German OOB 16: minor corrections

[Mario_Fr]

In the german OOB weapon 130 and 131 are named Steilgranate 41 and 42; it should be Stielgranate 41 and 42.

Weapons 207 - 209 are named BKannon or BordKannon.
I don`t mind if the names are given in english or german but Kannon is just weird. It should be Bordkanone or abbreviated BK.

All those Marder SPG`s that now have the StuK 40 should have the Pak 40 instead (the StuK was only mounted in the StuG III and IV).
And actually the Pak 40 should have slightly better penetration data than the KwK 40 / StuK 40, because of a larger cartridge case.

data from: (http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/all_penetration_adv.php)
confer also WW2 Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery by Lorrin Rexford Bird and Robert Livingston page 61

KwK 40 / StuK 40 - 740m/s (vs. RHA plate @ 30°)

(PzGr. 39 APCBC)
100m - 99mm
500m - 91mm
1000m - 81mm
1500m - 72mm
2000m - 63mm

(PzGr. 40 APCR)
100m - 126
500m - 108
1000m - 87


Pak 40 - 790m/s

(PzGr. 39 APCBC);
100m - 106mm
500m - 96mm
1000m - 85mm
1500m - 74mm
2000m - 64mm

(PzGr. 40 APCR)
100m - 143
500m - 127
1000m - 97
1500m - 77



Unit number 376 (Tiger tank) has a front turret armour of 16. ALl the other Tigers have 12. I`m not a Tiger specialist but I didn`t knew that they increased the armour during production, but maybe I`m wrong.

Mario

[AMX]

And actually the Pak 40 should have slightly better penetration data than the KwK 40 / StuK 40, because of a larger cartridge case.
Careful there - the KwK/StuK case was shorter, but fatter; the basic idea was to get the exact same performance in a package that fit in the turret of the Pz IV.
That didn't quite work out, supposedly due to extraction problems caused by overpressure.
But note that data for the PaK 40 is also inconsistent, with late war tests generally showing worse performance for no adequately explained reason.
Unit number 376 (Tiger tank) has a front turret armour of 16. ALl the other Tigers have 12. I`m not a Tiger specialist but I didn`t knew that they increased the armour during production, but maybe I`m wrong.
Not sure about armor thickness as a whole, but I know late production used a monocular instead of a binocular gunsight (thus one less hole in the armor) and reinforced the armor around it.

[Mobhack]

This tank-net thread has some info on the L46 and 48 velocities in amongst the L/70 etc discussions: http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=37158&page=5 at about post 92 on.

If you can make some sense of that (the figures are all over the place, and the charge seems also to have been de-rated in the later war), and then put some argument re the game figures from official documentation and so on and so forth then we may have a change. Otherwise things will likely remain the same.

Andy

[DRG]

Unit number 376 (Tiger tank) has a front turret armour of 16. ALl the other Tigers have 12. I`m not a Tiger specialist but I didn`t knew that they increased the armour during production, but maybe I`m wrong.
Not sure about armor thickness as a whole, but I know late production used a monocular instead of a binocular gunsight (thus one less hole in the armor) and reinforced the armor around it.


That unit has had that armour rating for as far back as I have OOB's and a MOBHack that will read them that old ( Dec 2002 ) and this is the first time it's been questioned. I don't have a definitive answer other than given the number of German detail freaks who have had issues with the OOB over the years ( including info/debates/arguments regrading German armour hardening techniques) that this one, on the Tiger of all vehicles, would have be wrong all these years is very long odds but now *I'M* curious so I'll see what I can find ( or what info others can dig up ) between now and next years upgrade.

That said the first three issues on this thread (Stielgranate / BKanone / Marder gun )have been corrected



Don

[Mario_Fr]

This tank-net thread has some info on the L46 and 48 velocities in amongst the L/70 etc discussions: http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=37158&page=5 at about post 92 on.

If you can make some sense of that (the figures are all over the place, and the charge seems also to have been de-rated in the later war), and then put some argument re the game figures from official documentation and so on and so forth then we may have a change. Otherwise things will likely remain the same.

Andy

Well, I`ve read the tank-net thread and you`re right, it`s quite confusing.
Before giving another figures and quoting sources (which is actually like opening a fight of numbers) I have to admit that my knowledge is based on one primary source (Wolfgang Fleischer, Gepanzerte Feuerkraft. Die deutschen Kampfwagen-, Panzerjäger- und Sturmkanonen, 2004), but tarrif.net and Rexford Bird / Livingston are confirming it.

In Fleischer`s book is a description of the two cartridge cases (100 x 716mm for the Pak 40 and 111,5 x 495,1mm for KwK 40 L43 and L48) and the weight of the propellant (2795g for Pak 40 and 2520g for KwK 40). Also there`s a picture showing the two cartidges side by side.

Looking at all the different numbers it seems that there are two different opinions.

First: KwK L43 and KwK L48 actually have the same pen-data using the same shell but Pak 40 has slightly better penetration (as stated by Fleischer, tarrif.net and Rexford Bird / Livingston (they even distinguish between the three of them but KwK L43 and L48 have only 2mm difference: KwK 40 L43-133mm; L48-135mm; Pak 40-146mm for 100m)

Second: no difference between KwK L48 and Pak 40 but KwK L43 has slightly less penetration (as it is in the game right now).

To be honest, I only knew the first opinion before, that Pak 40 has slightly better penetration. Official documentation is out of reach, but maybe someone can come up with it.

Mario

[Mario_Fr]

That said the first three issues on this thread (Stielgranate / BKanone / Marder gun )have been corrected



Don

Sorry Don, maybe you have already corrected it, unit 956 and 957 (RSO with Pak 40) also have to be changed to Pak 40.

Mario

[Cross]

Looking at all the different numbers it seems that there are two different opinions.

First: KwK L43 and KwK L48 actually have the same pen-data using the same shell but Pak 40 has slightly better penetration (as stated by Fleischer, tarrif.net and Rexford Bird / Livingston (they even distinguish between the three of them but KwK L43 and L48 have only 2mm difference: KwK 40 L43-133mm; L48-135mm; Pak 40-146mm for 100m)

Second: no difference between KwK L48 and Pak 40 but KwK L43 has slightly less penetration (as it is in the game right now).

To be honest, I only knew the first opinion before, that Pak 40 has slightly better penetration. Official documentation is out of reach, but maybe someone can come up with it.

Mario


The info I have shows this:

APCBC at 1,000 yds 30deg

StuK 40.......72mm (US Army Tech Manual 1945)
KwK 40 L43....72mm (Bovington Tank Museum)
KwK 40 L48....79mm (Bovington Tank Museum)
PaK 40.......102mm (US Army Tech Manual 1945)

NB. The US Army tech manual says there was no change in ballistic characteristics of the KwK 40 L43 and L48.

