should be deleted.

699 TK-3 [prototype tank] - I'd call it "TK-3 nkm".

700 TKS-B [prototype tank] - not much improvement over TKS, but if we want to be precise, it was broken down in 1938 (rebuilt to TKS-D SP gun - http://derela.republika.pl/tkw.htm)

702-703 TKD [prototype tank] - it had no any special AP (sabot) ammo (it should increase HE by 5).
If we want to keep within facts, they weren't built of armour plates - maybe apart from a gun shield - http://derela.republika.pl/tkw.htm
Two units in the same class are redundant (I guess it was supposed to represent newer camo, which is a vague difference). Since a whole platoon of these vehicles was actually used for experiments and training (and even a reclaiming of Zaolzie province), I suggest to change class of unit 703 to 39 SP-gun, make it available in 5/32-3/39 (before the war only) and create a formation of two vehicles like "Prot. SPG Plt" or "Exp. SPG Plt" (until 9/39).
Unit 702 should be available then in 5/32 to 9/39.

704 TKD - there was no vehicle with 47mm Vickers gun, BUT it should be changed to actually used in combat TKS-D prototype, with #13 37mm wz.36 L45 gun, ammo: 68 rounds in total, crew 4, available 4/37-9/39, class 39 SP-gun, photo 29799.

715 220mm Battery - radio should be definitely 91, not 92 - it was a siege artillery of very dubious usefulness, rarely met in field.

725, 726 3in Mortar - photo should be 601 instead of a generic Soviet one.

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

730 DMntd Troopers, 731 Cavalry Squad - armament should be short #144 wz.29 carbine instead of long rifle ("wz.29 rifle" wasn't existing BTW).

But I've noticed another problem: #144 wz.29 carbine and #173 wz.98 carbine (600mm barrel) have correct lower range 8, than #178 wz.98 rifle (740 mm barrel). But currently they are handicapped against other nations, because German Kar.98k had the same 600mm barrel, SMLE had 640 mm, M1 Garand had 610 mm, and they all have range 10.

I don't think, that a range of these well-established rifles should be reduced, so maybe these carbines should have range 10, and a range of long rifles should be increased to 12? (like LMGs, which had barrels around 600mm BTW)

It concerns also weapons like: #112 8mm Lebel (800mm), Soviet OOB Mosin M91/30 (730mm), French OOB 231 Mle 16 Rifle (800mm).
Soviet OOB carbines 144, 178 have range 8, but they had only 508mm barrel.


736, 737 Bicycle Squad - armament as above

793, 796 Bren Carrier, Ammo Carrier - armament should be probably Bren, if they deserve MG armament at all (793 is used only by mortar section). In other case, it should be .303 rifle, or SMG.

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

About the rifle/carbine ranges - I'm pretty sure this was standardized a few versions back. I remember the 8mm Lebel rifle used to have range 600m in an older version of WinSPWW2, for example.

If I understood correctly, the rifle names are for flavour only. Partially for balance reasons, and partially since, on the scale of this game, any differences are negligible. There's even been talk of replacing them all with just a generic "rifle" weapon (like it was in the original Steel Panthers games).

I'm not necessarily against your suggestion, but the above mentioned factors should be considered. In WinSPMBT a difference of 100m in rifle ranges (assault vs. battle rifle) can make a big difference. Now imagine if Soviet rifle squads had a 100m longer range than the German ones - it would make a *big* difference in gameplay.

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

All I can say politely about post #74 is I will refrain from commenting further and I'm going to ignore most of what was written there. There comes a point when I just have to say ENOUGH. ..........Are we REALLY having a discussion about rifle barrel lengths in a brigade level game ? What I'm going to do is rename both wz.29's in the game "Kbk wz.29" and make the range 10 for both. I am not removing either as it would mean re-issuing every scenario . This is a prime example of the type of nitpicking that is makes us both wonder why we bother anymore

as for the 793, 796 Bren Carrier, Ammo Carrier issue I suspect that is the result of a cut and paste " error" when it was copied from the Brit OOB......same weapon numbers

Tell me.. Is there ANYTHING in Blazej's OOB that you HAVE NOT asked for a change ?

