Aircraft data errors

Matrix Games Forums

Command Ops gets a Massive Update!

Lost Battles AAR: Smolensk 41

War in the East: Lost Battles is here!

Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! Let's Play video

Lost Battles Scenario Manual excerpts available!

A sneak peek from Allied Corps!

Harpoon 3 ANWs Free Ultimate Update!

All good Deals always come in threes

Distant Worlds: Shadows Approaches!

Lost Battles AAR: Moscow 41

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Aircraft data errors

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Tech Support >> Aircraft data errors

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Aircraft data errors - 10/4/2011 5:52:25 AM

Denniss

Posts: 1422
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline

A friend of mine got hands on the german version, currently at version 1.04.36.
I was able to get a quick look at the aircraft data and noticed some oddities/errors:

1) All german 7.92 mm machineguns are truncated to 7.9 mm, tank MG have their proper caliber stated.
2) Some translation problems with drop tanks - fault of the publisher in germany ?
3) The Bf 109 F-2 had an engine with higher rated alt but in-game the same max alt as E-series ?
4) The Bf 109 F-4 had an engine with 200+PS more than the F-2 and a prop with wider blade to convert this power into thrust but speed/max alt is the same as F-2 ?!? Should be in the same speed range as the G-2 (some 200 kg less weight, better aerodynamics to counter the 125 PS more on the G-2), also applies to the hungarian version
5) Bf 109 G-2 is too slow - was in the 660 km/h range, also applies to the hungarian version
6) The Bf 109 G-6 is not a G-6 but a G-6/U4 (3cm MK 108 engine cannon instead of the 2cm MG 151), the G-6/U4 was available no earlier than autumn 1943. Speed is incorrect as the 620 km/h is not with full power - max was about 640 to 645 km/h, also applies to the hungarian version (they received some /U4 but majority was standard G-6)
7) The Bf 109 G-6/R2 equipment is completely wrong - 109 recons neither had the MK 108 nor had they underwing cannons (what should they use it for ?!?). Usually standard armament (2cm engine cannon + the two MG)
8) The Bf 109 G-14 is too fast - data seems to be from a G-10. The G-14 with MW50 boost was about as fast as the G-2. also applies to the hungarian version
9) The Bf 109 K-4 is too fast as well, speed was flown with a prototype "D�nnblattpropeller" - production version maxed out at about 715 km/h
10) The Bf 110 C-5 had an uprated DB 601N engine with more power/higher rated alt yet speed/max alt are similar to the C/C-4.
11) The 300 liter drop is said to be 66 gallon but should be 79 gallon (if you use US values for data comparison). P-39 drop tank seem to use US gallon for data, the P-40 on imperial gallon ?
12) The Ar 234B had no internal bomb bay - external racks
13) The Bf 110 D-1/R2 had two 900 liter drop tanks - again imperial vs US gallon data mismatch
14) The Bf 110 E-2 could carry two 500 kg bombs, the 50 kg bombs were just an option instead of drop tanks.
15) What is a Bf 110 F-4a ?!? there was only a F-4, those were equipped with 2cm MG FF/M but not MG 151.
16) The Bf 110 G-2 had a dual-barrel MG 81Z and not two MG 81, bombload was two 500 kg.
17) The Bf 110 G-4 had 2cm MG 151 nose cannons and the same dual-barrel MG 81Z rear gun as the G-2, 3-man crew
18) The Bf 110 G-4/U8 had 2cm MG FF as Schr�ge Musik, not 2cm MG 151 (by far too long), rear gun see above, 3-man crew
19) The pure recon version of the Do 215 was the B-2, the B-1 is often called a recon-bomber (small bombload), as a recon version it should be faster than the heavily armed/equipped B-5 nicht fighter
20) The bombs on the Do 215 should be internal, not frontal
21) The Do 335 had 2cm MG 151 cannons over the engine - the 15mm variant was phased-out/converted to 2cm several years ago
22) Focke-Wulf aircraft had the manufacturer code Fw, not FW
23) The Fw 189 had two dual-barrer MG 81Z, not 2x2 MG 81
24) Fw 190A - A-4 or A-5 ? A-4 was available from June/July 1942, A-5 from oct/nov 1942. Aug 1942 does not really fit here. What happened to the machine guns ? Bomb and drop tanks? fighter-bomber ? Fw 190A should be a fighter, Fw 190A with bomb and drop tanks is a Fw 190G (fighter-bomber) although the current version has too many guns then. Please convert to a standard Fw 190A (two each MG 17, FF and 151/20), add a Fw 190 A-7 with four 2cm MG 151 + two 13 mm MG 131, convert Fw 190G to fighter-bomber
25) Fw 190 A-8/R2: had MG 131 machine guns but no additional armor, MK 108 + armor = /R8 subversion; what happened to the drop tank ?
26) He 111 H-3/H-4: The H-4 had more engine power, could either carry the same 2000kg bombs internal or up to 2500kg external, internal/external compination was not possible
27) All He 111P were bombers - no dedicated recon version known
28) He 112: cannon armament top rear ?!? also in the romanian version
29) He 219: way too fast (barely as fast as the Ju 88 G), way too much armament. MK 103 was not used as too heavy and too much recoil, aircraft had six forward gun positions (not eight), typical guns were two to six MG 151/20
30) Ju 52: please rename to Ju 52/3m
31) Ju 87: typical bombload of the Ju 87B was 250kg on centerline + 4x50kg underwing, the D increased this to 500-1000kg centerline, with again 4x50kg underwing, rear gun was MG 81Z on the D, not 2x MG81, The G usually had increased armor protection, consider increased durability (not enough for armor of 2); also applies to the romanian 87D
32) Ju 88A data is somewhat strange, better separate into an early version (A-1) with reduced armament/bombload and a later version (A-4)
33) Me 210: max alt of 22k ?!? climbrate lower than Bf 110 ?
34) Finnish/Romanian Bf 109 G-6: they received the standard variant, not the G-6/U4 with MK 108 cannon
35) IAR 81B had MG FF cannon, not MG 151/20 (that's IAR 81C)
36) Hungarian Fw 190F a Fighter-Bomber and not tac/ground attack ?
37) P-47D had a 200 US gallon ferry tank (not in combat), in late 1944 they usually had two 108 or 150 US gallon wing tanks
38) A-20G: the 2cm Hispanos were bad US copies and very unreliable and were soon replaced by 0.50s, additional bombload over the A-20B was on external stations (not internal)

