View Full Version : sdkfz 10/4
January 16th, 2008, 06:21 AM
German OOB Unit 060 "SdKfz 10/4 FlaK" has size 3. Unit 436 "SdKfz 10", Unit 480 "SdKfz 10/5 PaK", Unit 481 "SdKfz 10/5 PaK5" have size 4 they are all the 'same' vehicle. They have the smaller dimensions (notably height) than the protze.
ie protze from
has Weight 2450 kg
Length 5.10 m
Width 1.93 m
Height 1.96 m
sdkfz 10 from
has Weight 4,900 kg
Length 4.74 m
Width 1.83 m
Height 1.62 m
As the protze has a size of 2 then so German units 060, 480, 481 and 436 should be size 2 also, not 3 or 4.
25000 sdkfz 10 were produced and it had a carrying capacity of 8 men.
Best Regards Chuck.
March 10th, 2008, 10:04 AM
Heights can always be tricky depending on which source you use.
One of my favourite source books is "Standard Catalog of German Military Vehicles" By David Doyle
ISBN 0-87349-783-x prited 2005 by KP books.
Krupp type L2H143 (Protze)
Problem is with these figures it is hard to determine whether they include the canopy cover for both vechles being up or down! It would seem sensilbe that the standard Sd.kfz 10 was in fact much lower than the versions mounting flak guns and antitank guns, both of which would raise the vehciles height significantly and its chances of being seen by the enemy!
March 10th, 2008, 02:27 PM
For those of you who lay awake at night agonizing over details like this ( and I know you're out there...)German OOB Unit 060, ,155, 436 , 480 and 481 will be all size 3 when the next patch is released.
March 12th, 2008, 08:26 AM
then from the british OB, with the dimensions of
Weight 7 t
Length 4.6 m
Width 2.2 m
Height 2.4 m
The British Humber Armoured cars (units 048, 164, 385, 386, 388) should maybe be size 3 rather than the current 2?
also from Wiki for the british damlier (049, 143, 735) armoured cars,
Weight 7.6 t
Length 4 m
Width 2.46 m
Height 2.26 m
Seems they also might enjoy a size of 3 rather than the current 2?
Also unit 129, 288 "Morris 15cwt" looks like the "bedford MWD" with dimensions of
Length 4.38 m
Width 1.99 m
Height 2.29 m
Maybe this also should change from size 2 to 3?
Also unit 604 "Morris CS9" at
Length 4.77 m
Width 2.05 m
Height 2.13 m
should maybe be size 3
Also the "LRDG Chevy"s (241, 252, 242) with
Length 6.579 m
Width 2.49 m
Height 3.0 m
Maybe should be size 4 rather than 2? also
"Humber Utility" (285) size
Length 4.29 m
Width 1.88 m
Height 1.96 m
Maybe this also should change to size 3?
There is also "Tetrarch" (066 and 734)
Length 4.04 m
Width 2.31 m
Height 2.12 m
might go to 3.
There seems to be any number of light trucks in the OOBs the same size or bigger than protze that have a size of 2.
Happy to look at other OBs and size classes if you think it would be helpful.
I imagine the sdkfz 10s took their canopy covers down in battle zones.
Best Regards Chuck
March 12th, 2008, 12:42 PM
You have NO idea how tempting it is to say "yes" just to give you something to keep you busy for a week or two.
Given that there are over 12,000 units in winspww2 and give that each basic unit has up to 60 bit's of information that make it up giving us a total up to 720,000 chances for you to find something you don't think is correct I have no doubt you could find fault with hundreds if not thousands of individual details in these OOBs. I also have no doubt were we insane enough to do that in the end the noticeable effect on game play would be nil for all but a very "select" few.
So no, I'm not all that interested unless something is grossly out of line.
March 13th, 2008, 08:16 PM
Geez Chuck where do you find the time? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif And DRG thanks for the MOD. /threads/images/Graemlins/Balloons.gif
March 15th, 2008, 06:58 PM
Any such comprehensive and un-biased review would only serve to confirm that in the game all German units are 1-2 points too large and all Allied units are 1-2 points too small.
March 15th, 2008, 10:09 PM
Really ??? "All" ???
Tell you what, put up or shut up. Show me how "all" German units are 1-2 points too large and "all" allied units are 1-2 points too small. Oh, I am certain that if you dig hard enough you can find something that may be off in any OOB but "ALL" ?
Sherman's are size 5 and the most numerous of it's opponents the PzIV is size 4 but the Panther is 5 but the Panther is wider so which is the bigger target from the front or from the side ?. The Sherman is rated the same "size" in the game as the Tiger 1. Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that we have rated the Tiger 1-2 points too small ?? Should the Tiger be less than five ?? Remember YOU were the one who said "all German units are 1-2 points too large and all Allied units are 1-2 points too small"
Gimme a break. I am seriously fed up with nonsense like this. If this is your idea of serious comment please leave this forum.
And just who's going to do the "unbiased" review based on WHAT criteria exactly ?
March 16th, 2008, 05:10 AM
I think Pat was being a wee bit ironic there http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
March 16th, 2008, 07:25 AM
It appears to me that size seems to be the main determinant of how hard it is to hit any particular vehicle. When it comes to hitting a vehicle "in the real world" by far the most important dimension for the vehicle is its height. This is because when your gun is pointed at the target the chance of the shell deviating from its course -sideways- because of (the only factors I can think of) wind/spin is close to nill. With respect to height however, shooting over or under the target(short) becomes very easy as the range increases and the round begins to follow a curved path. ie in the horizontal plane the round travells in a straight line in the vertical plane it describes an arc. So it is much easier to miss a target in the verticle plane. Put another way the direction to the target is 'error free' but the range isnt.
So the higher the vehicle the bigger mistake you can make in estimating its -range- and still hit it. Whereas the -direction- to fire the round has so little error than if it wasnt for the curved flight problem you'd hit it every time.
So height is a much more important dimension than width or length when calculating hit probabilities.
For the purposes of size you could use height as the main size determinant and then anything that is tall but very small or short but very wide/long may move a size category up or down. This would be a reaonable approach in game terms as the vast majority of vehicles have very similar dimensions/shapes and because there are so 'few' sizes to choose from. Not a lot of vehicles sizes would change as I would guess that the origional sizes are in fact related to heights, which is why the Sherman and Tiger are the same "size". Ignoring coupola they are nearly the same height.
When comparing heights for this purpose it should be considered that the bottom metre or so is usually "hidden" at most battle ranges, Which is why MBTs have thinner bottom angled armour at the bottom front and thinner armour low down ie behind the wheels.
I am of course very happy to do this review to an agreed criteria. I could also put in the aberdeen rough speeds as well while Im at it.
Its interesting to note that in v6 of the game Humbers and Damliers are in fact size 3.
Hope this is of interest
Best Regards Chuck.
March 16th, 2008, 05:08 PM
Sorry about the friendly fire. I owe you a beer or keg.
March 16th, 2008, 05:31 PM
OK. It had been a long day and given some of the remarks made by others on this forum recently and in the past about various things I didn't catch the "Irony" in what you were saying if that was you're intent.
March 16th, 2008, 06:30 PM
Hey Guys I would never belittle the excellent job you've performed on my favourite game.
I've always maintained if I don't like something I change it, anybody can and it's not hard.
Thanks yet again
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.