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Better class would be 139 Self propelled gun, so it is farther in armour purchase screen, as an experimental formation.

Although a name TKS-D is commonly used in books, but it seems, that a form TK-SD was more original (BTW: newer publications claim, that a tankette TKS was in fact written as TK-S in documents, so unit 426 might be changed).

Flamethrowers:

- There should be added infantry flamethrower units in 1930-39, class eg. 170 (there's no units in this class before 1940).
A flamethrower section reportedly had 7 men, with two #93 flamethrowers, carbines and probably grenades. Unit 500 may serve as a pattern, but I'll attach a photo of Polish FT's.

A section should be used in a flamethrower squad of 3 sections. A single section might be a formation as well.

- There should be also added flamethrower units of Warsaw Uprising, in 8/44-9/44 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_pattern_flamethrower)
A section should consist of 4 men, with pistols and one FT. Good and unused class seems 235 Partisan pioneer.
It should be used in single sections rather.

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

No, but then #144 wz.29 carbine and #173 wz.98 carbine should have range 10, like Kar.98k. The difference between carbine and rifle will be only in names then. BTW: I'm not enthusiast of multiplying rifles in the game, and it wasn't my idea.

I guess there are a few things. I agree, that some of my suggestions are minor tweaks, maybe not necessary, but improving accuracy anyhow. But, as you have seen, some were more serious issues. At least we are through with units, and they are really thoroughly verified and there shouldn't be problems with them in the future.

(I must remark, that infantry still needs a closer examination, but I'm reluctant to do this as well - I think I'll leave it for a next season)

Regards
Michal

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

they do now

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

#93 flamethrowers ??? what is this ?? A flamethrower is universally the same in the game so any pre 1940 unit would use the same weapons as unit 500 and they will be the same unitclass and they will be available through the Engineer Pl

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

The flamethrowers are in. I'm surprised there wasn't an FT unit in the game pre 1940

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

I think the crux of the matter is what is a rifle and what is a carbine and how do they actually differ. Carbines which fire normal full-power rifle cartridges had roughly the same effective range as full-length infantry rifles. Both are highly lethal to 1000+ meters and able to deliver suppressive area fire up to 600 meters at least. However, once LMGs became common, firing at such long ranges was usually (but not always) left to them and to specialized sniper and marksmen (Mind you, in WW1 and even WW2 those guys used normal infantry rifles and sometimes did not even have any special optical sights. They were just better shooters and perhaps had a better vision than the average rifleman.)

Any accuracy differences were more due to the user not being able to see his target and hit it at long ranges with just iron sights. If some difference has to be modeled in the game, then instead of giving the long barrel rifles a longer range, they should have slightly higher accuracy than carbines. That would better represent any inherent differences between them.

No, I am not suggesting this should be implemented in the game now, later or never. It's just what my reading, minimal experience in shooting rifles and talking to more experienced shooters of infantry personal weapons have made me think about the matter. Food for thought, if you will, nothing more.

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Sorry, it was supposed to be #83.

But they shouldn't be the same class IMO, because in 1939 we have #326 Enginer Sqd of class 140, while flamethrowers were used in separate flamethrower platoons, not in engineer squads.


...and usually they had specially selected rifles, with best accuracy.

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

I'd like to precise it: I proposed to create a section, and 3 sections should be a squad (platoon-level in the game). A platoon consisted of 3 squads, but I don't think it's useful to create such big FT units.

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

There were rare in the Polish Army, so they are usually overlooked - maybe it's because.

I'm attaching proposed pictures, and several improved ones - you might decide, if they're better enough (armoured cars have correct proportions on my pics).

Michał

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

OK fine....... in the pre 1940 Polish army flamethrowers were not only rare but organized in separate flamethrower platoons, not in engineer squads.