< Message edited by Denniss -- 10/7/2011 9:10:58 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: Aircraft data errors - 10/5/2011 12:44:18 AM

Denniss

Posts: 1422
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline

Some additions:
The He 111 H-20/R2 is a late-war aircraft but is still equipped with the old MG 15, they used MG 81, MG 81Z or MG 131.
The Bf 110 G-2 has bombs but a max load of 0
Upgrade path of the Fw 190A is the Fw 190A, Fw 190F upgrades to itself as well, several more seen ?!?
Some strange aircraft crew numbers, especially on night fighters - Do 215 B-5, Do 217N, Ju 88G with four-crew ?
Fw 190 A-8/R-2 flies remote-controlled (zero crew) ?
The Ju 88A had two internal bombays capable of holding 900kg (main bay) and 500kg (secondary bay) of bombs (limited to 50kg bombs), to use the secondary bay fuel tanks had to be removed. Max bombload should be 2,5 tonnes for early modesl, A-4 increase this to 3 tonnes.
The Ju 188 had an internal bombbay very similar to the 88 thus still limited to 50kg bombs although more powerful engines permitted a somewhat increased payload - no 100kg bombs in the internal bay
Me 210 carries bombs but has no payload
Ju 88 C-2 should have the standard 900kg internal bombbay for 50kg bombs, The C-6 should have used this for fuel storage. Ranges of the two do not really match, C-2 with bombs has more range ?
Max alt of the Bf 110 G-2 seems a bit low - not that much different from the earlier models
Do 335 was capable of holding two 300l droptanks underwing
Ju 88 D-1 image looks like having BMW 801 engines = not a D-1
Ju 86 P-2 image shows an early model, should look like this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_141-2402,_Flugzeug_Junkers_Ju_86.jpg (but with other engines, maybe even more wingspan)
The Bf 109 G-2 looks mirrored - engine air intake was on the left side
He 111 H-3 shows an aircraft on skis ?
The finnish Bf 109 G-6 looks like a G-2 - no MG bulges visible (hard to tell from the small image and camouflage paint over it)
Italina Cr.32bis and Cr.42 should be renamed CR.32bis and CR.42
Romanian Ju 88A upgrades to german Ju 188E, G-6(R) to german G-14 ?
Do 17M(R) imports from geman Do 17 Z-2 ? Shouldn't this be a romanian version of the Do 17P recon (M was a bomber)?
No import source for Bf 109 G-6(H) ? (multiple other hungarian aircraft lack it as well)
Slovakian BK-534 should be faster than the B-534 it based on - more powerful engine/armament
Two I-15bis in game, only differenc ein some performance statistics, may one the two be a plain I-15?
Upgrade paths of I-15 and I-16 borked or have they hardcoded replacements like in Second Front/WiR?
LaGG-3 upgrades to itself instead of the LaGG-3 29, LaGG-3 66 upgrades to itself instead of La-7
A somewhat strance placement of the drop tanks on the P-39 ....

(in reply to Denniss)

Post #: 2

RE: Aircraft data errors - 10/5/2011 1:15:22 AM

el hefe

Posts: 2847
Joined: 10/28/2002
Status: offline

Careful, someone may just just work themselves into a job :)

Looks like a good list. I don't even know who the aircraft data guy is on the team.

