Anomaly reports

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by Richard_H

Secondly, I've attached a photo of the hatches on a PK - if one thinks about this logically, what can adding armour do to reduce troop capacity? Answer - not a lot.

Richard H

Not entirely true.
If a vehicle is amphibious (or an aircraft/helo for that matter) adding armor can decrease the potential cargo load thus troop carrying capacity.

My irrelevant to the discussion 2 cents

As Mobhack pointed out, the manufacturer often base troop carry capacity on troops no field gear, thus the "real" carry capacity is often less.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

To the BTR-50 APC variant C2 P20 easy to support.
1. From the USA Infantry Training course. Note the reference sources at the top of the second ref.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...in0534_top.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...n0534/lsn2.htm
I believe I've posted this a year or two ago in the APC thread as source info for you "game designers" as I remember Don used it and still might as a ref source. Glad to do so again. And a note about JANE's here, the editions we bought were not necessarily the one you can buy on the open market-savvy!?! Some have said I served with Capt. Jack Sparrow anyway...

2. Did I ever mention a lot of their info comes from some Russian guys? Anyway always a great go too site and very accurate and and first to report on equipment regularly.
http://www.military-today.com/apc/btr_50.htm

3. Also another good site almost on par with globalsecurity.org.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/btr-50.htm

4. Also a very good site and he's not afraid to list his references note these at the bottom.
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/inf/BTR-50.html

5. Again source refs at the bottom.
http://www.armscontrol.ru/atmtc/Arms...t_Vehicles.htm

6. Now we can address the added armor and personnel issue as it concerns the BTR-50PK this version has the armored roof with C2 P8. This version was not as numerous as the the 50 or 50P ones as the BTR-60 was soon to replace it. But I don't want you to take my word for it, better to take the word of the company that made them for the Soviets in the first place and does the modernization work on them now. I think some might recognize this source. Note KMDB uses Crew 10 across the top of the table.
http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/btr50.php
I'm almost willing to bet the product line in the left corner might just have some useful info in it, just a guess on my part though!?!

This was a warm up for my work to come and an exercise to make a point. Those that "know" me understand the point I made here, and some will never get it. No Wiki, Blogs or other such and I still have some more but I'm ready for bed. I did have a great day with family, a couple of old shipmates and friends, I hope you will as well!


Regards,
Pat

[Richard_H]

Onwards & upwards - the paras.

Class 96 – Paratroops

Switzerland 310 have Size 1, and Crew 4.

6-man units are evenly split: Belgium 534 & 535 and Libya 430-432 are Size 0, Finland 490-496 are Size 1.

Norway 412 has 100 Weapon 1 rounds. I only mention it because it’s the first time I’ve seen a 100-rd small arm.

Norway 409 & 410 and Greece 307 have 16 Weapon 3 (Hand Grenade) rounds, and 9 Crew.

UK 104 & 105 have 30 Weapon 3 (Hand Grenade) rounds, and 8 Crew.

Greece 305 has 16 Weapon 4 (Hand Grenade) rounds, and 9 Crew.

Canada 487 & 488 have 20 Weapon 4 (Hand Grenade) rounds, and 8 Crew.

Russia 83 & 84 have 32 Weapon 4 (Hand Grenade) rounds, and 7 Crew.


Class 97 – Para Support

Sweden 238, 239, 242 & 243 have Weight 1 – they are all 3-man units.

Sweden 237 has 4 Weapon 3 (Hand Grenade) rounds, and 3 crew.


Class 98 – Para Light Infantry

Belgium 540, 541 & 549 have Size 0, Crew 6.

Portugal 553 & 554 have Size 1, Crew 5. Other similar (Portuguese) have Size 0. Admittedly these are the only ones with 2 60mm mortars.

Red 457 has 10 Weapon 3 (Hand Grenade) rounds, and 6 Crew.


Class 99 – Para Medium Infantry

Canada 471 & 472 have 16 Weapon 4 (Hand Grenade) rounds, and 10 Crew.