My 'Bovington' doc. (a friend gave it to me and said it came from Bovington) No idea what book or publication.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/28868437/Forum%20Images/Bovington.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/28868437/Forum%20Images/US.war.dept.tech.manual.mar.1945.png

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/28868437/Forum%20Images/US.war.dept.tech.manual.mar.1945.StuK40.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/28868437/Forum%20Images/US.war.dept.tech.manual.mar.1945.L43vsL48.jpg


Cross

[Mario_Fr]

But the sheet VII-58 also gives a penetration of 72mm for 1000 yards for the L48 (right column, topic remarks).

in: ... 945.StuK40.jpg

Mario

[cbo]

:)

Everybody, his uncle and his sons dog have figures for these guns and you can quote from the now until the end of history without really solving the issue. The solution to the problem lies, unfortunately, in the primary sources, i.e. those produced in context with the firing test, calculations and estimations of performance. And as far as I know, no one have managed to find anything conclusive on the matter of the many different muzzle velocities registered for these guns.

I dont want to discourage discussion, that always turns up some interesting snippets of information, but the issue of muzzle velocity is complex (conditions of test, propellant used, age and condition of ammunition used etc.) and the issue of penetration on top of that much more so.

But as long as the differences between figures amounts to less than 10%, it hardly matters in game terms.

[DRG]

Unit number 376 (Tiger tank) has a front turret armour of 16. All the other Tigers have 12. I`m not a Tiger specialist but I didn`t knew that they increased the armour during production, but maybe I`m wrong.

Mario

I'm glad you brought this up. I checked back and the OOB's have been this way for over a decade and you are correct, there were no turret armour upgrades for the Tiger I front turret aside for details that are trivial in game terms.

After a couple hours digging up info and emails exchanged on two continents factoring in the variations of mantle thickness with the actual turret front armour where it and the mantle overlap then averaging those values to arrive at one number we could use what was arrived at was the 1944 Tiger in the game has the correct armour value and the pre 1944 version only took into account average mantle thickness.

The bottom line is Unit #376 has the correct armour and unit #31 and #849 have now been corrected to match #376.

Congratulations......they had been like that for over 11 years and you were the first one to notice and comment.

Don

[Mario_Fr]

Here are some other things that I`ve noticed, mostly regarding inconsistency of the size of units.

Unit number 62, 482 and 483 (SdKfz 7/1 FlaK and 7/2) all have a size of 3 and should have size 4 as the prime mover SdKfz 7 (number 79).

The SdKfz 6/2 (unit 324) has size 5. Actually SdKfz 6 was slightly smaller than SdKfz 7 and should maybe also have a size of 4.

Unit number 387 (JPz I) has size 3, unit 43 has size 2.

Unit number 155 (Kfz 70 Protze) has size 3, 453 has 2 (regarding to the picture it`s the same truck (Krupp Protze), the different Kfz-numbers are only due to the different purpose as personnel carrier or towing guns).

PzKw IB (unit 461) has size 2, all the other Panzer I`s have size 3.

Unit number 507 (JPz IV/70V) has size 2 which maybe is right because of it`s low profile (height 1.85m) but then unit 503 and 504 (JPz IV/48) also should have size 2 (the had the same chassis).
The Alkett version JPz IV/70A (unit 510) has an height of 2.35m and so correclty has a size of 3.
So the question is if unit 507 should be corrected or 503 and 504 should be changed to size 2.

Unit number 938 (PzKw 355 739f) and 455 (Munitionswagen) have no pictures.


Mario

[DRG]

On the list.

The two missing pics are now in the files for the next patch but here they are as well. If anyone finds any others missing please let me know

Don

[Pibwl]

Unit number 62, 482 and 483 (SdKfz 7/1 FlaK and 7/2) all have a size of 3 and should have size 4 as the prime mover SdKfz 7 (number 79).

The SdKfz 6/2 (unit 324) has size 5. Actually SdKfz 6 was slightly smaller than SdKfz 7 and should maybe also have a size of 4.


SdKfz 6/2 and 7/2 also should have the same fire control, RF, ROF and survivability (the same gun and arrangement) - but I don't know, which are better. Possibly simpler ones, although in Hasegawa's 7/2 model there was, IIRC, a soldier with a rangefinder ;)


Unit number 155 (Kfz 70 Protze) has size 3, 453 has 2 (regarding to the picture it`s the same truck (Krupp Protze), the different Kfz-numbers are only due to the different purpose as personnel carrier or towing guns).


I'm not sure, if class "utility vehicle" is proper - Kfz 69 was a light tractor for 37mm guns, while it isn't used this way (and, apart from Renault UE, all other utility vehicles are staff ones). The problem is, that AT guns are towed by "medium truck" or prime movers.

Now the only "light truck" is Krupp Protze, and the only mixed formation is 112: the Protze with artillery observer, which possibly would rather ride on something size of utility vehicle.

By the way, 997 Horch Kfz.70 should rather be "utility vehicle" (eventually light truck) - now it's medium truck. Besides, it should be available until the end (now 8/43)


PzKw IB (unit 461) has size 2, all the other Panzer I`s have size 3.

Unit number 507 (JPz IV/70V) has size 2 which maybe is right because of it`s low profile (height 1.85m) but then unit 503 and 504 (JPz IV/48) also should have size 2 (the had the same chassis).


As for PzKpfw I, they were smaller, than average light tanks - comparable to T-70 (size 2). JgPz I could also have 2 - low chassis, not too big superstructure.

JgPz IV was much bigger, so 3 is real-like minimum, considering, that Pz IV has 4, and more compact Hetzer has 3.


The Alkett version JPz IV/70A (unit 510) has an height of 2.35m and so correclty has a size of 3.

I'd give this one 4 - easily a size of a tank.

Regards
Michal

[Pibwl]

First of all, congratulations to SPWW2 staff on a great work (I didn't realize, that OOB corrections were only a small part of it) :) And thanks for considering most suggestions.

Time to add another possible corrections in German OOB - mostly minor issues:

11, 850, 941 PzKw III J - it has picture 6 of early 3.7cm gun variant

62 SdKfz 7/1 FlaK - armour should not be all around - only crew's cab and gun shield,

69 SdKfz 223 (Fu) - they were produced until 2/44 and used presumably until the end (now 12/41)

70 SdKfz 231 (6) - first completed by 1933 (now from 9/37). MG was #02 7.92mm MG13

154 Raupenschlepper - a better (and official) name is just RSO, or Steyr RSO (Raupenschlepper means just "tracked tractor")

155 Kfz 70 Protze - it still has a picture of Kfz69 tractor, while Kfz 70 had a truck body. Could be 13106, although it's poor.

168 SdKfz 251/17 - might be actually SdKfz 11 Flak38, as picture indicates (there was no specific name - Jentz calls it 2cm Flak 38 auf Sfl. Zgkw.3t (Sdkfz 11)). Seems much more popular, than more expensive SdKfz-251/17 with all armoured body - at least 604 built. It was typical SP-flak, successor to SdKfz-10/5, erroneously regarded as variant of SdKfz-251/17 in older books, but it was built upon tractor chassis. It had armoured cab and gun shield only. Produced since 3/44 (now 9/42)

200 Sfl.Sturer Emil - according to a detailed chapter in Jentz's booklet, maximum speed was only 25 km/h (now 13) and ammo was 15 (now 18). It also had no AAMG as a standard (and it's not seen on photos), only SMGs. They were assigned to a combat unit (PzjgAbt 521) not earlier, than in 5/42 (now 2/42)

BTW: why not create "Dicker Max" as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10.5_cm_K_%28gp.Sfl.%29 ?