Trey

< Message edited by el hefe -- 10/5/2011 1:16:19 AM >

_____________________________

"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
Sabre 21's perpetual arch-nemisis

(in reply to Denniss)

Post #: 3

RE: Aircraft data errors - 10/5/2011 3:27:10 AM

Denniss

Posts: 1422
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline

Tanks may need a review as well, I already spotted some errors at Marder II/III, SiG33/Grille and StuGs
StuG-H42 has a correct name: StuH 42
StuGIII F showed a G (superstructure more sloped)
One of the early Marder II does not show a Panzer II Ausf. D/E based vehicle but another early Marder III, see http://www.achtungpanzer.com/marder-marten-series.htm
There's some confusion with siG33 equipped vehicles on 38(t) chassis, both versions with more central gun mount (Ausf. H) and the later one with rear-mounted gun (Ausf. M) were commonly called Grille (may have been an official name for some time). These vehicles were often mislabeled as Bison.
I remember to have seen some image quirks with the Panzer III, expecially the Ausf. N images for GER and ROM (can't remember exactly, no access currently)
PaK 43 and PaK 43/1 had some different stats although the latter had just a different mount to adapt them for use in different vehicles
2cm Flakvierling 38 is based on four 2cm FlaK 38 barrels yet rate of fire is more the 4 times that of FlaK 38, range or alt were also different

(in reply to el hefe)

Post #: 4

RE: Aircraft data errors - 10/5/2011 12:37:20 PM

jaw

Posts: 862
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

Careful, someone may just just work themselves into a job :)

Looks like a good list. I don't even know who the aircraft data guy is on the team.

Trey

Gary and Pavel, lots of luck there.

(in reply to el hefe)

Post #: 5

RE: Aircraft data errors - 10/5/2011 12:40:16 PM

jaw

Posts: 862
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Denniss

Tanks may need a review as well, I already spotted some errors at Marder II/III, SiG33/Grille and StuGs
StuG-H42 has a correct name: StuH 42
StuGIII F showed a G (superstructure more sloped)
One of the early Marder II does not show a Panzer II Ausf. D/E based vehicle but another early Marder III, see http://www.achtungpanzer.com/marder-marten-series.htm
There's some confusion with siG33 equipped vehicles on 38(t) chassis, both versions with more central gun mount (Ausf. H) and the later one with rear-mounted gun (Ausf. M) were commonly called Grille (may have been an official name for some time). These vehicles were often mislabeled as Bison.
I remember to have seen some image quirks with the Panzer III, expecially the Ausf. N images for GER and ROM (can't remember exactly, no access currently)
PaK 43 and PaK 43/1 had some different stats although the latter had just a different mount to adapt them for use in different vehicles
2cm Flakvierling 38 is based on four 2cm FlaK 38 barrels yet rate of fire is more the 4 times that of FlaK 38, range or alt were also different

I'm confused about what you're asking here. Are you complaining about pictures, names, what? Please specify vehicle by element number.

Thanks,

Jim Wirth

(in reply to Denniss)

Post #: 6

RE: Aircraft data errors - 10/5/2011 1:05:18 PM

MechFO

Posts: 253
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline

While you are at it please also look at the sortie ammo need.

Formel seems to be:

(Bombload in Kg x 2) + MG's/Cannon need

Quite a few planes have very inconsistent numbers, i.e. same gun combination but different ammo need or f.e. they have bombs but ammo need seems to only count MG's/Cannons.

(in reply to jaw)

Post #: 7

RE: Aircraft data errors - 10/5/2011 5:16:16 PM

Denniss

Posts: 1422
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline

As said Stug-H42 is a wrong name, it should be StuH 42, StuG-III should be named StuG III.
I may have to revert the comment regarding th StuG-IIIf image, it may be an F but really hard to tell from this mini-image.
Marder II Sd.Kfz.132 has the wrong image - four large roadwheels = 38(t) chassis = Marder III. The Panzer II D/E based early Marder II had 4 road wheels as well but of a different design and smaller in diameter. That's why I posted the achtungpanzer link.
For naming consistency, consider renaming Panzerj�ger 38(t)H to Marder III H and the Marder III to Marder III M, the siG33 Grille to siG33 Grille M and siG33(Sd.Kfz.138) to SiG33 Grille H. Ausf�hrung M of these vehicles had the engine moved from the rear (Ausf�hrung H and earlier) to the center section and the gun mount to the rear.
The german Panzer-IIIn does not really look like an N, at least one could not identify the gun.
The Romanian Panzer-IIIn is a museum tank image, they obviously modified the gun barrel. At least it's not a 7.5 cm barrel but something smaller. Hard to tell from this perspective. It also lacks an import source.

The name Hetzer is wrong, correct would be Jagdpanzer 38(t), Hetzer was assigned to an enlarged vehice named Jagdpanzer 38(d) (wider, longer chassis).
The hungarian Panzer-IIIh shows a long 5cm gun, it also lacks an import source.
Hungarian Panther lacks import source
Romanian Tiger lacks import source
Romanian T-3(n) does not show a Panzer IIIn but one with a short 5cm gun
The german Panzer IIIj L/42 has a rather short barrel - it looks more like a Panzer III N. Hard to tell from the mini-image as the turret may be turned away from the photographer
German Panzer 38(t) and 38(t)E have upgrade paths to Marder. For some reason the early 38(t) is set to the 1943 Marder III Ausf. M, the later 38(t)E to the 1942 Panzerj�ger 38(t). BTW is this a factory or unit upgrade path?
Flakpanzer IV Ostwind with a crew of six ?

