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.
Linear Mode