233-235 Ju 88P-1 and others - Ju 88P variants could have a new picture, with sticking out guns.

274 FJg LMG Grp - it has MG-34, while the picture seems MG-42

286 Panzerturm PzV - IMHO a better pic is 28508

303 PzKw 7TP(p) - it's a detail, but it rather had no SD

307 PzKw IVb -> PzKw IV B

337, 341, 349 Hs-123 - a detail, but a name with "-" is inconsistent with other planes

346 MG08/18 HMG Grp - AFAIK MG08/18 was air-cooled LMG (http://world.guns.ru/machine/de/mg-0-e.html ), while HMG on a heavy sled mount (a tetrapod? ;)) was just MG08. It concerns also several other units and weapon's name.

390 SdKfz 222 (1941-42) - vehicles produced from 1939 had 14.5mm thick front, so it can represent one.

391 SdKfz 222 (1944-46) - vehicles produced from 1942 had 30mm thick hull front and, according to some sources, 14.5mm thick turret

404 PzKw III B/D s - "s" seems redundant. First were delivered by 11/37 (now 1/39). Speed is quoted as 35 km/h (now 14)

423, 424 Adler Kfz 13, Kfz 14 (Fu) - produced from spring 1933 (now 1/30) (1933 according to newest Jentz; some sources say 1932). Kfz 14 should receive a new icon, unified with Kfz 13.

A gap in early armoured cars could be filled with SdKfz 3, used in 1930-36 http://www.panzerarmee.com/?page_id=1086 http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gepanzerter-mannschaftstransportwagen-mtw-sdkfz3.htm
It had no fixed armament, but I believe, that a LMG could be shot, at least from an open upper hatch.

425 PzSPw.201(i) - BMG would be useful only when driving backwards...

482 SdKfz 7/1 FlaK - produced since 4/40 (now 1/42) (Jentz - although there is no clear information, if they took part in French campaign however)

483 SdKfz 7/2 FlaK - it had armoured crew's cab and gun shield only. According to Jentz, armour was introduced in 1943 (now 1/42) (earlier we have unarmoured Sdkfz 6/2)

484 SdKfz 8 FlaK 18 - it had armoured crew's cab and gun shield.

[Pibwl]

Rest:

172 Kl PzBef Wg - I don't know, if it matters, but according to Jentz, Kl PzBef Wg were used as FO vehicles in artillery units only from 5/40 (now 1/35) - earlier they were command tanks (which probably were able to call artillery if they were in range...)

425 PzSPw.201(i), 541 PzSPw. L202(h) - a detail -> "PzSpw"

571 PzKw I A - picture should be eg. 30315 - now it's IB

572 PzKw I C - version pre 1943 - possibly it should have grey icon?

586 P204(f) 2.5cm - apart from police duties, P204s were also used as regular armoured cars in some SS divisions and 7th Pzdiv in 1941-42 (now it's class "CS inf.tank" - maybe it should be "colonial armoured car" rather, btw?). It would be worth to give it a grey icon.

587 P204(f) 5cm - the gun was apparently fixed forward, instead of turret

588 Flammwgn B2(f) - used in combat from 6/41 (now 11/41) (Jentz)

589, 721, 870 Geschutzwagn B2 - it had leFH-18, not leFH-16. Maybe one entry is redundant, for a vehicle produced in 16 units (possibly as "CS infantry tank" - little is known about usage, but they rather weren't fit to be used as anti-partisan vehicles, and served in France or Italy).

As for Geschutzwagn B2 and FCM - why until 12/42 they are "SP infantry gun" (like short-range sIG-33), and only after this date "SP artillery"?

595 Schnellboote - singular form is Schnellboot. But it was a torpedo boat, with weak armament - only from 1944 37mm gun was fitted, and I can't imagine wasting Schnelboot to engage ground targets . Probably more sense will be renaming it a Raumboot - universal coastal minesweeper http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/minehunter/rboat/index.html, http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php?topic=15619.0

610 Trager Bren 731 - I think it rather should have light MG34, than water-cooled MG08.

612 PzJ Bren(e) Rkt - maybe it also should have some bow MG? On some photos they have no MG, but there is at least one photo with MG-42
http://militarymodels.co.nz/tag/panzerschreck-raketen-bren-carrier-e/

719, 720 Geschutzwgn FCM - according to Jentz, produced in autumn 1942 (1/42), no longer reported as present in their unit after 1/44 (12/44).

733, 792 MG248(p) HMG - I don't know what is MG248(p). If it is Soviet Maxim (judging from a photo and caliber), then its designation and starting date of 792 is wrong. Poland ceased to use 7.62mm Maxim in 1920s, so they couldn't be captured in Poland (part were modified to use 7.9mm ammo, as wz.10/28, but before 1939 all were sold out abroad - possibly to Spain).

802, 803, 804 Schlepper UE - they were armoured from the top as well

833 SdKfz 231 (6) - MG was #02 7.92mm MG13

834 PzKw II A / B - designation of these pre-series vehicles with frame suspension was PzKw II a/b (exception of usage of small letters) - A/B was a production model, with final suspension.

844 SdKfz 222 - vehicles produced from 1942 had 30mm thick front

845 SdKfz 231 (8) - vehicles produced from 1942 had 30mm thick front


858 PzKw I C - picture seems "mini-Tiger" PzKw I F (there could be 30318)

859 Schlepper C7(p) - it wasn't armoured - made of ordinary steel (it seems not a numerous vehicle in German service, used mostly in rear - at least radio code should be changed)

871, 872 Sturmpanzer IV - as a standard, it had no AAMG.

932 PzKw 35R 731f - if we don't create another 35R (IMO there's no need to), maybe it should be OrPo class "CS Inf. tank" instead of "Infantry tank", and be available earlier. Now they belong to 1943-44 Ost units, while they were already used in 1942, eg. in 18th Police battalion.

937 PzKw 39H 735(f) - should have picture 27680 (long gun)

950 Aufklarer 38t - with class "support tankette" it belongs to Orp PzJg units, while it isn't any Panzerjager.

956, 957 RSO/PaK 40 - date 11/43 is too optimistic - first issued to units for evaluation not earlier, than in 1/44 (Jentz quotes earliest reports from 3/44). In fact, driver's cab wasn't armoured (3 mm ordinary steel) - only gun mask was armoured.
At least 28 rounds were stowed (now 25) - however Jentz in summary data wrote even 42 (it's slightly contradictory with a photo caption, which states 28 under a floor).

968 sIG38/2 (t) - apparently only one experimental vehicle was produced, so maybe radio class should be changed?

