Modhack Modifier querry

[AxisWarlord]

Hello gents,

I have another querry regarding Mobhack.
The Formation Modifiers,
Are they Cumulative??

ie. If a Platoon/Sec has a +1/+1 Mod and that Plt is in a Company, and the Company has a +3/+3 Mod,
Does the Plt end up with a Cumulative +4/+4 Mod when bought as part of the Company??

Can't seem to find an answer to that anywhere.

Regards,

PS: Any idea when the SPWWII 4.5 Upgrade is coming?,

I have many Corrective Mods to the German OOB
(like:
WH size for AT rifles - +2 Seriously , for a 7.92mm or 13mm bullet vs correct WH size 1,
or incorrect ammo ammount - HE instead of AP for AT weapons,
Major OOB corrections per KtSNs, not Nafzinger who misinterpreted many of these - especially Aufkl OOBs,
correct tank Modifications per period of introduction - like armour upgrades that seem to be missing,
placement of said tanks in correct Class types, etc)
that I would like to submit for it.

[Mobhack]

Q1) Exp/Mor modifiers

The company modifier overrides any modifier in a subordinate platoon.

Put a +3/+3 platoon under a 0/0 company, and the platoon gets 0/0 and vice versa.

Q2) Patch Release date

Please read the first sentence of the sticky announcing the version 4.5 patch, posted at the top of the main forum.

Q3) OOB mod requests

Please read the sticky at the top of this sub-forum regarding OOB Error Reporting procedure - and read through the posts here to see how others have gone about it.

Cheers
Andy

[DRG]

Originally Posted by AxisWarlord

I have many Corrective Mods to the German OOB
(like:
WH size for AT rifles - +2 Seriously , for a 7.92mm or 13mm bullet vs correct WH size 1,
or incorrect ammo ammount - HE instead of AP for AT weapons,
Major OOB corrections per KtSNs, not Nafzinger who misinterpreted many of these - especially Aufkl OOBs,
correct tank Modifications per period of introduction - like armour upgrades that seem to be missing,
placement of said tanks in correct Class types, etc)
that I would like to submit for it.

At least once a year someone decides we need to be enlightened and mostly its the result of not understanding how the game is put together which that "HE instead of AP for AT weapons" and "placement of said tanks in correct Class types" remarks seems to indicate but please, do as Andy suggests, read the procedure then post a few of the "errors" you believe we have made and we'll have a look see but please also count how many empty unit slots are available (14) before making suggestions about what we should be adding.

as for "WH size for AT rifles ". a L O N G time ago we agreed on 2 for AT rifles but if you want to see the difference run WW2_APCalc.exe with a test EXE against two ATR, one with WH size 1 and the other with WH 2 and tell me what you see when you click on the weapon over and over which simulates the average of 1000 shots.........what you will see is basically the same numbers appearing but the WH size 2 is slighly more stable at mid range which makes ATR with WH 2 just slightly less useless at anything beyond 2 hexes than WH size 1 does which is why we use WH2 for those weapons.

Don

[AxisWarlord]

Andy,

In regards to:

'Q1) Exp/Mor modifiers

The company modifier overrides any modifier in a subordinate platoon.

Put a +3/+3 platoon under a 0/0 company, and the platoon gets 0/0 and vice versa.'

Thanks for the 'Exp/Mor modifiers' reply - too bad they don't build on each other,
but I guess all games have their limitations - although I can work around this minor one.

Regards,
AxisWarlord

[AxisWarlord]

Don,

As to your note regarding
'a L O N G time ago we agreed on 2 for AT rifles',
I'm afraid that this is not consistent with reality - which I thought was a biggie for WinSPWW2 players,
nor is it even consistent with your own guidelines,
nor is it even applied evenly.


1. INCONSISTENCY

Just within the 'spob016.obf', without even looking at other OOBs, there are inconsistencies with the application of your '2 for AT rifles'.
Plus unit inconsistencies.

**Changes noted thusly**

ATR Wpns that have a '2' value.

a) (Wpn#88) 7.92mm PzB 38/39;
{While not conforming to other PzB units, Unit #263 - GebJg PzBuechse, using the Gewehr 33(t) rifle, seems fine due to the potential for mid-range ATR engagements in Mtn areas.}

b) (Wpn #135) PzB 783(r) [14.5mm PTRD-40];
b) (Wpn #136) PzB 784(r) [14.5mm PTRS-41];

Pls adjust the 2 units that use these, Unit #s 604 & 605 respectively, to conform to other PzB units,
**they should use SMG Wpn #216 - MP 722(f) in Slot 2 instead of Kar98 rifle**,
due to the short range nature of ATR engagements.

c) (Wpn #137) 7.92mm PzB M SS 41;