Consider this.......... if I set them up the way you want to set them up the AI will never use them and if I set them up the way I am going to set them up the AI will, occasionally, buy a team and actually use them in the game which is better than making them a human only formation simply because the "official" TO&E says they were used " in separate flamethrower platoons". If I make them part of the engineer organization ( Like they are in virtually all the other OOB's in both games ) the AI will use them AND they will be available to the human player which is the better solution to the issue..........BECAUSE......this is a game

Don

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

I'm not sure which graphics program you use to create your photos but does it give you the option of choosing either colour matching or error diffusion dithering when you apply the pic palette with it ?


Also, the game does not like non standard sizes and pm29522_wz34_Image4.lbm is only 159 wide. I have corrected it but it saves me a lot of time I don't have much to spare when I don't have to check everything


Don

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Could you please clearly explain what it is you want me to do here .

What point would there be in having one start 1/30 and another start 1/36 if the MG.08 is a AAMG ? There is no purpose to having 2


Don

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

If it was an AAMG or not does not really depend solely on the mount, but on whether AA sights were provided or not. Hitting aerial targets of faster than 100 km/h with ground sights is pretty much hopeless. Tracers help a little, but still aligning the target without the reference points provided by an AA sight is very difficult. Adjusting lead without speed rings is extremely hard as well (even a single ring is much better than none). Ring and bead sights were certainly crude, but much better than nothing. Hitting a fast moving aerial target without an AA sight would be like hitting a ground target with a rifle at 25+ meters without using the sights (Rambo style :D). Except more difficult.

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Which does not answer the question. There is a 08 as an AAMG in the OOB now so why would I need a second Taczanka in 1936. Michal posted, let him answer

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Sorry, I just stick my nose everywhere :angel

Seriously, I just wanted to point out that an MG on a high mount is really not yet a proper AAMG. For sure you could shoot at aircraft with one, but it would have been more for psychological reasons than in any real hope of hitting or even significantly harassing the aircraft.

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Which is all any tank commander's AAMG is in the game, so that is what it will be treated as. Especially since it is now built into the AI pick list in the AA section for that period and I don't want to change that.

Andy

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

<!-- / message -->

Michal already said the weapon was set up to "enabled quick conversion for AA fire" and that would presuppose it was AA capable....... now can we PLEASE wait for an answer from the guy who posted the info ? All I want to know is why I should have two of these units when one seems to cover everything with the new icon and a AA capable 08 MG

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Actually, the commander's machine gun was practically always provided with a simple ring AA sight in WW2, either flip-up or detachable one depending on the weapon. US tankers usually did not have them on after North Africa and Sicily, since they faced decreasing air threat, but they were still part of standard equipment.

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Earlier taczanka (wz.28) should be armed with wz.08 AAMG, later one (wz.36) - with new standard wz.30 AAMG (both weapons should be added). Yes, both could be fitted with detachable AA sights. Firstly I didn't suggest creating the second tankette, but since we have beautiful true icons for both, they shouldn't be wasted :)

As for flamethrowers: personally, I would vote to have them in human-only units. There were few flamethrower platoons on a front, so the Germans had little chance to meet them.


I've never checked this option - which one should I use?


I must have cropped too much - sorry.

Michal

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Done


If possible use diffusion dithering. It smooths the transition better between colours / tones for photos with a limited palette.

like this...... the dithering version is on the right. Less blocky in the background ( this was enlarged 2x for clarity )

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1384112668

I rarely use colour matching anymore though occasionally a photo turns out better using colour matching 99% are now done using the dithering option

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Unit 668 Wz.29 - with a change to Ursus armoured truck, better icon would be 1373, with wide rear compartment (of M-H AC)