976 sIG38/1 (t) - as I wrote, this variant with a combat compartment at the rear was produced only from 12/43 (now 5/43). Jentz recognizes older and new model as "Gw 38 fur sIG33/1" and "Gw 38M fur sIG33/2", or Grille and "Grille ausf K" respectively. In short could be "Gw38M sIG33/2" or sIG33/2 or Grille K or whatever.


General note on AAMGs:
SdKfz-222, 234/1 and Aufklarer 38t might have secondary AAMG, like unit #162 SdKfz 250/9, instead of CMG (the same turret).
I believe, that SdKfz 221 and 223 should have AAMG instead of TMG - it was high angle weapon (+70deg), in convenient open turret mounting. Possibly the same for Kfz 13 (+65deg).
On the other hand, real capabilities of Stug external MGs against aircraft probably were not high (not big angle, and mounting in a fixed shield in early models).

That's all on Germany, unless I spot something else.

[AMX]

733, 792 MG248(p) HMG - I don't know what is MG248(p). If it is Soviet Maxim (judging from a photo and caliber), then its designation and starting date of 792 is wrong. Poland ceased to use 7.62mm Maxim in 1920s, so they couldn't be captured in Poland (part were modified to use 7.9mm ammo, as wz.10/28, but before 1939 all were sold out abroad - possibly to Spain).

AFAIK, 248(p) were Polish MG 08.

Also:

842 Steyr ADGZ - should have a BMG.

[Pibwl]

Minor correction:

#152 17cm Batterie was first deployed to units in 8/41 (now 3/41), according to a Polish monograph article (combat debut was not earlier, than 10/41).

[sku]

017 PzKw 35(t)
018 PzKw 38 B(t)
019 PzKw 38 E(t)
280 PzKw 38 (t)
281 PzKw 35 (t)
969 PzKw 38 E(t)
They all have carry capacity of 13. I think 6 is better, as they all weren't that large to carry 13 people
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-265-0037-10%2C_Russland%2C_Panzer_38t.jpg

[BigDuke66]

Mh was that maybe done because there are just very few small units that would than fit on the tanks?
Normally the infantry would simply have been spread of more tanks but in the game a complete unit has to fit on it or it won't be transported.

[zastava128]

Mh was that maybe done because there are just very few small units that would than fit on the tanks?
Normally the infantry would simply have been spread of more tanks but in the game a complete unit has to fit on it or it won't be transported.

This is almost certainly the case. There was a similar question asked a while ago about a jeep being able to transport 6 men (+ 2 crew!). The reason given was that it would otherwise not be able to carry the battalion HQ, and the game code doesn't let you spread the HQ over two jeeps.

So yes, it's probably not an error.

[Mobhack]

Mh was that maybe done because there are just very few small units that would than fit on the tanks?
Normally the infantry would simply have been spread of more tanks but in the game a complete unit has to fit on it or it won't be transported.

This is almost certainly the case. There was a similar question asked a while ago about a jeep being able to transport 6 men (+ 2 crew!). The reason given was that it would otherwise not be able to carry the battalion HQ, and the game code doesn't let you spread the HQ over two jeeps.

So yes, it's probably not an error.

It is a generic standard. The standard section size of 13 is used as medium or heavy tank carry capacity for precisely that reason. Light tanks are different (e.g. Sherman : 13, Honey : 6). In MBT - tanks fitted with ERA have carry 0.

But there are of course exceptions - see the Italian and Japanese OOBs for example or the T-26 and BTs in USSR. Therefore not a hard and fast rule, more the OOB designers choice.

There is a case therefore for those models being down-rated to CC:6, as in the originating Czechoslovakian OOB.

Andy

[Pibwl]

As a side note to Polish OOB, I think, that unit 859 Schlepper C7(p) is redundant - there are known some photos with German markings, but its use was rather insignificant, and probably limited to auxiliary duties in occupied countries. I haven't heard about any artillery units re-equipped with C7P, and the Germans had a lot of standard halftracks. More popular were captured Soviet tractors, like Stalinez-65 (German designation), apparently used also by some artillery units (although I don't suggest to add one). If it's not removed, it should have radio 3. If we'd like to keep artillery tractor in this place, a German sWS could be added.

BTW: why 648 SdKfz 11 has radio 3? It was a standard tractor for light artillery, although less popular, than SdKfz 7.

[DRG]

LOTS of things in some of these OOB's could be classed as "redundant" ( maybe even "nitpicky" like the difference in the game between a C7 and a Stalinez ) but it wasn't " redundant" to whoever suggested it 7+ years ago and I see no particular reason to remove it but I will change it's carry designation to 110 from 210 and give it a better photo but I will also look into the sWS but that pretty much is" redundant" based on what we already have as well

648 was a typing error

[Pibwl]

I suspect, that someone connected with the Polish stuff decided, that it's worth to make more people acquainted with C7P, catching an advantage, that 1 or 2 photos are known with the German markings and there appeared nice plastic model with a German name http://www.rctrax.pl/product/mirage-72892-woz-techniczny-c7p-klara-1-75/?id=8871 :)

I'm not suggesting, that it should be removed or replaced with Stalinets (which was used in much greater numbers, and there are known photos of it hauling German guns) - I just wanted to indicate a possible free slot in a crowded OOB.

Michal

[blazejos]

When was mentioned about free space in German OOB just tough that will be nice to have there

Sd.Kfz. 6/3 (7,62cm FK(r) auf 5t Zgkw)
often called Diana but looks like that is false marking

was used only in desert campaign and only 9 units was build first arrive to units in January 1942 and last was lost in November 1942
Vehicle has light armour 5mm around but nothing on roof. Gun was FK36(r) in standard version without any special AT capabilities with 100 piece of ammo.

Organisation of unit with some photos
http://www.oocities.org/firefly1002000/605.html

[Pibwl]

When was mentioned about free space in German OOB just tough that will be nice to have there

Sd.Kfz. 6/3 (7,62cm FK(r) auf 5t Zgkw)
often called Diana but looks like that is false marking


Oh yes, I've found it missing as well. Jentz calls it SdKfz.6/3 and claims, that Diana was to be a name of an improved SP-gun. Some data: http://www.achtungpanzer.com/762cm-fk-296r-auf-5t-zugkraftwagen-sdkfz6.htm

[BigDuke66]

Well 9 vehicles, I guess somewhere a cut has to be made what comes in and what not.
But OK if we vehicle that doesn't seem to have been in action can be removed, a vehicle that did see action could be added.

[Mobhack]

With the severe lack of free unit slots in the German OOB, that 9 vehicle batch is rather unlikely to appear.

[DRG]

The SdKfz.6/3 will go in, the Stalinez is now in ( with a revised Icon ) and the C7 stays in. If we finally run out of space that's the way it goes. There is little point in hording unitslots as there is little left to add to that OOB that doesn't fall into the same category as the SdKfz.6/3 and once the OOB's full the question isn't " should this be added" but what should be removed to make room for the next unit someone thinks needs to be included.