To adjust the applicable Unit, Unit# 603 Pzbuechse SS, to conform to other PzB and SS units,
**it should use Wpn #101 - 7.92 Mkb 42 (H) (that is currently an orphan wpn) in Slot 2
instead of Kar98 rifle**
- due to the short range nature of ATR engagements - and inaccuracy at range,
**plus, have a proper crew size of 3 as SS Hvy wpns often had larger crews and allows for the Hvy Rifle.**

d) similar (Wpn #139) PzB 770(p) [Polish WZ 35 or 35(p)]
{of which 886 Marosczek Bueche WZ 35 were captured, with some 630 issued and used during the French Campaign in May/June 1940, after which most were exported as while more accurate than PzB 38/39 they had an even shorter range which rendered them relatively ineffective (AP Pen <3) beyond 50m vs 300m for PzB 38/39 using WH=1 using WW2_APCALC};

To adjust the applicable Unit, Unit# 601 Pzbuechse, to conform to other PzB units,
**it should use Wpn #152 MP34/I SMG in Slot 2 instead of Kar98 rifle**,
due to the short range nature of ATR engagements.

e) the (Wpn #140) PzB 782(e) [the widely acknowledged as ineffective Boyes ATR - scores of which were captured after Dunkirk,

**and should be renamed the 'PzB Boyes 782e' - see VIP Note at end.]**;

To adjust the applicable Unit, Unit# 607 Pzbuechse, to conform to other PzB units,
**it should use Captured Wpn #MP 749(e) SMG (the Sten?) in Slot 2 instead of Kar98 rifle**,
due to the short range nature of ATR engagements.

e) the also Obsolete (Wpn #142) 13mm Mauser T-Gewhr ATR;
Pre-war does not need the corresponding SMG adjustment as a sort of flux period.

f) and, not an ATR but a light Squeeze-bore ATG, the (Wpn #010) 2.8cm (-2.0cm squeeze-bore) sPzB 41 (listed as sPzB

61, and designed for Paratroops and Gerbirgsjager)

All the above have a '2' value.


g) Yet, the (Wpn #016) 7.92mm EW 141 (for which you have incorrect stats listed, with the exception of any AP
capability, that actually all apply to the developmental Mauser MG 141 - of which only possibly some 20 Maximum were produced and which had No AT capability as it was purely a MG -
AND FOR WHICH I HAVE LISTED BELOW THE CORRECT EW 141 VALUES as USED IN THE REVISED OOB I'M WORKING ON)
{60 EW 141 Manufactured: 5 - 1940, 35 - 1941, 20 - 1942. 40 EW 141 Used in PzKw IC vk601.}

and e) and the also Obsolete (Wpn #90) 13.2mm Mauser ATR
Pre-war does not need the corresponding SMG adjustment as a sort of flux period.

Both units above have a correct '1' WH value. ??


Very confusing to say the least,
and Not at all Consistent with your LONG agreed '2 for AT rifles' value?


2. MOBHACK GUIDELINES

Your 'Warhead Size Chart' clearly states that for Guns '1mm - 19mm = 1',
while 20mm-39mm = 2'.
Meanwhile, the 'ANTI-MATERIAL RIFLES' section properly notes that 'AP ammo will draw down (ie. loose effectiveness) very quickly with range'.
This is clearly reinforced in points 3 & 4 below.
Beyond effective range ATRs were only good against very lightly armoured vehicles or for harrassing fire.

[CONT]

[AxisWarlord]

3. REALITY

As noted, by trying numerous hit results by using WW2_APCALC over and over we see:

3. A) With using WH=1

a) - [Acc = 16, Range 13] PzB 38/39 (sometimes 2 at 300m) relatively ineffective (AP Pen <3) beyond 300m, with consistent 4 Pen at 50m;
{Even though 703 PzB 38 were produced in 1939, just 62 of these weapons were used by the german troops in the invasion of Poland 1939. In November 1939 there were only 162 of the PzB 38 available. By 1 May 1940, 1,469 PzB 38/39 were available.}

***** Therefore, the following Unit changes need to be made to reflect the Historical availability of this Wpn as Only Special Forces (Brandenburger) and FJg would have utilized early availability PzB in Poland.
Unit #114 - Panzerbuechse - Change Available Date to 01/040 from 06/038.
Unit #250 - FJgPzBuechse - Change Available Date to 07/039 from 01/039.
Unit #263 - GebJg PzBuechse - Change Available Date to 04/040 from 01/039.
And Unit #471 - Brandenburger (Cdo Eng) Stays as is at 06/039
- they would have been the first users of this Wpn.*****

**Also, - as per 4. DATA below, adjust Ammo Loadout to 40 AP, 10 Sabot for each user of the PzB 38/39.
Plus, also adjust Wpn #88 PzB 38/39 [Sabot Pen = 4, Sabot Range = 9. Pen with Sabot at 50m = 6/7.**

b) - slightly larger calibre PTRD/PTRS

**[Acc = 16, Range 12? vs 14 - see EFFECTIVE RANGE note at end of section 4. DATA]**
with PTRD/PTRS relatively ineffective (AP Pen <3) beyond 300-500m (but always 3 at 500m),
not quite consistent beyond 400m, almost consistent 4 Pen to 250m and 5 Pen at 50m;