(in reply to MechFO)

Post #: 8

RE: Aircraft data errors - 10/5/2011 7:53:08 PM

Denniss

Posts: 1422
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline

A quick look at the german factory distribution reminds me of some odd placements taken over from ancient War in Russia (AKA Second Front on the Amiga):
Ju 87 production in Wuppertal ?!? They were build by Weserflug in Bremen, later Berlin-Tempelhof
Dornier had no production facilities in Hannover - Most Do 217 were built in Munich(1000) and Wismar (600), 400 earlier models were built in Friedrichshafen
The Bf 109 K-4 was only built by Messerschmitt (Mtt) Regensburg, not by WNF in Vienna (wrong factory placement)
Kottbus is named Cottbus in the real world
Fieseler in Kassel built only 20 Bf 110E, then switched to other aircraft (AFAIR Fw 190), majority of Bf 110 was built by Lutherwerke Braunschweig (present) and Gothaer Waggonfabrik (missing)
Fw 190: later contract manufacturers like Fieseler (early 1942) , Arado Warnem�nde (autumn 1941), Ago Berlin (late 1941) missing, Arado converted later into a major Fw 190F builder though. Fw 190F factory placements are obviously wrong, majory built at Arado (2000) and Dornier Wismar (1350).
All Bf 109 G-6/R2, G-6/R3 and the majority of the G-8 dedicated recons were built at WNF Vienna
Both Aero in Prague and SNASCO in France built about 300 Fw 189 each, just Prage is in-game
Henschel in Kassel was a tank production facility, aircraft were produced in the Berlin area.
Ju 52 may have been produced at Weserflug Berlin (not sure about this) but also at a Junkers factory in Bernburg (near Magdeburg)
I never heard of Fiat aircraft production in Taranto - should be Turin fo the G.50
Panzer III: Should the IIIm not upgrade to Panther D ? Then you could move the otherwise missing MNH (Hannover) and MAN (N�rnberg) to Panzer III production and remove the PantherD Kassel plant
No Panther prodction in Vienna, please consider adding a second factory in N�rnberg with the Panther A
Tiger/Tiger II were solely produced in Kassel (no Tiger II production in Leipzig)
No Panzer IV production in Kassel I know of, Nibelungenwerke (St. Valentin Austria) missing, major Panzer IV producer. Please consider adding another factory in Magdeburg with the IV G and in Austria with the IV H.
Brummb�r was not built in Magdeburg, early series had chassis built at Nibelungenwerke and assembly in the Ruhr area, later complete production was at Nibelungenwerke.
Majority of StuG III production was in Berlin with MIAG as major subcontractor. Please consider using two factories in Berlin, StuG III F adds one in Braunschweig and III G another one in Braunschweig. StuH 42 factory should be moved to Berlin as it was only produced there
No StuG IV production in Kassel, was built by Krupp-Gruson in Magdeburg
Hummel: Developed by Alkett Berlin but produced by Deutsche Eisenwerke Duisburg
Nashorn: Developed by Alkett Berlin but produced by Deutsche Eisenwerke Duisburg
Panzer IIf should upgrade to Marder II (Sd.Kfz.131), later to Jagdpanzer IV
Marder II (Sd.Kfz.131) should upgrade to Wespe

(in reply to Denniss)

Post #: 9

RE: Aircraft data errors - 10/5/2011 8:08:55 PM

Nikel

Posts: 148
Joined: 3/24/2009
Status: offline

You are a living encyclopedia Denniss

May I ask which are the sources have you read to know of all that info?

(in reply to Denniss)

Post #: 10

RE: Aircraft data errors - 10/5/2011 11:22:39 PM

Denniss

Posts: 1422
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline

Lots of books, crosschecked with some internet sites, Wikipedia has some nice infos, too.
Especially interesting are aircraft build numbers from the military archive Freiburg as they often cite the manufacturer name and location, those infos are available in many wiki articles about the main german WWII aircraft (german wiki).

Following german tank production is really painful as manufacturers often switched from contract building to own models and back to contract building or just developed vehicles for others to build.
For a historical production line-up one has to make compromises.

< Message edited by Denniss -- 10/5/2011 11:25:15 PM >

(in reply to Nikel)