Don

[BigDuke66]

I see 14 free slots in the OOB16, could they all be used or are some reserved for a special purpose?

[DRG]

They have been reserved for units that deserve to use up the final slots . I have resisted using them in case something really interesting was "discovered" but everything left seems to be like the Stalinez and the SdKfz.6/3

[Pibwl]

The SdKfz.6/3 will go in...

Good decision. These 9 vehicles with their long 76mm guns were an equivalent of a Nashorn company in conditions of the Western Desert :)

If something wasn't used in action, it was rather 968 sIG38/2 (t).

As for Stalinets - I only gave it as an example of something more widely used, than C7P, but of course it's your decision. The Germans called it Stalinez 65 (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinez_65)

[zastava128]

Well there was a whole bunch of Italian tanks seized by the Germans after Italian surrender (currently there are only two such vehicles in the OOB). Some were used in Italy, others in the Balkans, and I've heard a few were even used in Poland. Most were deployed for anti-partisan duty.

However, while including these tanks may be correct from a "realism" standpoint (after all, the Germans employed over 700 of them, plus 200 or so armoured cars), the fact is that they can be represented by taking "allies" from spob04, leaving more room for "real" German vehicles.

A book on the subject was written by Daniele Guglielmi: Italian Armour in German Service 1943–1945 (2005, bilingual Italian/English)

Anyway, if you nonetheless want to add them, just say the word and I can provide the info on what types were used and in what numbers.

[DRG]

I should have figured saying what I said would generate suggestions about how to fill the unused slots :)....... but I will say I'm not actively looking for things to put in there. I'm just saying I'm a bit less inclined now to reject things than I was in the past few years as it became obvious we were reaching the limit

Don

[PvtJoker]

Well there was a whole bunch of Italian tanks seized by the Germans after Italian surrender (currently there are only two such vehicles in the OOB). Some were used in Italy, others in the Balkans, and I've heard a few were even used in Poland. Most were deployed for anti-partisan duty.

However, while including these tanks may be correct from a "realism" standpoint (after all, the Germans employed over 700 of them, plus 200 or so armoured cars), the fact is that they can be represented by taking "allies" from spob04, leaving more room for "real" German vehicles.



The irony in this suggestion, while certainly practical, is that the Germans seized pretty much all even remotely modern AFVs and nearly all new production vehicles from the Italians and the RSI army was left with scraps only. So, the RSI OOB4 actually has vehicles which were used only by the Germans like the M.43 75/46 and M.43 105/25 (which was used briefly by the Regio Esercito before the armistice, but the Germans confiscated all, including later new production vehicles).

[zastava128]

I should have figured saying what I said would generate suggestions about how to fill the unused slots :)....... but I will say I'm not actively looking for things to put in there. I'm just saying I'm a bit less inclined now to reject things than I was in the past few years as it became obvious we were reaching the limit

Don

Understood.

The irony in this suggestion, while certainly practical, is that the Germans seized pretty much all even remotely modern AFVs and nearly all new production vehicles from the Italians and the RSI army was left with scraps only. So, the RSI OOB4 actually has vehicles which were used only by the Germans like the M.43 75/46 and M.43 105/25 (which was used briefly by the Regio Esercito before the armistice, but the Germans confiscated all, including later new production vehicles).

Well I thought as much, though given game constraints it makes sense (and let's face it, most people play Normandy/West Front, East Front or North Africa - not many players are interested in Italy or the Balkans). A possible solution would be to put a "German tanks" or "Tanks in German service" formation in spob04 and re-name the relevant units.

And by the way, I think a couple of tanks are missing from spob04: M13/40 & M14/41. Do you know anything about this? I mean, I know the Germans used them, so it's weird the RSI's OOB has the more modern M15/42 (unit 6) while the Germans get the older models...

[DRG]

What German OOB with M13/40's & M14/41's are you looking at ? It's not ours. There are only two Italian vehicles in the German OOB and it's not those two


Don

[PvtJoker]

And by the way, I think a couple of tanks are missing from spob04: M13/40 & M14/41. Do you know anything about this? I mean, I know the Germans used them, so it's weird the RSI's OOB has the more modern M15/42 (unit 6) while the Germans get the older models...

Like Don said, I don't think they are in the German OOB, but if you meant that they used them historically, that is certainly true at least to some extent. There weren't many of those older models left in Italy in 1943, since most of them were shipped to North Africa. The last batches of M14/41 produced were in fact also the last Italian tanks delivered to Tunisia. The ones that remained were used as training vehicles for the re-building Italian armored divisions (Ariete II in particular). It appears that most of them were actually M13/40 models. They ended up in German hands after the armistice, but I have no information about their use by the Germans, since I don't have the book you mentioned.

I do know that the M15/42 was the most modern vehicle the Germans allowed the RSI to keep, while the Germans took the assault gun versions (Semovente M42 75/18 and M42 75/34) to their own use, as well as all the M43 chassis assault guns. Of course the Germans used the M15/42 as well for anti-partisan duties in the Balkans. The RSI used theirs similarly against Italian partisans. They did not see much, if indeed any, combat against the Allies.

(By the way, the Semovente M40 75/18 in the RSI OOB4 should definitely not be there; only 60 were made in 1941 and all except possibly the prototype were lost in North Africa. Also, the RSI did not operate any German made AFVs. The ones that were delivered to the Regio Esercito before the armistice went straight back to German units after the armistice.)

[zastava128]

Sorry Don, now that I've re-read the post I see I wasn't being clear enough. I indeed meant the Germans used the M13/40s and M14/41s historically.

----

And PvtJoker - the mentioned tanks were actually used by the Germans for anti-partisan warfare (actual combat, not just training) at least until the end of 1944 (e.g. Panzer-Abteilung z.b.V.12 was recorded using both types in Yugoslavia in late 1944, while M14/41s were used against the Warsaw Uprising).


P.S. just to be absolutely clear, I'm not suggesting these should be added to the German OOB, but - maybe - to spob04 (if there's proof the RSI used them).

[DRG]

............ the other thing that limits a units inclusion into the final slots of the German OOB is it's weapons. There are four weapon slots left so unless it's really special I would favour something that has weapons already covered in the German OOB unless it is significant and I think were are past finding anything new and significant

As for the M13/40 no matter what I did someone could rightfully say it's wrong. According to the last few posts the M13/40 was used up to the armistice as training tanks then the Germans seized them and used them in the Balkans so they really should not be in the RSI OOB for any reason so yes, I could put them in the RSI OOB as a place to hold them but I sincerely doubt they are really needed unless someone's building a historical scenario and there are ways to dig them out of the Italian OOB if need be

[Pibwl]

Nicer photo for 080 Opel is 20016 (Hungarian one)

[sabresandy]

Orbat 16 weapon 10, the sPzB41/61, is modeled with a high HEK value consistent with autocannon. This is the squeezebore 28mm light cannon. The problem is, all sources I can find indicate that it was single-shot, not automatic, and thus its HE value should be very low, consistent with other small-caliber single-shot cannon. Are there any sources that indicate it was automatic?