While they were initially highly effective against light German armor and the sides of lightly armored medium tanks, another use for the 14,5 mm guns¨was by Soviet infantrymen to break the tracks of heavier vehicles like Tiger or Ferdinand or penetrate viewport armorglass. The only reason the Soviets kept them in production was cheap to manufacture, mass produce and swamp the enemy with lots of harrassing fire. Numerous accounts of German tank battles from mid-late war years reflect this very fact, not that they had any effectiveness in actually killing German armored vehicles, other than light armored car, by that stage of the war - sometime disabling was just as effective if the Germans could not recover their vehicles during a retreat.

c) - the slightly more accurate PzB M SS 41 - consistent 4-3 pen through 300m (vs inconsistent PzB 38/39)

**[Acc 18 vs Incorrect 16]**
with PzB M SS 41 also relatively ineffective (AP Pen <3) beyond 300m,

**Although, with Sabot ammo [Sabot Pen = 4, Sabot Range = 8, PzB M SS 41 Ammo Loadout: 40 AP / 10 Sabot]**
(as also utilized on newly introduced EW141, since PzB M SS 41 retained until end-1943 vs 5/43 for PzB 38/39) gave a respectable up to 7 Pen at 50m using Sabot without changing effective range beyond 300m;
Pretty much the limit on what you could expect in upgraded performance from an ATR of this small calibre.

d) - PzB 770(p)
**[Acc = 18 vs Incorrect 16, Range 9 vs Incorrect Range 13]**
relatively ineffective (AP Pen <3) beyond 50m, with Max 450m range,
but with a consistent 2 Pen to 300m - good vs light armoured cars / tankettes;

{Because the ammunition for this weapon had no hardened core but relied on the high velocity of the bullet, penetration performance dropped significantly at ranges beyond 300m (as Corrected above).
The lack of a hard core in the projectile (weight: 12.8g) this weapon fired is widely regarded as the foremost drawback of this weapon. The high velocity of the bullet made for an extremely staright flight path, therefore sights at a range of 300m were used.
Penetration performance is rated at 22mm of armor at 50m and 15mm at 100m (both at 60° impact angle), which sufficed for the successfull engagement of lightly armored vehicles early in the war,
but like other tank rifles the weapon was practically useless against tanks after 1940.
Some of the weapons were also given to and employed by italian troops.
Per (Good info source) http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/show...mp-Machineguns. }

e) - PzB 782(e) - relatively ineffective (AP Pen <3) beyond 50m;

***[Acc = 14 vs Incorrect 16 - reflects its historical ineffectiveness,
Range 10 vs incorrect Range 13 - again, reflects its historical ineffectiveness
- plus, matches the range of the other 2 e) obsolete ATRs.
HEAT = 3 vs 4 - again, reflects its historical ineffectiveness.]***
**This Wpn is nearly similar to both other Obsolete ATRs Wpn #90 & Wpn #142 and requires change in Spob07 Great Britain, 15 Anzac, 30 Canada, and any other applicable nations also.**


g) - Meanwhile, with the Modern EW 141

***[Acc = 17 vs 16,
Range 18 vs 24 (heavier AP shell would likely not travel as far as HE, just common sense),
No HE Kill Value as designed for ATR use ONLY,
Sabot Pen = 4 , Sabot Range = 12 (was designated to use majority of available Sabot ammo - more plentiful in this calibre as uses minimal amount compared to say 50mm to 75mm Sabot shell
- as PzB 38/39 ATR was being phased out anyway in early 1943),
Ammo Loadout: 30 AP / 90 Sabot / No HE]***

with respectable 450m effective range (AP Pen = 3) to 450 using AP and/or Sabot,
although Sabot could Pen up to 7 at 50m,
5 Pen at 100m and consistent 4 Pen through 200m.
This pretty much displays the absolute upper limit on what could be achieved with a Modernized ATR converted from a MG and accurately reflects why most nations phased them out in favour of shaped charge weapons.

Not at all ineffective when used within accepted EFFECTIVE RANGE - per 4. DATA.


3. B) With using WH=2 [and even using Incorrect Values per Default OOB]


a) - PzB 38/39 - relatively ineffective (AP Pen <3) beyond 300m, Consistent 4 Pen at 50m,
Very Minor differences - Consistent 3 to 300m & 2 Pen to 650 (vs 600m with WH=1).
Plus, No Sabot capability! ;

b) - PTRD/PTRS - relatively ineffective (AP Pen <3) beyond 450-500m,
and 5 Pen at 50m, almost consistent 4 Pen to 250m.
Very Minor differences - not quite consistent at 300m & not quite consistent at 200m;

c) - PzB M SS 41 - also relatively ineffective (AP Pen <3) beyond 250-300m,
Very Minor differences - not quite (vs) consistent to 300m.
Plus, No Sabot capability! ;

d) - PzB 770(p) - relatively ineffective (AP Pen <3) beyond 300m,
Major Differences - Consistent 4 Pen at 50m, Consistent 3 to 300m.
Thus, making this almost equivalent to the PzB 38/39 - Which it WAS NOT! ;

e) - PzB 782(e) - relatively ineffective (AP Pen <3) beyond 50m,
Minor differences - nearly (vs) not quite consistent 2 Pen to 450m (vs 350m).
Thus, negligible effect other than increased plinking (harrassment) range.

