Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)

[Pibwl]

Aircraft - continued.


601 PWS-26 [AOP aircraft] - this in fact should be available since 9/39 only (now 1/37), because it was a trainer during a peacetime.
Same for 616 RWD-8

607-612 Fokker VII/3m - according to A. Morgała, military variant was named Fokker VIIm3W. In fact, max speed was only 185 km/h (now speed 3)

As for units 609 and 610, the sources don't give details as for its load (1000 kg), but it seems very doubtful, if Fokker could carry 300 kg bombs. 200 kg bombs were unknown in the Polish service at all.

464 PZL P-23A Karas - name should be just "PZL-23A Karas".
It was introduced to units from 9/36 (now 5/36).
MG should be #190 wz.33.
Due to weaker engine, more likely armament of A version would be 8x50 kg bombs rather, or 4x100, 4x50 max (now: 5x100, 4x50)

613-615 PZL P-23B Karas - name should be "PZL-23B Karas". B variant was introduced to units from spring 1937 (now 11/36)

9 bombs is too much, it could carry 8 big bombs only.
As for unit 613 it would be 6x100 kg and 2x50 kg (though practically used load was up to 600 kg)
As for unit 614 it would be 8x50 kg

There could be added variant with 24 x 12kg bombs, if it's useful.

Weapon 194 100kg Bomb could in fact be changed to 110 kg Bomb, which was its real mass according to a monograph on PZL-37 Łoś (they were German WW1 PuW bombs and Polish Ż wz.31)

Weapon 196 Myszka Bomb should be named ".. bombs", or in fact "bomblets".
BTW: all weapons "Bomb" could be renamed "Bomba" in Polish (like in Italian oob)

617 PZL L-2a - name was just PZL L-2. Precisely, used from 9/30 (now 1/30 - at that time, a prototype haven't flown yet)

618 RWD-14b Czapla - serial variant was named LWS Czapla. It was introduced to units from 5/39 (now 8/38)

619 LWS-3 Mewa - should be available from 9/39 only (7/39) - few introduced in a hurry after a start of war.


620-622 Farman Goliath - speed was 154 km/h, so it should be 2 (now 3). As for unit 622 - last were cancelled by 11/35 (now 12/36)

624, 625 Potez XXV A2, B2 - name of both bomber variants should be B2.
Morgała's book mentions max bomb load: 4x50 kg and 24x12 kg, without 100 kg bombs. Unit 624 could be armed eg. with 24x12 kg only. There could be some 12 kg bombs added to unit 625 or not.
There should be only 1 fixed MG.
Max speed of bomber variant was around 190 km/h, so it should be 2.

627 Potez XXV A2 [AOP aircraft] - Potez modified with radial engine should be rather Fighter-Bomber class, with armament as above, but speed 3 (232 km/h), used in some 8/38 - 5/39. Name should be Potez XXV B2-BJ

.

[PvtJoker]

Ammo-related question:

You write here http://derela.republika.pl/weap.htm#am that the Polish army had AP and API ammunition for the 7.92mm machine guns. Were those ammo types commonly issued to armored vehicles and do you have any data about their armor penetration capabilities? Is there any evidence that they were used against German armored vehicles in 1939? I suppose they were of conventional design with steel core?

[Pibwl]

Originally Posted by PvtJoker

Ammo-related question:

You write here http://derela.republika.pl/weap.htm#am that the Polish army had AP and API ammunition for the 7.92mm machine guns. Were those ammo types commonly issued to armored vehicles and do you have any data about their armor penetration capabilities? Is there any evidence that they were used against German armored vehicles in 1939? I suppose they were of conventional design with steel core?

There must have been an error in source, because now I read in other books, that PS should be APT round, not API. Anyway, P bullet was an equivalent of German WW1 steel core SmK, and APT was its modification.

In case of infantry wz.30 HMG, for 2000 rounds there should be 1766 ordinary SC, 200 P (AP) and 34 PS (APT). I have no idea how they were belted. Unfortunately, I haven't found information how common they were in armoured vehicles. I may assume, that more common, than in infantry.

I have no data as for armour penetration, but it should be no more, than some 8-9 mm - enough for own tankette, but not enough for PzKpfw I...

[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.

[Pibwl]

Originally Posted by Pibwl

627 Potez XXV A2 [AOP aircraft] - Potez modified with radial engine should be rather Fighter-Bomber class, with armament as above, but speed 3 (232 km/h), used in some 8/38 - 5/39. Name should be Potez XXV B2-BJ

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.

There should be also added Breguet XIX B2 - there is already icon 2906 with Polish signs. Used in 1/30-12/36. It could be copied from Spanish Republic 410, as Level Bomber or Fighter Bomber or both. It could carry 8x50 kg or 4x100 kg bombs, was armed with 1 x 7.9mm Vickers MG and max speed was 213 km/h (2? 3?).

[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