Post #: 11

RE: Aircraft data errors - 10/7/2011 6:14:46 PM

Denniss

Posts: 1422
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline

Do 215 B-1 image shows an aircraft with radial engines = Do 17
Bf 110 G-2 image shows a night fighter (radar antennas), tha same image is used for the G-4/U8 (correct there)
The image associated to the strange He 111P recon should be better used on the H-4 (recon dropping bombs?)
The Hunarian Fw 190F image is not a Fw 190 at all, judging from the tail section, cockpit, landing gear mount and the very small prop blades. Looks like a Reggiane Re.2002
The Me 210 Ca-1 was not capable of holding four 250kg bombs, either two 500kg bombs, two 250kg bombs or up to eight 50kg bombs (both 500 and 250kg bombs used the same bomb carrier, not enough space for more)
The originl Il-2 should be armed with a 20mm cannon as not many were built with the 23mm cannon, came later as quasi-standard in the Il-2M and standard in Il-2M3
All Il-2 are a bit overequipped with rockets - many sources claim a bombload of maximum 600 kg (400kg normal) + either eight RS-82 or four RS-132 rockets
IL-10 200 kg internal + 200 kg external bombload ?
Image of the german 37-mm-FlaK-36 shows two gun barrels - that's a 3.7 cm Flakzwilling 43 available from 1943 onwards
Just a crew of five for the german 105mm Flak ?
Some finnish guns (based on german guns) do not have an import source - several artillery, anti-tank and anti-air guns - is this WAD ?
Romanian Sd.Kfz 222 lacks import source
Romanian 50mm anti-tankand 37mm anti-air are german guns - import source or set up as license/domestic production?
The german 150mm rocket launcher with 6 launch tubes has an ammo count of 12, the larger versions like the 210mm rocket launcher with 5 tubes has ammo of five, corresponding to the number of tubes - WAD ? Also affects other installations or countries using them like Maultier SP rocket launcher.
The KV-85 tank should upgrade to the IS-1
The IS-1 M1943 should be renamed to just IS-1 (just one model available).
The successor to the IS-1 is missing - the IS-2 (IS-1 with 122mm gun). The IS-2 M1944 is available far too early, it had redesigned front armor to counter heavy losses from enemy fire (hull front plate was not uniform but with several lighter-armored gaps)

(in reply to Denniss)

Post #: 12

RE: Aircraft data errors - 10/8/2011 12:01:25 AM

Helpless

Posts: 11083
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline

First of all I'd like to thank you on so many notes. Most of them look really valid, although some prove links wouldn't hurt.

quote:

The originl Il-2 should be armed with a 20mm cannon as not many were built with the 23mm cannon, came later as quasi-standard in the Il-2M and standard in Il-2M3

Yes, original Il-2 appeared with 20mm ShVAK. But main series was equipped with ВЯ-23 (august 1941)

http://www.battlefield.ru/il2-vs-panzers/23-mm-pushka-vya.html
http://www.airwar.ru/weapon/guns/vya23.html

quote:

All Il-2 are a bit overequipped with rockets - many sources claim a bombload of maximum 600 kg (400kg normal) + either eight RS-82 or four RS-132 rockets

Yes, this could be probably true for the double seat Il-2. Single seat Il-2 could carry 8 rockets and 400 (600) kg bombs.

quote:

IL-10 200 kg internal + 200 kg external bombload ?

Yes. http://www.airwar.ru/enc/aww2/il10.html

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Helpless -- 10/8/2011 12:04:37 AM >

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW Development

(in reply to Denniss)

Post #: 13

RE: Aircraft data errors - 10/8/2011 11:10:45 AM

Tarhunnas

Posts: 2945
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

Compared to the issues of obscure German equipment being produced in this city or that, I would say that a major review of Soviet cities and their sizes would be more important. Getting rid of non-existent cities like Boguchar for example and some other glaring examples, of which for example Mogilev being a city but the larger Simferopol not is only one.

_____________________________

Read my AAR:s ye mighty, and despair!
41Ger
41Sov
41Ger
42Ger
42Sov

(in reply to Helpless)

Post #: 14

RE: Aircraft data errors - 10/8/2011 11:25:02 AM

Helpless

Posts: 11083
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline

Boguchar was existing city, etc.. There is a great deal of approximation here as well. I see no issues with Soviet cities.

As I was saying before, if you disagree - editor is free.

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW Development

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 15

RE: Aircraft data errors - 10/8/2011 12:54:44 PM

Tarhunnas

Posts: 2945
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

Boguchar existed yes, but as a hamlet of 13,000 inhabitants. Hardly a city. I can understand some approximation to get the correct population effects, but having a city spring up from nothing will have major combat benefits.

Edit: No offense intened, but I think it is surprising that the tiniest data error in the most obscure equipment apparently gets treated as a serious issue, but if one is pointing out imaginary cities on the map this is dismissed with the argument that some approximation is necessary.

< Message edited by Tarhunnas -- 10/8/2011 12:59:19 PM >

(in reply to Helpless)

Post #: 16

RE: Aircraft data errors - 10/8/2011 1:19:19 PM

Helpless

Posts: 11083
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline

I was explaining the reason for the various city sizes, including the one you are trying to question here. You are greatly exaggerating the "problem".