g) - EW 141 - Major Differences and Inconsistencies!
With an astounding 600m (vs 450m) effective range (AP Pen = 3) using AP (but also 50% HE which it should Not have!),
Consistent 4 Pen to 100m (vs Farther 200m per ** above) using AP (but also 50% HE which it should Not have!),
Nealy consistent 3 Pen to 600m (vs 450m) using AP (but also 50% HE which it should Not have!),
Plus, yet again, No Sabot capability! ;


And with Correct WH=2,

f) - sPzB 41 - Only Ineffective (AP Pen <4) after 1,250m,
Respectable 6 Pen up to 900m,
Impressive 10 Pen up to 200m,
and a Very Impressive 13 Pen to 100m,
all using Sabot - as this is what the weapon was designed around from the start, with HE capability (which is completely missing from the game) added slightly later in 1941.

[But,
*****Adjust Ammo Loadout of Following sPzB 41 Units as follows to reflect 1 HE : 3 Sabot Ratio
- per 5. PRODUCTION:

Unit #115 - 28/20mm sPzB41 - Revise name to '28/20mm sPzB41' - see VIP Note at end,

NOTE re: HTs - Revision Data Tentative as awaiting Panzer Tracts 15-1/2/3
in regards to correct ammo loadout and crew/passenger size.
Current #'s seem off as SkKfz 250 type HTs should not have lrgr AMMO loadout than 251 type HTs.

Unit #166 - SdKfz 250/11 - Tentatively Revise Ammo Loadout to 30 HE, 60 Sabot,
Unit #218 - SdKfz 251/10a - Tentatively Revise Ammo Loadout to 40 HE, 60 Sabot,
Also requires new LBM as picture shown is incorrect - 251/9.
Unit #423 - SdKfz 221/2 - Revise as to both Name 'SdKfz 221/2 MG' and AMMO loadout to 30 HE, 60 Sabot,
Unit #426 - SdKfz 221/2 - Revise as to both Name 'SdKfz 221/2 MG' and AMMO loadout to 30 HE, 60 Sabot.]*****

[CONT]

[AxisWarlord]

4. DATA

Excerpt From Wolfgang Feischer's 'PANZERFAUST and other German Infantry Anti-Tank Weapons'
- 1994 Schiffer Publishing Ltd.

"Production of the Panzerbuchse 38 was begun in 1938. It had a complicated breech and was delivered only in small numbers. In Poland there were 62 in service. The simplified Panzerbuchse 39 followed in 1939 and was introduced among the Panzerbuchse troops of the rifle companies. 9,645 of these weapons reached the troops in 1940.
{568 PzB 39 were used by the german army in the invasion of Poland (Brandenburg/FJg Only); two years later, at the beginning of the war against russia, 25,298 PzB 39 were in use by german troops; total production form March 1940 to November 1941, when production ceased, was 39,232 rifles.
Per http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2...-a-7069-2.html }

Both Panzerbuchse types fired the {Patrone 318} 7.92mm SmK H Rs L-Spur cartridge.
The bullet, weighing 14.6 grams, could penetrate steel 25mm thick.
{With the Pzb 39 a new round was introduced, the Patrone 318 SmK(H) Rs L'spur, used by both PzB 38/39.
SmK meant 'Spitzgeschoss mit Kern' (pointed bullet with core),
SmK(H) = 'Spitzgeschoss mit Kern (Hart)' (pointed bullet with core (Hard)) meant the same projectile that featured a tungsten-carbide core,
Rs stood for 'Reizstoff' (irritant agent) because the projectile also contained a small amount of tear gas,
L'spur for 'Leuchtspur' (bright trace = tracer) indicating the bullet had a small tracer in its rear.
Patrone 318; Vo 1,210 m/s; armor penetration 30mm of homogeneus plate at 100m with the Tugsten core
and 28 mm with the steel core bullet.
Production of the Patrone 318 ran until August 1942.} (See 5. PRODUCTION.)

Its use against tanks was questionable from the start, for at this time the transition to armor that was secure from shells was completed. This cast doubt on the whole question of the continuing development of earlier Panzerbuchse types, which as still going on then, including those with calibres of up to 20mm.

This also sealed the fate of the Waffen-SS designs, which included a 7.92mm Panzerbuchse, the M SS 41. The Panzerbuchse M SS 41 resulted from a Waffen SS contract . . . It was also made to fire the 318 SmK H Rs L-Spur (caliber 7.92mm) cartridge.
Russian armoured scout cars and light T-26 tanks could be attacked successfully with it at distances from 20 to 50 meters. Despite well-aimed penetrating shots, it rarely put the tank out of action.
This made the further development of the 38, 39 and M SS 41 Panzerbuchse questionable.

The heavy Panzerbuchse 41 (sPzB41 - used by FJg and Geb units), which came close to the antitank guns in terms of its size and weight and exceeded them in penetrating power, is also noteworthy.