Class 100 – Para SMG

As this is only used by France, and France has no Class 97 Units, you could save yourselves a class here. I don’t know how difficult it would be, but personally I’d love to see another cavalry class . . .(dream on :>)

Richard H

[Richard_H]

Motorcycles

Class 49 – Motorcycles

Size – 2 schools of thought here, by the look of it. One that says ‘units of 4 men or less should always be size 0’, and one that goes for size 1. I know I made a case earlier for size 0 small bicycle units but unless it has a highly baffled exhaust, you can’t hide the noise of a motorcycle, and in dry conditions it will also kick up dust. So I’d favour size 1.
The size 0 units are:- Italy 290 & 291, Switzerland 502-504 and 641-647.
Sweden 73 is size 2 (2-man unit).

Italy 290 & 291 have no Lift Capacity. Of all the units here, I would have thought they were more able than most to carry bodies (although maybe not with 3 crew).

Switzerland 642 & 643 have Lift Capacity 3 – do I assume sidecars?

Poland 780, N.Korea 655, E.Germany 239 & Czech 201 have Lift Capacity 106. 3 motorbikes towing a gun – hmmm. Or do they need this to carry their Mech Scouts?

Israel 379, Switzerland 502-504 and 644-647 all have RoF less than 9, even though they have small arms as their primary weapon.

Mujahadeen 471, E.Germany 655-658, Switzerland 502-504 & 641-647 all have Weight less than 10. Does the same rule apply to motorcycles as to other vehicles, ie minimum 10? From the look of Class 187, the answer is no.

E.Germany 655-658 are 1-man, unarmed units. Don’t think I’ll be buying any in a hurry . . .


Class 187 – Light Motorcycles

Size 0 units – Afghanistan 605-610, Italy 292-294.

Jordan 485 has Lift Capacity 2, all others have 0.

Cuba 510-513 & Portugal 313 have 6 Weapon 2 (Hand Grenade) rounds, and 4 Crew.

Uruguay 260-262 have 8 Weapon 2 and 8 Weapon 3 (both Hand Grenade) rounds, and 5 Crew.

Portugal 314 has 6 Weapon 3 (Hand Grenade) rounds, and 4 Crew.


Class 188 – Heavy Motorcycles

Sweden 72 has Weight 10. All others apart from the Quad Bikes have 0.

S.Africa 295-297 have 10 Weapon 3 (Hand Grenade) rounds, and 9 Crew.

Richard H

[Richard_H]

I've just tested the Czech motorcycles - they load fine with a Lift Capacity of just 6. As the other oobs I mentioned appear to be clones, I'm assuming they will do likewise.

Richard H

[Pibwl]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

As Mobhack pointed out, the manufacturer often base troop carry capacity on troops no field gear, thus the "real" carry capacity is often less.

As I've said, the manual, published by the Soviet MoD in 1963, states, that both variants (P and PK) can carry 20 soldiers with full combat equipment. I have an impression, that you think, that for some reason I'm lying to you, trying to convince you to change BTR-50PK's load In any case, I'm attaching the first and 4th page of manual - I didn't produce this document myself.

As for http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...n0534/lsn2.htm - though the capacity refers explicitly to BTR-50P, they don't say, that BTR-50PK had lower capacity. BTR-50PK was definitely more popular variant, being a mainstay of tank divisions, replaced by BMP-1, not BTR-60. By the way, standard armament according to manual was 7.62mm SGMB, not 12.7 DShK.

As for http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/btr50.php - well, crew of 10 is an apparent error, and I don't even know what they meant by "crew". Maybe if each trooper had comfortable shockproof individual seat, it would be 10 indeed. The Czechs carried 16 men inside (including crew).

I'm not saying, that I KNOW how many troops BTR-50PK could accommodate - I can only quote a first-hand source, while lower number is only a supposition. Do what you think is right.

