The new improved 8.1 oob thread

[KG Erwin]

Complaint noted, Eric.

[Voriax]

ORIGINAL: Kevin E. Duguay

GOOD POINT!!!!!

Nonsense

If range stats (as they seem so) suggest that an unit must be an on-map unit the do so,

If americans must have on map rockets because others have the do _not_ give them those rockets.

Voriax

[harlekwin]

ORIGINAL: Voriax

ORIGINAL: Kevin E. Duguay

GOOD POINT!!!!!

Nonsense

If range stats (as they seem so) suggest that an unit must be an on-map unit the do so,

If americans must have on map rockets because others have the do _not_ give them those rockets.

Voriax

I fail to see why a group wanting equanimity of rocket representation is unacceptable if the statistical performance envelope is similar is "beyond the pale".

Surely you recall the war over the Nebelwerfer and the Wulfram?

[Major Destruction]

ORIGINAL: Alby

germans , ruskies, and brits get their on board rockets,
why not the USA?? [:D]

Not exactly. The British tank mounted rocket unit was removed.
I don't rmember the reason, but they have been gone for a long time.

[JJKettunen]

Let's see how quickly this post is deleted or moved...

I tested a Prokhorovka scenario of mine with SPWAW 8.1, and was quite suprised that during the battle late model Stukas made perfect runs against T-34s, which were speeding full ahead, while visibility was poorish (20), and more importantly battlefield was filled with smoke from Soviet arty. I was expecting that at least some of the strikes would go astray, but no, all four planes destroyed a T-34 each with their first runs. After some more experimenting I read the OOB-notes, which said "all aircrafts were improved". Then I checked the OOBs with the editor, and it showed that whereas 7.1 OOB had Fire Control of 15, and Range Finder of 0 for this plane, 8.1 OOB has values of 35 and 30, respectively.

Astounded by this dramatic change, which seemed to me to based on old myths of Tac Bomber effectiveness, I thought I had to post about it at this forum, with the excerpt from "Flying Guns: World War II" by Tony Williams, reposted below. By the time I expected some kind of response from the fine gentlemen of the OOB-team, but none came, excluding RockinHarry's concern about splash damage. I sincerely do hope that aircraft performance values would be reconsidered for the next version.

"The fighter-bomber pilots pressed home their attacks with great
courage throughout the campaign despite the often ferocious light FlaK
which caused loss rates far above those experienced by fighter units
(one Typhoon squadron suffered 100% casualties in an eighteen-month
period). They were confident that any German tank they spotted was as
good as dead, and they earned a considerable reputation for tank
killing, with substantial claims being accepted. However, British
operational research (OR) carried out at the time (but not publicised
for obvious reasons) presented a more complex picture. As the Allies
were advancing, intelligence officers were often able to examine a
battlefield shortly after an air attack, and what they discovered
causes controversy even today. (Much of this section is taken from Ian
Gooderson's "Air Power at the Battlefront", which explores this issue
in great detail).

The evidence gathered by the OR teams indicated that very few tanks
were destroyed by air attack. A British War Office analysis of 223
Panther tanks destroyed in 1944 revealed that only fourteen resulted
from air attack (eleven to RPs and three to aircraft cannon). During
the Mortain battle of 7-10 August, the RAF and USAAF launched
sustained attacks on a German armoured column over a period of six
hours, claiming 252 German tanks destroyed or damaged in nearly 500
sorties. It was subsequently discovered that there had only been a
total of 177 tanks or tank destroyers deployed by the Germans and just
46 of those were lost, of which only nine could be attributed to air
attack (seven to RPs and two to bombs). During the German retreat from
the Falaise pocket later in August, the RAF and USAAF claimed 391
armoured vehicles destroyed. Shortly afterwards, the battlefield was
examined and only 133 armoured vehicles of all types were found, of
which just 33 had been the victim of any sort of air attack. In the
retreat to the Seine, large numbers of armoured vehicles were left
behind and Typhoon pilots alone claimed 222 destroyed, but only
thirteen out of 388 AFVs examined were found to have been knocked out
by RP attack. In the Ardennes salient, just seven out of 101
knocked-out AFVs were definitely or possibly attributed to air attack,
compared with claims for 90. It should be noted that in the prevailing
circumstances of a continuing retreat, there was no question of the
German Army having recovered any damaged tanks in these later actions,
in fact the battlefields were often littered with undamaged tanks
abandoned by their crews.

One source estimates that probably no more than about 100 tanks were
lost due to hits from air weapons during the entire Normandy campaign.
In contrast, the RAF's 2nd TAF (including elements of the Air Defence
of Britain which took part in the campaign) and the USAAF's 9th Air
Force lost over 1,700 aircraft between them.

The ineffectiveness of air attack against tanks should have caused no
surprise because the weapons available to the fighter-bombers were not
suitable for destroying them. Put simply, the heavy machine guns and
20 mm cannon were capable of hitting the tanks easily enough, but
insufficiently powerful to damage them, except occasionally by chance.
The RPs and bombs used were certainly capable of destroying the tanks
but were too inaccurate to hit them, except occasionally by chance."

[Voriax]

ORIGINAL: harlekwin


I fail to see why a group wanting equanimity of rocket representation is unacceptable if the statistical performance envelope is similar is "beyond the pale".

Surely you recall the war over the Nebelwerfer and the Wulfram?

I do remember

What I was actually commenting is that some requests for US on map rockets are in a form of : "They have them, so we must have them also"

And as I said, the ranges seem to be so that they belong to the map. So do so, I have no problems with it.