The Red Army had more than 18,000 tanks, including 1,225 T-34 and 636 KV types with shell-safe armor plate. (Like the UK's Matilda,) They lowered the 3.7cm Pak gun to a mere 'tank door-knocking device' and caused complicated combat situations even in the first days of the campaign. Suddenly there was an acute shortage of effective antitank weapons, even the new 5cm Pak 38 was not sufficient.

The infantry suffered particularly from tank attacks. At times panic resulted, in which fear of tanks spread . . . new and effective weapons and combat methods were needed. From then on, the equipping of the infantry with modern close-combat weapons was given more attention. It was not easy to achieve this.
Already existing antitank weapons with heavy bullets had no perspective.

That was shown by the Panzerbuchse 39. {Given the limited efficience of the 7.92mm Patrone 318 in the mid war years it was decided to convert many of remaining Pzb 39s into grenade launching rifles - the Gr.B.39.
That meant the way to defeat armor became hollow charge grenades instead of kinetic energy, hard core bullets.
Starting 1942, the PzB 39 were rebuilt with a shortened barrel (59cm) and an affixed schiessbecher (grooved rifle grenade launching attachment) as grenade rifles with the designation Granatenbuchse Modell 39 ('grenade rifle model 39'). The grenade was frontally loading while the chamber was loaded with a special blank cartrigde for projection purposes (treisspatrone). The rifle could also launch the standard explosive, marking or training grenades that were also used by the K-98K.
Per (Good info source) http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/show...ineguns./page5 }
Every grenadier company was supposed to receive three Granatbuchse 39.

The heavy Panzerbuchse 41 {sPzB41}, with a weight of 229 kilograms, was too heavy, as well as much too expensive and complex to produce. In the autumn of 1941, numerous efforts to develop new antitank weapons began.
By 1943, an almost unimaginable variety of them existed."

EFFECTIVE RANGE excerpt from PANZERFAUST - p47.
a) - PzB 38/39 - 25mm Pen to 300 meters;
b) - PTRD/PTRS - 30mm Pen to 100 meters;
(Although, based on above results with WH=1, I think range should likely be adjusted to 12 vs 14. Thoughts? )
c) - PzB M SS 41 - N/A;
d) - PzB 770(p) - 30mm Pen to 100 meters.
(Although 50m based on Calc above with WH=1 seems reasonable, especially as they were phased out of German usage after the French 1940 campaign.)

[CONT]

[AxisWarlord]

5. PRODUCTION
{Also, per http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Waffen/panzerbuchsen-R.htm}
{Panzerbüchsen-Fertigung (production) in WW2:

1939 1940 1941 1942 1943
Panzerbüchse 38
703 705 -- -- --
Panzerbüchse 39
-- <1,000 9,645 29,587 -- --
Gr.B.39 (grenade launcher ver)
-- -- -- 1,416 26,607
schwere Panzerbüchse 41 (sPzB 41)
-- 90 339 1,029 1,324

Die Munitionsfertigung für die Panzer-Büchsen 38 und 39 sowie für die schwere Panzerbüchse 41
(in 1.000 Schuß)
Ammunition production for ATR PzB 38/39 and for sPzB 41 Squeeze-bore gun (in 1,000 shots):
1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944
Patrone 318:
780,0 1,864,1 4,726,9 2,046,4 -- --
s.Pz.B. 41 Sprenggranate(HE):
-- -- 9,2 373,3 130,1 --
s.Pz.B. 41 Panzergranate(Sabot):
-- 156,2 889,5 270,0 287,1 -- }

An approx 1 : 3.12 sPZB 41 ratio of HE vs Sabot.

Also,
**Modify Wpn #10 to probable 8 HE Kill Value to allow for sPzB 41 Sprenggranate HE, and more correct Wpn name 2.8cm sPzB41/61 to reflect wheeled / mounted usage.**


All in all, a fairly convincing argument to use the WH=1 Value for ATRs,
**with the modifications/corrections as noted above,**
as ATRs should not be big tank killers.
Beyond their effective range, relatively short for most rifles, as shown on P47 of PANZERFAUST and excerpted above,
ATRs were only usefull for harrassing during their interim lifespan until more effective AT wpns came along.

I think this helps demonstrate my point,
and shows I only talk about something after ensuring extensive research.


VIP Note: Minor Name Revisions will make more sense once I submit the revised German OOB, for which I also base my revisions using detailed data from Jentz, Speilberger, KSTNs, etc.

I have already revised the Pzkw IV units, Armd Car units and PzAufkl units as to proper Armour and Ammo loadouts, Armor and dates, and minor re-sorting classes and will submit revised German OOB once Pzkw III, Panther and HT revisions are complete, and of course, fully documented per forum instructions.

I have even added in many missing AC Fu(4,6,8), Pzkw Befhls III & IV and Pzkw Beob III & IV units
- plus, 2 prototype Pzkw IIGvk903 and Panther Beob.
This of course includes new Aufkl formations to reflect those missing or incorrect,
and any revised formations affected by any Wpn or unit changes or reorganization due to KSTN or availability.

ie. As an example, I give you the Schuerzen (steel or mesh skirting on tanks) ratings that are way off.
How is the Pzkw IV with Schuerzen any better or equally armoured on the Hull Side than the thicker Panther II with same Schuerzen??
Meanwhile, the Pzkw IVF Vorpanzer is not even represented in the game??

