British oob

[Kiwikkiwik]

I realise this is irrelevant for the viewpoint of the game and Im sorry to be splitting hairs here, but the RAF Regiments are actually part of the Air Force. The reference is good if we just substitute Hispano for Oerlikon. This makes sense as British planes used Hispanos and the Oerlikons lacked a self destruct shell (which the navy did not mind, airforce not so keen).
This reference suggests that British Oerlikons went to the navy.

https://ww2db.com/weapon.php?q=188

The production of the first British-made Oerlikon autocannon started in Ruislip, London, England, United Kingdom at the end of 1940, and the first British-made guns were delivered to the Royal Navy in Mar or Apr of 1941.

This site is very interesting.

http://forcespublishing.co.uk/pdfs/t..._adversity.pdf

It is pretty thorough, it says

In April 1940, in an attempt to improve the situation, the Air Ministry approved the temporary release of 500 surplus 20mm Hispano aircraft cannon to supplement the existing aircraft .303" machine guns issued for the air defence of stations.

And mentions the use of Hispanos (not Oerlikons) throughout, so I guess pretty good evidence for no, or certainly very nearly no, Oerlikons in the Air force as well as the Army. I also found this interesting,

The USN’s trials had established that the .303" machine gun lacked the necessary range, rate of fire and hitting power and estimated that the concentrated fire of at least four pairs of Lewis guns would be needed to engage each attacking aircraft with even the minimal prospect of deterrence, let alone the possibility of inflicting lethal damage. The American conclusion was that the .50" machine gun was the smallest calibre weapon which could be effective in the antiaircraft role.

RAF Regiments also used the Lanchester SMG, but not the Army, so Lanchester should probably be removed from unit 384 37mm AT-Gun and replaced with a rifle.

I see about the HEAT. I can see its a good way to do a dozer blade. For the Churchill AMRCR I thought the equipment didn't cover much of the front but I guess it would be about half, good enough I guess. Plough tanks 562 and 557 Im not so sure about, if the ploughs are in the ground, as in 557s picture, I would have thought it didn't gave much protection to the Hull front? For unit 41 Churchill AVRE considering where the Facine is carried, maybe the Facine carrier should have turret front with the high HEAT value instead of the hull? Then again if its carrying a facine it can't shoot its gun, which actually, it can. So wouldn't shooting the gun blast the Facine off the tank? setting the HEAT value to 0?

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Kiwikkiwik

For unit 41 Churchill AVRE considering where the Facine is carried, maybe the Facine carrier should have turret front with the high HEAT value instead of the hull? Then again if its carrying a facine it can't shoot its gun, which actually, it can. So wouldn't shooting the gun blast the Facine off the tank? setting the HEAT value to 0?

Do you see a facine on the icon ? No, It has equipment to carry it even though it may not have it on at the time the HEAT rating is a generalization that there are obstructions on the front of the hull that would affect HEAT.

But your "hairspliting" and nitpicking is getting tiresome. If you don't like what you see we provide the tools for you to change it but nothing in this thread is going to be applied to the game OOB's so take that as a hint and save yourself the time and effort reporting things I am never going to change. Consider the OOB's more or less locked down after this next patch and I am not making further alterations to them except in exceptional circumstances between now and release. WYSIWYG warts and all. I could tweak and adjust these things for the next decade and someone would still find some detail in some obscure text that differs but after 20 years of this......it near done like it or not and if you like what you see, I'm happy and if you don't I really don't care at this stage.

And SERIOUSLY you felt in necessary to remind us "RAF Regiments are actually part of the Air Force"...... well gee thanks for that startling revelation.........

Don

[Imp]

May I suggest you join a dedicated WWII forum if you want to share and discuss your findings.
This is a game forum the amount of info you provide means it is falling on deaf ears so share it with those that might have an interest.

Should you find and verify a major error in a unit you could post that for consideration - 1 or 2 units a year. This is what other people do and oddly enough because it’s not information overload they get looked into. Remember it’s a game if it has no real impact on it it’s not important.

If you wished you could post your modified OOB(s) those that are interestead can try them.
Updated photos seem to appeal to a few people so you could continue to post them.

[Kiwikkiwik]

Before 4/44 the British had no armoured infantry that is according to the 4 very reputable, extensively researched volumes by Mark Bevis on exactly that subject, the British war establishments concur as does every other source I've looked at, it's not just what I think, it's the consensus. If anyone has a better reference or even one that disagrees I'd be very much surprised.

Giving the British halftracks, ie armoured infantry, two years early isn't a minor detail because, artillery. Artillery is much more effective in game than in reality, this makes moving around in trucks suicide, but in reality that was the only option the British had before 4/44. Giving the British halftracks two years early gives the British army a capability they never had for those two years, the ability to move large chunks of infantry forward safe from shrapnel and bullets. This has an unquestionably big effect on gameplay. Similarly the Motor infantry was always 8 men, never 10 this also isn't a minor detail, an 8 man section plays differently and is much weaker than a 10 man section. The ubiquitous universal carrier Scout platoon isnt even in the game. That no-one has disputed any of these or the other errors I cited suggests to me that I am well on the money.

Many players probably don't even realise that the British OOB contains this amount of errors, don't you think they should be given the courtesy of a British OOB that doesn't contain major errors? after all the blurb for the game says

winSPWW2 with its amazing amount of historical detail

I'm not sure introducing halftracks 27 months early qualifies as "historical", neither do any of the many other errors I've presented in this thread.
Maybe it is time to expand your team with someone that has the time and enthusiasm to correct the OOBs? I'd be happy to help.

Hi IMP I'm not sure that the amount of info is the problem, the salient points are in there, mentioned again above, I just provide all the detail so DRG can make changes if he wishes with the least effort as I have done as much of the work I can for him already. I appreciate whatever work he decides to do or not to do. I am happy enough if he is just aware of the issues the British OOB has. However I'm not so keen to have what are major flaws in the British OOB characterised and dismissed as hairsplitting and nitpicking, H/T introduction dates two years too early and all that follows, 10 men squads instead of 8, universal carrier recon scout platoon morphed into a substantial fighting unit. All these errors effect gameplay greatly.

I would also point out that the tone of responses in the forum is hardly conducive to posting anything that could be construed as critical. Many forum members would be too frightened to post.