Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)

[Pibwl]

Next:

058 17 Pdr AT-Gun - I believe, that the 2nd Corps had these guns from a beginning of Italian campaign (4/44) at least, but I have no info (now starts at 6/44)

163, 164 6pdr GMC T48 - weren't used by the Poles (on Western front at least - the LWP used SU-57)

165, 166 75mm SP Autocar [TD, SP-Art] - used only from 9/44 until the end (now: 1/42-12/43).
Picture should be 27738

Earliest unit in 088 SP-AT Section and 089 SP-AT Troop should be proposed M10 3in, since 11/43.

SP Flak:

177 40mm SPAA Truck - gun should be 40 mm Bofors, not Vickers.
Could be named "40mm C9/B SPAA" - it wasn't just any truck.
It's a detail, but received in 9/43 (6/43) (according to Lalak/Kamiński: "Artyleria samobiezna w Polskich Silach Zbrojnych 1940-1945" - SP Arty in Polish Armed Forces)

178 20mm Quad Truck - I don't know about such weapon used by the Polish. Had the Allies such Flakvierling at all?

184 Staghound AA - received by 3/44 (now 8/44)

Formation 290 AC Sqn AA Troop - Available: 08/44-12/46 might need correction as well

185 Crusader AA Mk1 - aren't known to be used by the Polish.

It could be replaced with Crusader AA III, with twin 20 mm guns - like unit 105 in the British oob, but with a coaxial 7.7mm Vickers K MG, without BMG, and used from 7/44. Withdrawn from most units in the 1st Arm.Div around 11/44 due to allied air superiority and need of crews (might be kept until the end here though)

Formation 160 SP-AA Troop should start later accordingly.

Also, about dozen Light Tank AA I were reportedly used for training in a course of 1943, but it's rather insignificant use. (Lalak/Kamiński: Artyleria samobiezna w Polskich Silach Zbrojnych 1940-1945)

Formation 159 SP-AA Section (Available: 01/43-12/46) might need change according to what is earliest and not deleted. Template unit should be most typical 40mm C9/B

There could also be added M16 SPAA vehicle - used in small quantity from around 3/45, probably until the end (radio 91).

Michal

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Pibwl

Units 28 and 200 [class Gun tank] should be merged into one IMO. The only difference is, that #200 is available in 6-7/44 and has radio code 0, while #28 is available in 8/44-12/46 and has radio code 1, which is strange, since it should be more popular with time, and there's nothing, that could replace it in Sherman troops.
IMO there should be only unit 28 left, with a radio code 0, available from 6/44 until the end.

No.

The only problem with unit 200 is it has sabot and it only became available 8/44 ( this matches the Brit and canadian OOB ) and that's why unit 200 is there for those two months but ammo hadn't been adjusted. It has now. The AP/Sabot count has been corrected to sync with the Brit and CDN OOBs

Don

[DRG]

...........on the list

[DRG]

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

Don

[PvtJoker]

Originally Posted by DRG

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

Don

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.

[DRG]

Originally Posted by PvtJoker

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.

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 ?

Originally Posted by PvtJoker

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.

"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

[Pibwl]

Originally Posted by DRG

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.

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...
Just joking.

[PvtJoker]

Originally Posted by DRG

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 ?

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.

Originally Posted by DRG

"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

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.

[Mobhack]

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

[Pibwl]

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.