Will Explain fully when I submit
- still having to compare unit by unit and formation by formation with the revised OOB that you guys snuck in during the middle of revising. Grumble, Grumble, Grumble.
Although, I really like the new #200 - Sfl. Sturer Emil addition!
and the T-70 is ok.

Regards,
AXISWARLORD

[DRG]

Originally Posted by AxisWarlord

Unit #250 - FJgPzBuechse - Change Available Date to 07/039 from 01/039.
Unit #263 - GebJg PzBuechse - Change Available Date to 04/040 from 01/039.

.....and when you do things like this what else is it that needs to be checked and altered if necessary ??

Don

[AxisWarlord]

Don,

Whoa, hold the fort.
Enough with the negative vibes Moriarty (good applicable quote from Kelly's Heroes).
Whats with all the Conservative style attack adds? (ie. numerous insults/personal attacks: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.)
I don't even know you well enough to initiate bickering like an old married couple.

For example:

' 1. - At least once a year someone decides we need to be enlightened and mostly its the result of not understanding how the game is put together which that "HE instead of AP for AT weapons" and "placement of said tanks in correct Class types" remarks seems to indicate.'

{For which my 06:43 PM submission detailed my "HE instead of AP for AT weapons" comment, and
For which I quite correctly, and politely I might add, corrected you with my PS note.
I even ended off with the universal greeting of comradeship - Cheers! }

- In regards to the discussion regarding: "as for "WH size for AT rifles ". 'a L O N G time ago we agreed on 2 for AT
rifles but if you want to see the difference run WW2_APCalc.exe with a test EXE against two ATR, one with WH size 1 and the other with WH 2 and tell me what you see.'

{For which I took the time and did, and I believe even conclusively proved my line of thought.
I even made sure to keep the tone professional, and added in some humor to lighten things up,
as I realized I would have to revisit everything to ensure my mod suggestions were correct:
(ie. Grumble, Grumble, Grumble.
Although, I really like the new #200 - Sfl. Sturer Emil addition! )
and even provided some relevant suggestions before my main submission.}



2. - 'if you had simply posted the info instead of airily saying "I have many Corrective Mods to the German OOB " then providing a few deliberately vague examples '

{Heck, this is only a fraction of what I wanted to submit and is maybe still to come SOMETIME.
I originally wanted to submit my revised suggestions/thoughts as a complete package, along with a Revised OOB
- only as to those parts mentioned in the accompanying text file to be submitted alongside the Revised OOB
- for YOUR convenience to lessen YOUR workload (ie. easier to review than to have to make changes),
not piecemeal as is starting to occur.

And you know, I wasn't 'airily' saying anything.
It was a simple matter of fact "I have many Corrective Mods to the German OOB . . . that I would like to submit for it."
Why don't you give a new guy a chance to actually submit their suggestions before dismissing them offhanded?



3. 'while dissing Nafzinger and HADN'T used a fanboy moniker like "AxisWarlord" ( those are always red flag eyerollers...)'

{'fanboy moniker' - OUCH!

DRG, when were you crowned moniker king?
By (purely for example purposes as I have no bone to pick with any member) prolific members like:
Atrocities; Suicide Junkie; geoschmo; Captain Kwok; Baron Munchausen; WraithLord; pathfinder; Combat Wombat; General Woundwort, among many others with similar monikers who happen to be prolific posters?
Did you spend some time as an Axis POW in WWII?
Were you imprisoned by some Warlord in GW Bush's 'Axis of Evil'?
Did I piss in your cornflakes by seriously debating the ATR WH issue with you?
Or, as an Ontarian, do you just hate people in Western Canada?
I haven't slammed your odd DRG moniker, and don't even care why you chose it or what it stands for
- but let me guess, Da Riled-up Guy.}


{Also, I wasn't dissing Nafzinger - I just said he "misinterpreted many of these" as he was sloppy in his published work. A few examples from Nafzinger's 'The German OOB - Panzers and Artillery in WWII':

A) Formation #235 - PzAufklKp (sw). This is used in Motcyc, Aufkl and PzGren Bn formations.
On page 41 alone he refers to this,
standardly equipped formation (with 2 7.5cm leIG18 (not 3) -
which evolved over time to add a Hvy ATR troop w\ 3 sPZB41 to the PzJgr Plt with 3 ATGs (not 5),
then later became Armd HT borne for Armd Inf Bn's and Aufkl Bn's),
alternately as:
a) '(mot) Reconnaissance Company' - under the 16th Motorcycle Bn;
b) '(mot) Heavy Reconnaissance Company' - under the 5th Reconnaissance Battalion;
c) '(mot) Support Company' - under Schutzen (PzGren) Bn's.