[DRG]

now 1

[PvtJoker]

Orbat 16 weapon 10, the sPzB41/61, is modeled with a high HEK value consistent with autocannon.

The AP/Sabot penetration of this weapon is also quite generous at 10. Hogg gives 94mm at 100 meters, which is the best number I could find for this gun, but since the penetration does not drop from 10 at 100 meters in the game with the current range (25 hexes), it is still excessive. A. Ivanov gives 75mm at 0 degrees @ 100 meters. Chamberlain, Doyle & Jentz have even lower numbers; 60mm at 30 degrees at 100 meters. 0 meters penetration extrapolated from their numbers would be only 61mm at 30 degrees, which would suggest only about 80mm at 0 meters & degress (i.e. the same as Ivanov).

Even if we go by Hogg's numbers (Gander & Chamberlain have the same with more data points), 10 is too much because of the way the game handles the close range penetration. The closest to Gander & Chamberlain ("Small Arms, Artillery and Special Weapons of the Third Reich") numbers would be achieved by Penetration 9 and range 30. It would also take into account the lower figures given by other sources mentioned above, in other words at some ranges penetration is 1 lower than Gander & Chamberlain give, but also meet at several points.

[DRG]

It looks like Wiki is using Ivanov's numbers. 8 seems more likely but this info has me questioning the sabot range given in the game. It would appear in game terms the weapon range should be 20 not 25 and the sabot range 10

[PvtJoker]

It looks like Wiki is using Ivanov's numbers. 8 seems more likely but this info has me questioning the sabot range given in the game. It would appear in game terms the weapon range should be 20 not 25 and the sabot range 10

It's a squeeze bore weapon with only APCNR available as anti-tank ammunition. I don't know what kind of sights the gun had, but extrapolated from Gander & Chamberlain data it should be able to penetrate about 10mm still at 1500 meters (49mm even at 800 meters, which is their last data point; I extrapolated linearly from 600, 700 and 800 meter numbers). APCNR projos had quite good external ballistics due to high sectional density and relatively low drag (unlike APCR/HVAP) and were similar to post-WW2 APDS projectiles in that regard.

These are the Gander & Chamberlain numbers; first column is range in meters, second is penetration at 0 degrees and third column at 30 degrees:

100 94 69
200 86 65
300 79 60
400 72 56
500 66 52
600 60 48
700 54 44
800 49 41

I don't know where Wiki gets their "effective range". It might be the historically preferred engagement range, which however is not at all the same thing as effective range. In general the whole concept is rather poorly defined; for example AT rifles typically had an "effective range" of about 500-600 meters against their primary targets (= tanks), but they were useful against light armor (armored cars and APCs) and unarmored vehicles at much longer ranges.

For example the Boys ATR had sights to 500 meters only (300m in later versions), but the gunners compensated by aiming at the top of the target instead of center if they had to shoot at longer ranges. The flat trajectory (i.e. low drop) of the bullet made that quite effective when shooting vehicle-sized targets (target height 1.5 meters or more). Many other ATRs even had sights to 1000-1500 meters just for plinking light armor and unarmored targets, even though fire against tanks was usually opened no further than at 300 meters and often much closer.

[DRG]

I do love the way things like this take on a life of their own and spin off in unpredictable ways.

Looking at the production dates and what we have in the game I have to question these three units....

166 - SdKfz 250/11 - uClass 032 : slot 1 - Available 01/043 to 12/046
218 - SdKfz 251/10a - uClass 125 : slot 1 - Available 01/043 to 12/046
832 - SdKfz 221/2 - uClass 240 : slot 1 - Available 07/043 to 12/046

they must have been very very rare past the beginning of 1944 which means one or two of those units might be deleted but that should give some of you something to investigate for me :) and the first thing would be when the SdKfz 250/11 with the 2.8 was in service.

Also, I will be revising some ammo numbers based on Culver and Feist's info. The number of rounds for the 37mm and 28mm versions is far too low in the game and the revision will make them far more potent


OK,----- reading the text of the book says that mounting the PzB41 was a "common" modification early in the war on a stock SdKfz 250/1 simply by replacing the Mg34 mount at the front of the fighting compartment and it goes on to say that the PzB41 was phased out of service because of the Tungsten shortage but "Isolated examples lasted long enough to be mounted in the 251/1 Ausf D which appeared in the fall of 1943."



Don

[Pibwl]

On the other hand, in spite of small caliber, it used HE shells (relatively long - http://odkrywca.pl/forum_pics/picsforum6/p064.jpg), so maybe it should be more than HEK 1.

According to Russian Natzvaladze (although probably basing upon some other source), ROF was 12-15 RPM, so it was quite big for a single-shot weapon. Also he gives penetration "at the attack angle of 60deg.": 60mm at 100 m, 19mm at 1000 m.

[PvtJoker]

On the other hand, in spite of small caliber, it used HE shells (relatively long - http://odkrywca.pl/forum_pics/picsforum6/p064.jpg), so maybe it should be more than HEK 1.

According to Russian Natzvaladze (although probably basing upon some other source), ROF was 12-15 RPM, so it was quite big for a single-shot weapon. Also he gives penetration "at the attack angle of 60deg.": 60mm at 100 m, 19mm at 1000 m.

Those penetrations numbers are the same as given by Chamberlain, Doyle & Jentz in "Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War
Two". They also give 40mm at 500 meters (same angle). I did make a stupid error in my earlier extrapolation; correctly extrapolated penetration at muzzle would be 65mm at 30 degrees from those numbers.

In any case, good approximation of the data in game would be either AP Penetration 9 with range 30 if we go by Hogg, Gander & Chamberlain or Penetration 8 with same range if we go by Chamberlain, Doyle & Jentz. Range less than 30 gives too low numbers at 800-1000 meters. If Sabot is used, penetration 8 is clearly better since the Sabot calculations have more randomness at close ranges (by APCALC), but the range should IMHO still be 30.

As for the HE kill; for single shot weapons HE kill is standardized to 1 from 20mm to 39mm. The actual shell had only 5g of PETN explosive, so unless the fragmentation was really optimal, it would not have been very effective, anyways.

[Pibwl]

286 Panzerturm PzV - it is commonly known as Pantherturm - maybe it's a better name?

[BigDuke66]

A check I made showed that the unit 648 still has radio 83, wasn't it meant to be changed?
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showpost.php?p=822773&postcount=23

[DRG]

That radio code would only cause the AI to skip over this unit IF the AI bought a formation that used unit 648's unitclass but the AI does not buy any of those formations when it picks an opposing force so the radio code in this case is totally irrelevant

Don

[Pibwl]

Hello,

Sorry to bother you so quickly, but I've found a quite important bug, concerning the most popular German tank in 1939. Now, unit 002 can't be bought in 1939 at all and we have only pre-series Pz II a/b/c with weaker armour and rare Pz II D available then.

002 PzKw II C - it should be available from 1937, as in a previous release (in fact, II C entered production in 6/38, but it could represent all "standard model" II A/B/C, produced from 7/37).
BTW, hull armour was 14.5mm all around in fact.