Unit 415 40mm AA-Gun - in fact they were used from mid-36 only - there were no light AA guns before at all (I don't know how about a pick list - if there's a need to keep Flak all the time, there might be created 7.92mm wz.08 AAMG in this class)
If the date is changed, it needs changes in formations 075, 076 (there didn't exist such special mixed platoons and they are better removed BTW), 328, 329, 330


Units worth to add:

- C2P light tractor - like unit 428 C7P tractor, but icon 2753, picture 29484 (29485 shows a prototype), carry=110 (in fact 3 soldiers), speed 15, size 2, radio=0, no armour (the same for C7P as well), used from 7/37

They should be used in formations 328, 330 AA-Gun Pl (M) (before their advent there will be other tractors or limber)

- 75mm De Dion - 75mm SPAA gun, used sometimes against tanks - like eg. unit 057 3RO 90L53 in Italian oob, but: photo 29868, green icon 342, available 1/30-9/39. Should be fitted with engine hood armour and gun's forward shield.
Armament should be 75mm wz.18/24 AAG (to be added), with specifications like 033 75mm wz.97 FG. In fact it carried no AP ammo, but several tanks were destroyed with HE. 180 rounds of ammo were carried by ammunition truck in fact. Possibly class 52 SP-AT vehicle will be better.

There should be added formations: 2 vehicle platoon and 4 vehicle battery.

- partisan HMGs, used mostly during a Warsaw Uprising (8-9/44), but also in some partisan skirmishes since 11/39 until the end. Possibly they should be separated from 04 Machine gun class, and create units with one HMG only (eg. class 193 MG unit?).
There should be: wz.30 HMG (11/39-end, real Warsaw Uprising photo 29365), MG-34 (some 1941-end), Soviet Maxim (1944-end, weapon #122 if it hasn't been chaned)


Formations (only few changes):

121, 122 Marine ATR, Marine ATR Co - there were no such big AT rifle units in (so-called) Marines - formations to be removed. ATR in unit 216 should be enough.

153 SP-AA Section - better name is SP-AAMG Platoon. In fact there were 3 taczankas in a platoon.

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

When I finally dived into regular infantry formations of 1939, I've found major error, that should not wait until next season. Now, there can't be assembled a correct infantry platoon at all and it's very underpowered.

A platoon in 1930-39 is formation 300 Rifle Platoon, consisting of:
- one class 40 Heavy inf.
- one class 1 Inf.
- one class 64 Medium Inf.

In fact, all three squads were identical.
In both regular and reserve infantry each squad had an LMG. Lacks of LMGs could be encountered only in part of second-line units, like Obrona Narodowa (which is treated separately), and few improvised units, non representative for a bulk of the Polish infantry at all. So, all Rifle units without LMG have no reason to exist.

In reality a platoon had a 5-men HQ section, which included a marksman, in 1939 changed to AT-rifle.
I don't know, if it's better to add AT-rifle to one squad (preferably Heavy infantry class), or to add unit 405 wz.35 AT-Rifle to a platoon of three identical squads. In the first option, we should artificially increase a squad from 19 to 20 men.
In the second option, there should be a different platoon with a marksman, and only after 6/39 it could be replaced with a platoon with AT-rifle (assuming, that all units opened their top-secret only-in-case-of-war boxes). The platoon with a marksman could remain to choose in 1939 also anyway, but the one with AT rifles should be on a pick list.

Besides, 46mm grenade launchers were never used by rifle squads, but were used in a whole GL section with 3 GLs on a company level (long time ago, when I corrected SP-1, I also thought, that one squad in a platoon should receive a GL, but many things were written since that time).

So, as for Class 40 units:
282 Rifle Squad - with SLR and SMG - was extremely rare (radio should be 3), but it should have LMG.
283 Rifle Squad - without LMG - should be removed
288 Rifle Squad - without LMG, with 46mm GL - to be removed
289 Rifle Squad - without LMG - should be removed
302 Rifle Squad - without LMG, with 46mm GL - to be removed
303 Rifle Squad - the same unit as above with different radio
307 Rifle Squad - early unit with LMG 05/15 and Lebel rifle, available until 1936 - there could be kept an unit with French rifles (rather Berthier) until end of 1934, BUT by the end of 1930 all regular infantry units were given wz.28 LMG instead of 08/15, so it should be changed (BTW, currently it's the only class 40 unit with LMG).