Also, please stop hijacking the thread. Please post all similar complaints here - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=913

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW Development

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 17

RE: Aircraft data errors - 10/9/2011 2:13:17 AM

Denniss

Posts: 1422
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline

Do 17 Z-2 is listed with a crew of five, should be four (pilot, bombardier/gunner and two gunners)
I'm not sure about the Do 17P with a crew of just three man.
The Do 215 B-5 night fighter should have a crew of three.
The Do 217N night fighter should have a crew of three.
The Ju 88G night fighter should have a crew of three.
Several Romanian aircraft incarnations of german types have both a local production capability set up and an import source, other like the SM.79 just a local production capability, the SM.79JR nothing but two factory sites.
The Lisunov Li-2 is listed as having a four-crew, the bomber version Li-2VP just two ?
It's a bit strange to see the Bf 109 versions very limited in range (barely over 500 mi in the G-2/G-6 on internal, little more on the F) but the Spitfire Vb and IX with ranges of 1,100/970 mi on internal fuel.
The G-6/R2 gets a harsh speed penalty for the underwing gun pods (although max 8 km/h speed loss noted in tests) but the additional weight is not accounted for in max alt. Seven points of mvr loss just because of the underwing guns? Compared to the Bf 109 G-6 a lot of range gain on internal fuel.
Similar problem with the G-6/U4N: Speed loss is ok, climb rate loss is only minimal but looses 1k ft of max alt, lots of range gain out of nowhere? Should get the climb rate listed for G-6/R2
I'm a bit sceptical about the use of Naxos on the Bf 110 G-4/U8 - the cockpit was already packed with equipment, very limited space was available for the crew, then place another monitor somewhere ?
The Fw 190F had no 13 mm MG 131 until 1944 with the introduction of the F-8, please consider splitting into an early and later version.
The Fw 190G had three stations to place bombs or drop tanks on, one centerline and two underwing. Either one bomb 250/500 kg and two drop tanks (standard) or two 250 kg bombs and one drop tank but not two each. It should also be a fighter-bomber with an armor of 1 - it was not intended to be used as a close support aircaft like the 190F and carried only the standard armor (was also called JaBoRei - fighter-bomber with extended range)

Translation errors in the german version:
Editor, air/land unit detail view:
1, Jahr should be 1. Jahr (First Year)
Wochen in Produktion: (Weeks in production) is too long and overlapping with the data field.
IMPERIAL/METRISCH EINHEITEN is missing an E - should be Imperiale/Metrische Einheiten
You should keep Int/Ext for bomb locations - Intern/Extern are valid in german too.

(in reply to Helpless)

Post #: 18

RE: Aircraft data errors - 10/10/2011 2:20:20 PM

Denniss

Posts: 1422
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline

IS-1 tank image shows an IS-2 (big gun, stepped front hull armor)
The IS-2 image is somewhat hard to identify, a full profile image would be much better here
Panzer III N has some points less in frontal armor compared to the III M, in reality armor layout was the same as in the Panzer III M
Frontal armor ratings of late Panzer III/IV are a bit strange, starting with Panzer III L they had 50+20mm armor at the hull front and 57+20mm armor at the turret front. Frontal Armor rating is 66.
The Panzer IV G and later had 8cm frontal hull armor but only 5cm frontal turret armor although the gun mantlet had 8cm. Front armor rating is 74.
Late production StuG III F and all following variants had 8cm frontal armor at hull and superstructure yet the armor rating is only 75.
StuH 42 is nothing more than a StuG III with an 105mm artillery gun but frontal armor jumped to 90 ?
The StuG III G had it's superstructure side armor slightly sloped, from 90 degrees (vertical) in previous version to 79 degrees, should justify two or so points more side armor.
If one compares the frontal armor of the IS-2 (120mm upper hull front, 100+mm turret front, ingame value 182) and the Tiger II (150mm upper hull front, 185mm turret front, ingame value 195) the difference of the ingame value is too small.
Marder II (Sd. Kfz. 131) is listed with a crew of just three, somewhat strange to see all other Marder II/III tanks with a crew of four
The german Lorraine SP-Artillery looks more like a Marder I (with 75mm anti-tank gun) - gun too long for 150mm artillery. Images for comparison: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorraine_37L
EDIT: StuG IV is just a Panzer IV hull with StuG III G superstructure yet it has 9 points more of frontal armor ?

< Message edited by Denniss -- 10/10/2011 3:47:46 PM >

(in reply to Denniss)

Post #: 19

RE: Aircraft data errors - 10/10/2011 2:47:36 PM

Attack

Posts: 81
Joined: 10/4/2006
Status: offline

Those details are very interesting, but in my last GC41 PBEM game as soviet, I had total air superiority against Germans in the 42 spring. And I did nothing, only to place the aircrafts in airbases. And my aircrafts are at 90/99 moral.

Now,in the German side, I see that will be the same: soon the soviets will be stronger than Germans.

Something is wrong. (aircrafts in november of 41 year, no victories, no were to reserve)

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Attack -- 10/10/2011 2:49:18 PM >

(in reply to Denniss)

Post #: 20

RE: Aircraft data errors - 10/10/2011 3:02:25 PM

Helpless

Posts: 11083
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline

Air group morale doesn't play the same role as unit morale, it has very little to do with air combat efficiency comparing to experience. There was serious air combat roll bug which was fixed very recently.

Also, please don't hijack the thread. Thanks.

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW Development

(in reply to Attack)

Post #: 21

RE: Aircraft data errors - 10/12/2011 3:56:22 PM

jaw

Posts: 862
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

I'm not responsible for the aircraft data but I can assure you that your comments will be reviewed in due course.