005 PzKw II J - it has radio=82 in the game, while there were only 22 made - very rare specialized recce tank.

215 PzKw II D - very rare variant (43 made), radio=3 would be more appropriate (Jentz/Doyle write, that there it is unclear, if they saw action at all). Hull sides and rear were 14.5mm in fact (front was 30 mm).

388 PzKw II C - now it's available since 1/41, and differs from 002 with KwK38 gun only. It should rather represent the most common model during French campaign, with 20mm applique armour in hull's and turret's front. Basic armour was 14.5mm all around. Also, Jentz/Doyle mention only KwK30 guns as an armament of Pz II C, so it might be rearmed this way (like unit 002), uparmoured and made available from 5/40.

834 PzKw II a/b/c - entered service in spring of 1936 according to Jentz/Doyle (produced from 5/36) (now: 7/37). It might have been confused with standard A/B/C, but a picture and weak armour indicate pre-series a/b/c (in fact, c had a new suspension, but tactically it was the same).
It was rare variant, and radio=1 would be more appropriate (now radio=2) - there were 75 a, 25 b and a small number of c, comparing to over 1000 A/B/C.

BTW: weapons 88 PzB 39 ATR and 137 PzB M.SS.41 have amazing accuracy of 34, much better then other AT rifles - is it justified? The later one also has warhead=2, while it should be 1 (7.62mm)

Michal

[DRG]

Have I not made it clear enough that we have no intention of issuing any patch or correction any time soon Michal ? So yes, all you've done is "bother me so quickly" for no purpose and I have no intention of reply to any of this because I have MORE THAN ENOUGH REAL LIFE ISSUES TO DEAL WITH ATM........ to sit down and start going though another one of your lists so end it now

I cannot even begin to tell you politely how both Andy and I feel about the incessant OOB nit picking that went on before the last patch so DO NOT even think about starting up again.

Don

[PvtJoker]

Michal, I suggest you put the corrections you suggested in a custom OOB and publish it in the mods section for us rivet counters to enjoy. I agree that the lack of major production models of the Pz II in 1939 is a somewhat significant problem for historical accuracy, but now it is not the time to make corrections or suggestions to the official OOBs.

I believe Don said earlier that we should consider the official OOBs closed until he explicitly states that suggestions can be submitted again, which may take a while, or even longer ( :D ).

Thanks Andy & Don again for this great game and Don, I sincerely hope your real life issues will all be solved for the best. :you:

[Pibwl]

Forgive me, Don, I only wanted to point out an omission of Pz II C in 1939 (which must be an accident, since it was OK in ver.6), and I got carried away a bit... :)

Of course, it's up to you, if you want to do anything with it (I know it's complicated) or live with it as for now. I also think you do a great work. :clap:


Michal, I suggest you put the corrections you suggested in a custom OOB and publish it in the mods section for us rivet counters to enjoy. ...

Thanks for an encouragement, but I'm afraid, that few people would be interested in installing non-standard oobs, especially, that it'll have only some "cosmetic" changes, without new equipment... (though a Dicker Max could be added?...) Also, I have more work with pictures as for now (and little free time). I guess I'll wait for your Italian OOB first ;) - or we might even kind of cooperate?...

Michal

[Mario_Fr]

I`ve seen some small errors on some german planes, so I will collect them here.

I know that the new patch v.8 is just around the corner, so this is not meant to be considered in this patch, but rather the next one.

I`ll begin with the Fw 190.

The Fw 190 had a standard armament of 2x 7.92mm MG 17 in the cowling, two MG 151/20 in the inner wing section and two 2x MG FF 20mm in the outer wing section. Ammo was some 800 rounds for the MG`s, 250 for the MG 151 and 60 to 90 for the MG FF.

Beginning with the A-6 the outer MG FF were replaced with MG 151/20 with 125 rounds, beginning with the A-7 the MG 17 was replaced with the 13mm MG 131 with 475 rounds.

All the F-Series had the outer MG FF removed, the G-Series only had the two MG 151/20 in the inner wing section and also the cowling MG removed. The F-1 and G-1 was based on the A-4, the F-2 on the A-5, the F-3 on the A-6 and only with the F-8 and G-8 the numbers are corresponding with the A-numbers (F-8 based on A-8, F-9 on A-9).
The A-seriens with the various U-numbers (for german Umbau) also had the outer MG FF removed, but of course all A-series as standard fighter versions could be equipped with a single 250 kg bomb in the centreline, beginning with the A-5 also with a single 500 kg bomb.

As for the bomb loadout:
All A`s could carry a single 250 kg bomb
Beginning with the A-6 also one 500 kg bomb

The F-1 and F-2 could carry one 250 kg bomb or one 500 kg bomb or 4 50 kg bombs in the centreline
Beginning with the F-3 it could also be fitted with two 50 kg bombs under each wing (so 1x 250/500 kg bomb and 4x 50 kg bomb or 8x 50 kg bombs)
The F-8 could mount up to 250 kg under the wings (3x 250 kg bombs or 2x 250kg bombs under the wings and one 500kg bomb in the centreline; also it was possible to mount a single 1000 kg bomb and even a 1800 kg bomb in the centreline (no bombs under the wings then).
The G-Series was a long range version which from the G-1 usually had two drop tanks under each wing; beginning with the G-3 it could be mounted with bombs under the wings instead (3x 250 or 2x 250 and 1x 500kg e.g.) The G-8 could mount the same loadout as the F-8. ALL G models only had 2 MG 151/20!!

So actually all Fw 190 in the game have some smaller issues, may it the cannon or MG armament or the bomb loadout.

introducing dates:
A-3 early 42
A-4 07/42
A-5 11/42 (F-1 and F-2 02/43)
A-6 05/43
A-8 12/43 (F-8 02/44)

The Bf 109:

The D model is correct, but the whole E-series (beginning with the E-3) had two 7.92 MG 17 in the cowling with 1000 rounds and two MG FF with 60 rounds in the wings.
The F-series should have two MG 17 with 500 rounds and one MG 151 with 200 rounds with a motor mount cannon. (originally the F-2 had a MG 151/15mm which is not modeled in the game but this was field moded to the MG 151/20 later; the F-4 always had the MG 151/20).
The G-2 had the same armament as the F-series, only with the G-5 the MG 17 were replaced with the 13mm MG 131 (400 rounds)

No Bf 109 could carry a 500 kg bomb, only 250 kg or 4x 50 kg bombs.
Beginning with the F-4 it was possible to mount gun pods under the wing (one MG 151/20 with 135 rounds under each wing), but only beginning with the G-6 these could be also 30mm MK 108 with 35 rounds each.
Some G-6 were equipped with the 30mm MK 108 with 65 rounds instead of the MG 151/20

There were relative few occasions were F or G models had to fly ground attack missions, but the E-7/B was a designated ground attack version which was used until the end of 42, before these unit (Schlachtgeschwader 1, before that elements of II./LG 1) converted to the Fw 190.