Class 1 units:
284, 300, 306 Rifle Squad - all without LMG - should be removed.

Class 64 units:
285 Rifle Squad - correct one, with LMG and 19 men
301 Rifle Squad - with additional rifle, which does not seem accurate, because a weapon in the 1st slot should be multiplied already.

Apart from a standard unit with wz.98 rifle, wz.28 LMG and some grenades, available in 1930-39, it's worth to keep one with #176 8mm Berthier Rifle and wz.28 LMG, until 12/34 (Lebels were earlier withdrawn from regular infantry, remaining in second-line duties). There also could be created newest squads like 282 Rifle Squad, with radio 3.

There should be created units:
- grenade launcher section with three #220 46mm wz.36 Mrtr and wz.29 carbines, 14 men, from 7/37 to 10/39. Ammo was probably 60 (using a section's cart; crew only carried 20).
- grenade launcher section with three #216 46mm wz.30 Mrtr, available in 2/33-10/39, radio x1 (details and ammo could be the same)
- grenade launcher section with three #218 46mm wz.16 Mrtr, available in 1/30- (say) 12/35. Details and ammo could be the same for simplicity (I have no data), but according to Polish sources, max range should be only 300 m, and it wasn't 46mm (it was a spigot mortar - http://www.bulgarianartillery.it/Bul...erfer%2016.htm)


A rifle company - formation 301 should have 3 platoons and GL section - and it would be most correct to replace its leading class 51 Light infantry unit with 7-men HQ section, but it probably won't be practical. Or we can assume, that it's a HQ squad gathered of all company logistic support soldiers, wagon drivers and cooks, excluding medical section (it would be 17 men). They should have no LMG indeed.

Regards
Michal

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

..........on the list and I have not looked into this beyond skimming this post but if the units without the LMG are a problem because they don't have an LMG why not just add the LMG ?? Do do know when you remove units it screws up scenarios?

Also, after saying "Lebels were earlier withdrawn from regular infantry" and asking me to delete about half the infantry units available......WHY is unit #305 not on this list ??


Don

Re: Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

I know, that removing these units will screw up scenarios, that's why they should be just renationalized - it should solve problem, and we won't have a plethora of redundant units to choose, differing in addition of an extra rifle.

Adding an LMG to each unit won't be a good idea, because now there are 12 units of three classes, while there should be only 3 or 4 in one or two classes: a standard squad with wz.98 rifle, an early one with Berthier, an experimental one with SLR (radio 3) and maybe a standard squad with ATR.

I didn't mention unit 305, because it is class 51 Light infantry (a company HQ), which I haven't checked yet. Speaking of class 51:
- 286 Rifle Squad - correct, but weapon 144 wz.29 Carbine or 173 wz.98 Carabine (should be Carbine) is more appropriate than rifle
- 286 Rifle Squad - Lebel should be changed to Berthier, and it should end in 1934
- 305 Rifle Squad with two Lebels - redundant, especially, that command sections even had less rifles, than men

A number of men in these units could be easily reduced to around 10, since they were HQ sections, with many specialized and logistic troops, not all of which had rifles and not all were involved in action (apart from necessity).

By the way, as for formation 315 MG Company, which also used Light Infantry: the fourth MG platoon should be on taczankas - so it should be replaced with formation 153 SP-AA Section - which in turn should have three taczankas and be renamed SP-AAMG Platoon.

Speaking of MGs: formation 85 MG Section should be renamed "platoon"

Oh, I forgot: regular infantry squads with Berthier rifles should also have weapon 91 VB Rifle Grnd (with unknown number of ammo, say 10 like unit #287 of 1940)

Michal