[DRG]

It really depends on the weapon and it's use. We have taken a number of units in both games that are questionable and put them into the Misc section of the OOB's as "prototypes". These are usually tanks and are put there for any number of reasons. I recently put the T-84 Yatagan from the Turk OOB into a Prototype unit class as it looks unlikely to be adopted but it's not certain it won't be. When it was added it seemed like a good possibility it would be purchased.

The "Black Eagle" in South Korean OOB is now also in a "prototype" formation in misc as well. When it was added it also seem possible it would be introduced but now that the K2 has been announced it seems unlikely but not so unlikely to remove it altogether. The Russian OOB for WW2, as I have mentioned previously has nine vehicles in an "experimental" formation now and four in "Prototype" class that had been in the OOB's because someone had insisted we include them to make things "more historically accurate" we removed them later for the same reason !

The "RPG-1" was added because a LOT of information we could find at the time hinted at it's existence but gave conflicting info if it was a Russian devise or a renamed German Panzerfaust but it did seem that SOMETHING had existed that was named "RPG-1" and at the time we really....and I mean REALLY had NO idea anyone would complain about it being there since it gave the Russians an infantry anti tank device to use up to the introduction of the RPG-2.

The bottom line here is at the time we had more info that said something existed than not so it was put in. It was one unit and one weapons slot so what harm could it do and since the PRG-2 was named "RPG-2" that was no doubt because there was a "RPG-1"....... Yes? As the info above indicates. It DID make it through the development stage and to "large-scale tests " and as far as "and complex acceptance was planned for arms " so it WAS accepted and HAD there been a conflict there is little doubt it would have been used but in the end the problems were too much and it appears all efforts were concentrated on the RPG-2. Your sources say it was never issued. That's fine. We did not have access to that source and in the end, it's just one source that conflicts others . Am I to assume then that you believe that only Russian Language sources are to be deemed correct for Russian weapons ?? Russian sources cannot be wrong?

The internet ( and printed books ) are not immune to error and neither are acclaimed "experts" I can easily find a half dozen sources that give conflicting information about the Carl Gustav and that weapon wasn't developed in secret under Stalin's rule.

However, it would appear that given all the evidence ( conflicting though it is ) that this weapon was unlikely to have been issued to front line units except maybe to test and that it's remove may be justified but in my case ( unlike third party Modders ) I can't just rip it out without considering the effect it's removal might have on any scenario that uses it so EVERY scenario needs to be checked for dates this unit might be used and then if a scenario is found with this unit it would need to corrected and rebuilt and then the picklists would need to be checked and altered because that would leave the Russian AI without an infantry AT unit for it's infantry AT formation from 1/46 - 12/48. That's another issue few consider when they make OOB "corrections" in third party OOB's

IF I have time I will consider this but I'm already putting in 10-12 hour days on these patches and I still have a number of other issues that need considering but it's "removal" is now on the list for consideration

Don