Regards
Michal

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Pibwl;786668As

I've said, the manual, published by the Soviet MoD in 1963, states, that both variants (P and PK) can carry 20 soldiers with full combat equipment. I have an impression, that you think, that for some reason I'm lying to you, trying to convince you to change BTR-50PK's load In any case, I'm attaching the first and 4th page of manual - I didn't produce this document myself.Regards
Michal

What we have ( and I'm done with this as of right now ) is nitpicking by source. Any disagreement or doubt is directed at the source and waving one source around like it's the holy grail is a waste of time. We could spend the rest of our lives ( and I have no intention of doing that ) "debating" the merits of one source over another and I could spend the rest of my life making corrections to the OOB's based on whoever just popped up with a new source ( and I have NO intention of doing that either )

Let's look at one historically popular vehicle and some "sources" for a moment

One would think 66 years after the last one was made and hundreds of thousands of pages written about the vehicle that all sources would agree on the road speed of a Tiger 1 yet one on line source of detailed information says the Max level road speed is 28 mph or 45 kph whereas another well used on line source the same thing but adds that this was not recommended for normal operation

I have a Profile Publication that gives the max road speed as 23 MPH ( 37 kph ) and I have a Weapons of World War 2 encyclopedia that claims it's 38 kph ( 24 MPH ) and another encyclopedia that says it's 37 kmh and 23 mph.

So much for "sources" but in this case it's a safe bet 37 or 38 is close enough but when you convert that to game speeds 37 = 12.33 which is rounded to 12 and 38 = 12.66 which rounds up to 13 and I have NO DOUBT there are people who think it should be 15 because the Fprado webpage says the Max level road speed is 28 mph /45 kph . The just haven't shown up yet, but they will and I have no double there are other sources that differ from these numbers. ( and Prado is quoting those numbers from another "source" )

If I had more time and a staff of 10 I would keep a record of each unit in each nation and note the changes made and who asked they be made then let anyone who disagrees argue it out with them but I don't but I do know the Russian OOB was seriously gone over a few years back so if anything in any other OOB differs from the Russian OOB values the Russian OOB values will be the correction.

We still have some OOB's using NATO names for equipment. Andy prefers NATO names and I prefer the Russian designations and it's a PITA to keep the weapon specs in all the OOB's the same when Iglas are named "Gimlet" but that goes off topic.

The point is, no matter what, somebody will have a source that differs from somebody else's source. When the Russian OOB was redone the BTR-50PK's were very specifically given a 114 carry cap and the rest 120.


Don

[Pibwl]

I understand, that you must be very busy coordinating all OOBs and deciding, what changes should be made and if they are justified. However, it's not, that I'm waving one source against another - there is only one official and first-hand source, which is a military manual, and it's backed up by works of Russian experts, like M. Baryatynski. On the other hand, there are no sources for lower number - only suppositions or opinions of people, who had improved the Russian OOB before, impossible to track now. There is no reason to deny the officially given number, since it concerns a feature easy to be verified by APC users, not as vague, as (for example) speed.

You all did a great work, I myself joined SPMBT only recently, but I see some things, that could be improved or corrected to bring the game as close to historical truth as possible. And I'm treating it serious. I'm interested in military stuff, mostly Warsaw pact, for some 25 years, and I have some knowledge, backed up by local sources. You may decide to change the number of BTR-50's troops or not, I won't be offended - but the decision shouldn't be made on a basis, that somebody once stated it as 14 soldiers so it must be true, contrary to reliable sources.

To end the dispute on BTR-50, I've made a simulation of placing soldiers on five known benches. The soldiers (taken from Bradley) are 50 cm wide, but they could be even wider. I hope it proves, that it was possible, although of course uncomfortable (and not used in practice too often).

I must however admit, that I've found a side effect of increasing BTR's capacity: when deploying an unit, two sections go to one APC, leaving another one empty. In fact, the Czechoslovak Army in the 1960s used two APC for three 7-men sections this way (I was going to propose appropriate changes). I don't know, how about the Soviet Army, but I assume it had to be similar with such capacious vehicles. It however would demand further changes in formations, for which I have no sources.

Please, let me know, if you're interested in further suggestions what to improve in Eastern European OOBs, so I know if to devote my time to it further (I have some half-ready ones).

Regards
Michal Derela