(in reply to Denniss)

Post #: 22

RE: Aircraft data errors - 10/12/2011 4:18:27 PM

jaw

Posts: 862
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Denniss

Tanks may need a review as well, I already spotted some errors at Marder II/III, SiG33/Grille and StuGs
StuG-H42 has a correct name: StuH 42
StuGIII F showed a G (superstructure more sloped)
One of the early Marder II does not show a Panzer II Ausf. D/E based vehicle but another early Marder III, see http://www.achtungpanzer.com/marder-marten-series.htm
There's some confusion with siG33 equipped vehicles on 38(t) chassis, both versions with more central gun mount (Ausf. H) and the later one with rear-mounted gun (Ausf. M) were commonly called Grille (may have been an official name for some time). These vehicles were often mislabeled as Bison.
I remember to have seen some image quirks with the Panzer III, expecially the Ausf. N images for GER and ROM (can't remember exactly, no access currently)
PaK 43 and PaK 43/1 had some different stats although the latter had just a different mount to adapt them for use in different vehicles
2cm Flakvierling 38 is based on four 2cm FlaK 38 barrels yet rate of fire is more the 4 times that of FlaK 38, range or alt were also different

This stuff I am responsible for so here's my reply:

The naming of German equipment is often just a question of style. Most of the technical names are too long to fit into the available field so the name commonly associated with the AFV is used instead. If a previous title described a StuH 42 as an StuG-H42 it would get carried forward that way on the assumption that was the name people were familiar with. I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other so you might see it changed.

I didn't select the photos to go with units so I can't comment on why any particular photo was used but I regard them in general as just there to give you an idea of what the unit looked like and not an absolutely accurate representation.

The differences between the Pak 43s is both doctrinal and technical. The 88 on the Nashorn was given better stats than 88 on the Elephant to reflect the fact that the Nashorn was employed as a long range tank destroyer while the Elephant (which was intended to also be a long range tank destroyer) was employed (at least at Kursk) in a more assault gun role. Technically the Nashorn also should have enjoyed some range advantage due to its ability to elevate its gun higher than the Elephant (20 degrees versus 14 degrees). You could argue that none of that should matter and their stats should be the same. Considering how minor a factor the Elephant is, I don't think either approach as any game effect.

Both version of the 20mm flak gun are actually firing at less than their ROF. The quad gets an ROF boost on the assumption that it is better supplier with ammo.

(in reply to Denniss)

Post #: 23

RE: Aircraft data errors - 10/13/2011 1:20:27 PM

Omat

Posts: 537
Joined: 8/18/2004
Status: offline

Hello

I am not sure if this is an error or not.
I am also not sure if I am highjacking this thread but I think it is so unimportant that it does not deserve an extra thread. If my post is not condign for this thread I am sorry.

scenario: All which starts 1941

Air groups:

1117 2/41 IAP
1232 2/20 IAP
1266 2/69 IAP

All set to group size to "Air Regiment". The other units which named "2/xx IAP" are only "Air Battalion".

Hope it helps....

Omat

_____________________________

"All changes, even the most longed for, have their melancholy; for what we leave behind us is part of ourselves; we must die to one life before we can enter another."
Anatole France

(in reply to Denniss)

Post #: 24

RE: Aircraft data errors - 10/25/2011 10:32:38 PM

Denniss

Posts: 1422
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline

I claimed somewhere above the Panzer III Ausf. N image (Panzer III with short 7.5cm gun) is not of an Ausf. N, now I have a confirmation. I found other images of the same tank not taken as head-on shot of the gun:
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=9574 and http://www.armchairgeneral.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=9553
They clearly show a Panzer III with a long 5cm gun.

< Message edited by Denniss -- 10/28/2011 7:02:32 PM >

(in reply to Omat)

Post #: 25

RE: Aircraft data errors - 10/28/2011 7:03:08 PM

Denniss

Posts: 1422
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline

The last production Hs 123 aircraft rolled out of the Berlin factories in 1937 but in-game I saw one factory producing it in Kassel ?
Henschel aircraft division had it's production facilities in Berlin-Sch�nefeld and Berlin-Johannistal

Axis production has Czechoslovakia and Poland with a production factor of 80-85% and manpower of 8%. Dependiing on the included areas this may be from slightly incorrect to grossly incorrect:
1) CZE was overturned/annexed in a rather peacefull way via diplomatic pressure, military threat and the GER-supported secession of Slovakia. People in Slovakia should be considered friendly to the Axis and both production and manpower gain should be higher. 1a) Czech area is a bit different as people did not like the germans very much. The current factors seem to be OK here except if it counts-in the Sudetenland area with a majority of german people (area was integrated into the German Reich).

2) Poland on the opposite was conquered by war and both production and manpower gain should be lower - 70% production and 4% manpower should be a good value to start with. Exception again are areas with a major german population that were integrated into the German Reich after conquering Poland.