Voriax

[Frank W.]

ORIGINAL: Goblin

ORIGINAL: Frank W.

ORIGINAL: Kevin E. Duguay

GOOD POINT!!!!!

sorry, wrong thread

the "tiger kiddies" - (c) by ammo sgt. -
will not agree

Guess this one qualifies as OK for this thread....

Goblin[8|]

[:(] wrong thread as it seems, sorry...

[BryanMelvin]

The Aircraft issues are being fixed as well as the Rocket issues according to your suggestions as are many other things [8D]

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: BryanMelvin

The Aircraft issues are being fixed as well as the Rocket issues according to your suggestions as are many other things [8D]

Well that's more like it!

I was about to repost my concerns about gun performance values of T-34s and Tigers, but I'd guess, and hope, you are already working on it.

[harlekwin]

ORIGINAL: Keke

ORIGINAL: BryanMelvin

The Aircraft issues are being fixed as well as the Rocket issues according to your suggestions as are many other things [8D]

Well that's more like it!

I was about to repost my concerns about gun performance values of T-34s and Tigers, but I'd guess, and hope, you are already working on it.

patience and forebearance.....

[Voriax]

Some weapon hit probability and penetration tables...first I though to post these urls to the Pz-IVc thread but they may be more useful here.

Weapon effectiveness (81 pages)
http://www.britwar.co.uk/files/phatfile ... 4May02.PDF

Hit probability (13 pages)
http://www.britwar.co.uk/files/phatfile ... 4May02.PDF

Penetration values (75 pages)
http://www.britwar.co.uk/files/phatfile ... 4May02.PDF

Okay, this may be adding fuel to the flames but enjoy




Voriax

[Frank W.]

voriax: amazing links. thanx

[Charles2222]

Just a short note on this fighter-bomber sort of thing. While 20mm. cannon may have had trouble, in the Stuka 37mm. I don't think that's so much the case. At home I have a large book on Rudel, and they actually have a photograph of an JS-II that was destroyed by his plane. I think it's the only JS-II he ever got though, and how many oppotunites he had I do not know.

[o4r]

Checking...

1. Not around for a few days, what is the "The Bitch and moan" post???

2. Did Jagtiger really ran that fast in WWII? or is there a error whilst editing? It seems like Jadgtiger can ran faster than a Tiger II. Is that true?

3. When I select the Cez. Flak 3cm, it is armoured but not in the German unit, is there a different between the 2?

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

Just a short note on this fighter-bomber sort of thing. While 20mm. cannon may have had trouble, in the Stuka 37mm. I don't think that's so much the case. At home I have a large book on Rudel, and they actually have a photograph of an JS-II that was destroyed by his plane. I think it's the only JS-II he ever got though, and how many oppotunites he had I do not know.

Do note that I'm not questioning the killing ability of that gun, but efficiency of all aircrafts in adverse conditions...

[Voriax]

Howdy

1. Take your pick, there are plenty of those around.

2. According to 'Achtung Panzer' they should have same speed. So, slow down the JagdTiger?

3. Not sure..there was a vehicle that had the same halftrack chassis but with a box like shielding. But this vehicle carried a 76,2mm ATG. Perhaps just a mistake?

Voriax

[BulletMagnet]

1. Not around for a few days, what is the "The Bitch and moan" post???

Its a place where people can unload all of the unhappy thoughts about the oobs and the rest of us dont have to filter through it to find out whats new with the oobs.Think of it as the head or latrine.Feel free to use it anytime...[:D]

[Major Destruction]

ORIGINAL: o4r

2. Did Jagtiger really ran that fast in WWII? or is there a error whilst editing? It seems like Jadgtiger can ran faster than a Tiger II. Is that true?

3. When I select the Cez. Flak 3cm, it is armoured but not in the German unit, is there a different between the 2?

2. Chamberlain and Ellis quote 38km/hr; Tiger II 35km/hr.
Could be a mistake since they have the same engine and the Jagdtiger is 2 tons heavier.

3. Are you refering to the 3.7cm FlaK LKW?
This is a German unit in the Czech OOB. It has no armour. Should it? How much?

Or some other unit?

[o4r]

ORIGINAL: Major Destruction

ORIGINAL: o4r

2. Did Jagtiger really ran that fast in WWII? or is there a error whilst editing? It seems like Jadgtiger can ran faster than a Tiger II. Is that true?

3. When I select the Cez. Flak 3cm, it is armoured but not in the German unit, is there a different between the 2?

2. Chamberlain and Ellis quote 38km/hr; Tiger II 35km/hr.
Could be a mistake since they have the same engine and the Jagdtiger is 2 tons heavier.

3. Are you refering to the 3.7cm FlaK LKW?
This is a German unit in the Czech OOB. It has no armour. Should it? How much?

Or some other unit?

So No. 2 is confirmed a mistake in 8.01 OOb.

No.3, if u go to the Cezch, there is a unit called German SP Flak 3cm, it is armoured. But in german unit, it is still referring to the same vehicle but it is not armoured.

Ok,

Question 4: PIV short 75/24, when does it HEAT (actually I think it is a hollow round) became available. In H2H, it was already available in 1939 September but in SPWAW 6 to present version it was not available until quite late in the war (somewhere mid of 1942) so which is which?

[Voriax]

o4r, could you give the unit number for this flak? I cannot find any 3cm flak units in the Czech oob.

3,7cm flak LKW, 2cm Flak LKW???

Only armoured flak unit is the SdKfz-6/2, unit number 46

Voriax