B) on pages 27/28 he mixes up the towed 75mm IG plt w\ 6 KwK37 guns in the 1st Armd PzGren Bn and puts the Armd Gun Btty w\ 6 251/9 in the 2nd Mot PzGren Bn.
These are but a few Zafzinger Oopsies.}



4. 'PLEASE try not to be tiresome by "assuming"

{'Tiresome' - What, you don't like people pointing out issues?
Don, you know what happens when you assume anything,
YOU make a jackass out of YOU and ME.
Please remember your own assuming in point #1 above.}



5. 'The real way to get our attention is to simply point out the error and why it's wrong and leave the smartass somewhere else. I've dealt with all types of people who have reported errors and this is looking like it's developing into the type that ends badly. Prove me wrong.'

{'smartass' - OUCH!
Don't recall using any of that recently, is that like a hemoroidal cream?

As I said above, this is only a fraction of what I wanted to submit and is still to come SOMETIME.
I originally wanted to submit my revised suggestions/thoughts as a complete package, along with a Revised OOB
- only as to those parts mentioned in the accompanying text file to be submitted alongside the Revised OOB
- for YOUR convenience to lessen YOUR workload (ie. easier to review than to have to make changes).}


- 'The Panther II has the same Schuerzen rating on the side hull as the Pzkw IV becasue when the Schuerzen ratings were upgraded to the new specs the Panther II was missed ( yes, it's that simple, not some jaw dropping OMG-how-could-they-do THAT design decision.)'

{"As an example, I give you the Schuerzen (steel or mesh skirting on tanks) ratings that are way off.
How is the Pzkw IV with Schuerzen any better or equally armoured on the Hull Side than the thicker Panther II with same Schuerzen??"

The Panther II example was but 1 Unit that came readily to mind.
This does not even take into account the following, taken from the new (and also on the old) SPWWII update:

a) Various Units do not even have any Schuerzen ratings when they clearly should:
Jagdpanther(+) - Unit #840,
neither Panther G (at least one should) - Units #30 & #984,
plus neither Panther A (at least one should) - Units #29 & #375,
StuG Flamm - Unit #710 (all other StuG units have Schuerzen),
sIG 38/2(t) - Unit#968 (as with other Hetzer type pictures and per 'Encyclopedia of Tanks' data, clearly had Scheurzen on Hull sides), also neither Hetzer - Units #50 & #996,
none of the 4 JPz IV types - Units #503, #504, #507, #510,
nor Panther F (I need to check my Panzer Tracts 'Panther F/II' book about that one).

b) Inconsistencies between HS / TS & TR Heat protection & Steel Armor Inaccuracy:
This is seen on both PzKw IIIs: M - Units #397, #431 & #943, N - Units #398, #432 & #944,
PzKw IVs: H - Units #26 & #377, J - Units #27 & #745.

How can different areas with the same thickness of boiler plate used
- as all sources used: 'Encyclopedia of Tanks', various 'Panzer Tracts', Speilberger's 'Pz III & its variants' & 'Pz IV & its variants' books & new 2010 'Panzer IV und Seine Arbartan' by Spielberger, Doyle & Jentz (in German only),
indicate 8mm on Turret & 5-8mm HS,
All units have same ratings of: HS & TS - 3/10, yet a different TR rating - 3/6 ??
When using Armour Calc: 5mm @ 0 = 5 (rounded up to 1 for game purposes) & 8mm @ 0 = 8 (also rounded up to 1 for game purposes).
Therefore, all HS/TS/TR should have the same HEAT protection.

Plus, the basic 'boiler plate' 1 for game purposes, as Calc'd above, is not even accounted for (ie. +1) in the Steel Armor #s.
Possibly the only +0 for Steel Armor might be PzKw Js using steel mesh sides, although this would not affect the HEAT Value.

c) Even the 2 Brumbar units - Units #33 & #722 - have a HS inconsistency issue.
#33 has 3/10 HS, while #722 has a 3/6 HS??


I dunno, but that all sounds slightly jaw dropping and rather Inconsistent to me.
Although I would not say 'OMG' (Oh my Gosh, Oh my God, or whatever the various texting/twittering/tweeting crap is).}


- 'As for the Pzkw IVF Vorpanzer why not mention the E is missing as well ? Please tell us the production figures for that limited production spaced armour configuation'

{Keep in mind that the spaced armor on the PzIV D/E/F/G SuperStructure-front is Zusatzaplatten / Zuzatzpanzer,
only the F had specially designed Vorpanzer on the turret front.
(Obviously complex, expensive and time consuming to manufacture - or they would have continued it on other makes.)

The new 2010 'Panzer IV und Seine Arbartan' - a Motorbuch Verlag Spezial - clears up any Vorpanzer misapprehension that one might get from just Panzer Tracts.
It clearly details in pages 165 thru 170 - including detailed photos and the usual detailed drawings that Doyle is famous for - that Vorpanzer (Pz IVF turret front ONLY!), was initially considered by Wa Pruf 6 for the 4./bis 6./B.W. Turm and fur 7./B.W. Turm on 2 January 1942. A further Wa Pruf 6/PZ note on 17 January 1942 for/from firm of Fried.Krupp A.-G. shows that a decision was made fur Vorpanzer 7./B.W. (ONLY) on 15 January.

