Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)

[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.

[PvtJoker]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[Pibwl]

Back to the Polish:

Originally Posted by Pibwl

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.

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.

[zastava128]

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.

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.

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by zastava128

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.

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

[Pibwl]

Originally Posted by zastava128

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.

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.

[PvtJoker]

Originally Posted by Pibwl

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.

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?

[Pibwl]

Originally Posted by PvtJoker

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?

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.

[PvtJoker]

Originally Posted by Pibwl

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.

Don and Andy may not know that they belong to the SPWAW staff now. Besides, I thought that game ceased development years ago
(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.

[Pibwl]

Originally Posted by PvtJoker

Don and Andy may not know that they belong to the SPWAW staff now. Besides, I thought that game ceased development years ago

Oopss... Old habits. Seems, I'm like Dr. Strangelove...