3) Soviet Union captured/conquered/annexed lots of areas (Bessarabia from Romania, Baltic states, Karelian area from Finland, Eastern Poland) but in the production screen there's no reduction for factories or manpower gain ?
I was also not able to find any information how these provinced behave if they were freed/taken back by their rightful owner - do they behave like national territory (or fall under the Poland regulation in case of former Estern Poland, maybe Baltic states as well) or are they always handled as captured territory?

UPDATE:
Finnish BT-7 tank image shows T-26
Please rename the german SP rocket art vehicle "Maultier" to Panzerwerfer 42 - Maultier was the nickname for the basic tracked vehicle but not for this special purpose vehicle.

< Message edited by Denniss -- 10/29/2011 1:38:47 AM >

(in reply to Denniss)

Post #: 26

RE: Aircraft data errors - 11/8/2011 3:36:16 AM

Denniss

Posts: 1422
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline

Some aircraft gun stats are a bit off
It seems all guns of the same caliber have the same range but there were actually short- medium and long range guns with the same caliber.
Compared to all others the MG FF is a shorter range weapon, the MG 151/20 a medium range and the Hispano cannon a long range version. Comparing MG FF and MG 151/20 the gun stats may need soem correction -If we assume the MG FF is actually the MG FF/M the the first had a RoF of about 750 while the latter had 520-540. Both guns used the same projectiles but in different cartridges.
-> RoF too high on MG FF

Similar with 3cm guns, the MK 108 was a very short ranged weapon with rather high RoF (accuracy was not that good either), the MK 103 had a long barrel, was very accurate but low RoF.
-> accuracy of the MK 103 too low, RoF too high; accuracy of the MK 108 too high

The german 37mm Flak 43 has exactly the same states as the older Flak 36, I'm not the expert in these weapons but what I've read the 43 was a major improvement over the 36 in RoF.

I may have written it already above but single 2cm Flak 38 and the quadruple version have the same barrel - they should not have different ceiling.

The (german?) AA MG has no ceiling ?

The german 128mm Flak has a range of 32000 and an accuracy of only 10 ?

7.5cm KwK37/StuK37 and KwK40/StuK40 L/43 are the same guns in different mountings yet the StuK has two points less RoF, surprisingly neither StuK 40 nor PaK39 L/48 have reductions.

German version needs a translation for equipment type 8 (flame).
Translation error:
The Wermacht did not use the name Bataillon - they used Abteilung for the Bn-sized units
Associated translation problem: 653. Schweres Panzerj�ger-Bataillon should be 653. schwere Panzerj�ger-Abteilung
VI R.A.D. Labor-Gruppe - seems to be some kind of Reichsarbeitsdienst formation with strange translation. The best naming I could find is RAD-Gruppe, Also R.A.D. Labor-Abteilung.

Typo:
42. J�ger�Division (and similar entries) - should be 42. J�ger-Division
1. Gebirgsdivision (and similar entries)should be 1. Gebirgs-Division
708. Statische-Division (and similar entries) - should be 708. statische Division

Incomplete translation: 2nd/3rd SS Motorisierte Brigade - should be 2. and 3. just like the 4. and 6. below

I see some duplicate SS Panzer divs, 1st (translation missing), 9. and 10, but couldn't spot the 3rd (Totenkopf) and 5th (Viking).

In the old BTR/TOH there were several problems with drop tanks, a tank of the same size had the same effect on single and multiple-engined aircraft. Using a single 300l drop tank on a Bf 109 (single engine) should yield a very similar increase in extra time as two 300l tanks on a Bf 110 (two engines). The improper litre/imp gallon/US gallon conversion had I already mentioned - a german 300l drop tank is actually 79 US gallons but was converted into 66 (imp) gallons with flightime set according to these 66 gals. There were also some problems translating effect into flight time, AFAIR it was 2x effect = additional flight time.

(in reply to Denniss)

Post #: 27

RE: Aircraft data errors - 11/8/2011 11:11:01 AM

Helpless

Posts: 11083
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Axis production has Czechoslovakia and Poland with a production factor of 80-85% and manpower of 8%. Dependiing on the included areas this may be from slightly incorrect to grossly incorrect:
1) CZE was overturned/annexed in a rather peacefull way via diplomatic pressure, military threat and the..
...

Shortly for 1,2,3. It is basically already as you describe.

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW Development

(in reply to Denniss)

Post #: 28

RE: Aircraft data errors - 11/12/2011 5:40:16 AM

Keke

Posts: 3509
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Omat

Hello

I am not sure if this is an error or not.
...

It's not an error. "Group size" is used to limit the actual number of planes in an unit, nothing else.

_____________________________

Jyri

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to Omat)

Post #: 29

RE: Aircraft data errors - 11/12/2011 7:08:35 PM

Keke

Posts: 3509
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

Omat, I had misunderstood your post. Shouldn't be replying early in the morning, sorry...

Since the group size for those three units is higher than a battalion, it looks like a bug/typo indeed, although it is always possible that those exact units received more planes than a "standard" battalion. I'll forward your observation to Trey and Pavel. Thanks!

_____________________________

Jyri

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to Keke)

Post #: 30