Meanwhile, as noted on page 4-43 of PzTracts,
"Vorpanzer (spaced armor) to fit onto the turret front of the Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.F . . . the 20mm thick homogeneous Vorpanzer was designed to break up tungsten-carbide projectiles and defeat 10.5cm Gr.39 (hollow-charge shells)."
Such as US 105mm M2 FH or Abrn M3 & M7 105mm HMC available in 1942 - therefore giving a HEAT defeating TF = 13 Value against these weapons, per the applicable US OOB Wpns 12 HEAT Pen values.

As to Zuzatzpanzer, it was produced in various forms for:
- Hull & SuperStructure of PzIV D (30mm both split - in front of driver and in front of radio operator;
and whole - straight across the whole SS front with a slightly higher HEAT protection value on the portion in front of the radio operator that had a larger gap vs drivers area - and impossible to represent for game purposes) with various pictures
available showing both, incl the famous whole SS full-front version in HSKK driver trng service.
- SS of PzIV E - 30mm spilt and similar to the D for value purposes.
- SS of PzIV F - 20mm across the whole straight SS front.
- Hull & SS of PzIV G - 30mm across the whole straight SS front.

While I can find the dates these installs/backfits occurred, you are doing better than I am if you have actual production #s for the Zuzatzpanzer production per varied Ausf makes.
The 'Panzer IV und Seine Arbartan' even has detailed month/month production #s for most (Ausf C onwards) new-build makes. There is even an interesting photo of an Ausf E Tachpanzer with Zuzatzpanzer.

Also, as to Zuzatzpanzer (spaced armor HF values), as this is obviously something both of us missed OOPS!
- I will endeavor to factor that into the Revised OOB values,
although I Commend you for having it with the PzKw III L thru N. }


- Originally Posted by AxisWarlord

Unit #250 - FJgPzBuechse - Change Available Date to 07/039 from 01/039.
Unit #263 - GebJg PzBuechse - Change Available Date to 04/040 from 01/039.

'.....and when you do things like this what else is it that needs to be checked and altered if necessary ??'

{Don, I don't quite understand what you are getting at?}

I had clearly noted:
PzB 38 . . . just 62 of these weapons were used by the german troops in the invasion of Poland 1939.
568 PzB 39 were used by the german army in the invasion of Poland.
"Therefore, the following Unit changes need to be made to reflect the Historical availability of this Wpn as Only
Special Forces (Brandenburger) and FJg would have utilized early availability PzB in Poland." With limited numbers available they just would not have been available in regular units - maybe SS though?

{Are you saying weapons should be widely available before they historically were??

*****Although, it does mean the following units also need to be adjusted,
thanks for triggering me to notice that - is that what you meant?,

and the Army would have to soldier on with the 13.2mm Mauser (Wpn #90):
**Unit #417 - Panzerbuechse - Revise End-date to 10/39.**
When PzB 770(p) 35p - Unit #601 - Panzerbuechse - becomes available.
**Unit #495 - GebJg PzBuechse - Revise End-date to 03/40.**

and the Mauser T-Gewehr (Wpn #142):
**Unit #600 - Panzerbuechse - as above, Revise End-date to 10/39.**
**Units #634 & #643 & possibly #638 - (sw) Inf Gruppe - Revise End-date to 10/39.**
When PzB 770(p) 35p - Unit #784 - InfGrp (sw) SS and noted Unit #601 - become available,
or possibly revise one of the three into an InfGrp (sw) SS if you think the SS should have PzB 38/39 ATRs and use them in Poland before 11/39. Thoughts?
*****}



As Jack Nicholson famously said in that Alien invasion spoof, 'can't we just get along'.
I thought this was a forum for enlighted discussion.
This is a game that is supposed to be fun after all.

I'm just trying to make suggestions to improve the realistic playability.
If you can find facts that disprove something I'm saying, by all means,
Please let me know so I can update my info.


I don't want to get into pissing or name calling matches.
I gave up on that in 2007 after the GoC (PW&GSC & DND & Harper's Conservatives) Screwed me over in 2006 and ILLEGALLY
disqualified MY consortium's Fully-Compliant BC-17XM submission for the C-17 ACAN (better Value 8 AC avail (4 Mil, 4
Civil) vs 4 Mil) & associated C-130J submission (mainly using ex-RAF C-130Js taken in trade for BC-17XMs),
and even somehow got Boeing to Disengenuously pull support for their own BC-17,
and then had the online support-the-military types - of which I used to be one and even write articles supporting the military - blindly support the GoC as long as the military got the Cadillac C-17s it wanted.
So at that point, after starting to suffer through ongoing PTSD and high blood pressure, I said screw it!
The Harper Government: Disengeneous, Dishonest, Incompetent and most definitely Not Transparent.
(I'm planning to write a book about my experience.)
Does this help to 'Prove me wrong'?


Regards,
AxisWarlord

PS: I'm signing off to down-tools & PC for a week (and take a break from this frustration) and play Axis&Allies with my son who has a week off from Elementary for Spring Break.
And possibly, just Maybe, get back to it afterwards to submit Revised OOB SOMETIME this summer.
Can you guess which side I usually play in A&A?? Definitely not the Allies.