Cheers

@Don and Andy. Thank you for your great work.

[Mario_Fr]

Maybe my last post was not that usefull, lacking specific hints on how to change the units. So I make up for it now.

But first some remarks on specific weapons that are used in the OOB for the Fw 190 right now.
#237 Fw 190 F-8 (weapon 3 30mm MK 101). According to Heinz Nowarra, Focke Wulf Fw 190 - Ta 152 only two prototypes were build mounting the MK 108 (Fw 190 F-8/R2) and two mounting the MK 103 (F-8/R3).

#912 Fw 190A-3/U2 (weapon 3 and 4 RZ 65 rocket). As far as I know only test trials were made, but the project with the RZ 65 was abandoned. Also it was intended to be an air-air rocket.

#914 Fw 190R-6 (weapon 3 and 4 Werfrgranate 21 (misspelled!! It`s Werfergranate (Wfrgr or Werfergr), first mounted on the A-7/R6 (all R and U nimbers don`t have a hyphen), was mainly used to break up bomber formations. Because of it`s low muzzle velocity the trajectory was not flat and aiming was difficult. They were very very seldom used for ground attack.

#915 Fw 190F-8/R1 (weapon 3 and 4 RackPzgr 8.8cm). As far as I know these were only trials but never got to front line use.

Suggestion:
The Fw 190 was extensivly used in the ground attack role and could carry a wide spectrum of bomb loadouts. It would be better to represent this in the game instead of having 4 curiosities and test trial versions (in addition also the #916 and #917 mounting the Panzerblitz I and II are very rare variants that appeared only in few numbers in late 1944).

My suggestion is to have two fighter versions in the game (full gun and cannon armament) and all the rest dedicated ground attack versions. By this all the various bomb loadouts could be respresented. The ground attack version (F and G series) had additional armor and should have an better value than the A models. Listed by date of availability.

#237 Fw 190 A-4
2x 7.92mm MG 17 850 rounds
2x 20mm MG 151 250 rounds
2x 20mm MG FF 60 rounds
1x 250kg bomb
available 10/42 (The first Fw 190 appeared in October 42 with JG 51 on the Eastern Front, while only in 02/43 the first Fw 190 were sent to North Africa. So actually there is no need to have them earlier in the game because were have no scenario Cliffs of Dover were of course the Fw 190 appeared in small numbers already in 1941 - beginning with 10.03.42 they were also used as ground attack fighters)

#913 Fw 190F-1
2x 7.92mm MG 17 850 rounds
2x 20mm MG 151 250 rounds
4x 50kg bombs
4x 50kg bombs
available 02/43

#236 Fw 190F-2
2x 7.92mm MG 17 850 rounds
2x 20mm MG 151 250 rounds
1x 500kg bomb
available 02/43

#911 Fw 190F-3
2x 7.92mm MG 17 850 rounds
2x 20mm MG 151 250 rounds
1x 500kg bomb
4x 50kg bombs
available 06/43

#242 Fw 190F-3
2x 7.92mm MG 17 850 rounds
2x 20mm MG 151 250 rounds
2x SD2 HE Bomblets
available 06/43

#912 Fw 190G-3
2x 20mm MG 151 250 rounds
1x 250kg bomb
2x 250kg bomb
available 06/43

#121 Fw 190 A-8
2x 13mm MG 131 475 rounds
2x 20mm MG 151 250 rounds
2x 20mm MG 151 125 rounds
1x 500kg bomb
available 12/43

#914 Fw 190F-8
2x 13mm MG 131 475 rounds
2x 20mm MG 151 250 rounds
1x 500kg bomb
2x 250kg bombs
available 02/44

#915 Fw 190F-8
2x 13mm MG 131 475 rounds
2x 20mm MG 151 250 rounds
1x 1000kg bomb
available 02/44


The Bf 109:

The same here. #122 can be dropped (no 109 ever had a 30mm MK 101, only the MK 108 beginning with the G-6; the MK 101 weighted 139kg, the MK 103 141kg, both guns were much too large and way too heavy, so only the MK 108 which was 58kg, could be used)

Also #909 with the RZ 65 rocket was never used (see above)

Suggestions:

#905 Bf 109D or E-1
4x 7.92mm MG 17
no bombs (bomb racks were only fitted after the Battle of Britain in autumn of 1940)

#906 Bf 109E-3
2x 7.92mm MG 17 1000 rounds
2x 20mm MG FF 60 rounds
no bombs
available 09/39

#907 Bf 109E-7/B (dedicated ground attack version, used until the end of 42)
2x 7.92mm MG 17 1000 rounds
2x 20mm MG FF 60 rounds
1x 250kg bomb
available 10/40 - 12/42

#908
907 Bf 109E-7/B
2x 7.92mm MG 17 1000 rounds
2x 20mm MG FF 60 rounds
4x 50kg bomb
available 10/40 - 12/42

#909 Bf 109F-4
2x 7.92mm MG 17 500 rounds
1x 20mm MG 151 200 rounds
1x 250kg bomb
available 01/42

#122 Bf 109G-6
2x 13mm MG 131 400 rounds
1x 20mm MG 151 200 rounds
1x 500kg bomb
available 03/43

Cheers

[Mario_Fr]

Now the Hs 123:

The Hs 123 could carry one 250 kg bomb underneath the fuselage and two 50kg bomb under each wing = up to 450 kg of bombs.
As far as I know there was no 120kg bomb in the german arsenal like it is now in the OOB.

#349 has two 20mm MG 151 which has to be changed to MG FF, but anyway this was only a field mod and very seldom used. The standard armament was only two 7.92mm MG 17 with 500 rounds each in foward fuselage.


Hs 129:

B-1 and B-2 differed only in the fuel system, but only 70 B-1 were built, before production was switched to the B-2 in 05/42. Later in the war the usual 7.92mm MG 17 were exchanged for the 13mm MG 131 but this was only done sporadically.

All Hs 129 could carry one 50kg bomb under each wing (or SD 2 or SD 4 bomblets). Additionally different Rüstsätze could be added under the fuselage:

R1 4x 50kg bombs / 4x SD2 or SD4 bomblets /1x 250kg bomb
R2 30mm MK 101 / MK 103 (B-2)
R3 4x 7.92mm MG 17 with 1000 rounds each
Wa 1x 3.7cm BK 37 (as Ju 87 G-1)

Suggestions:

#128 Hs 129B-2/R2
2x 7.92mm MG 17 1000 rounds each
2x 20mm MG 151 250 rounds each
1x MK 101 30 rounds
2x 50kg bombs
available 05/42

#130 Hs 129B-2/R1
2x 7.92mm MG 17 1000 rounds each
2x 20mm MG 151 250 rounds each
4x SD2 bomblets
2x SD2 bomblets
available 06/42

#240 Hs 129B-2/R1
2x 7.92mm MG 17 1000 rounds each
2x 20mm MG 151 250 rounds each
4x SD4 bomblets
2x SD4 bomblets
available 06/42

#900 Hs 129B-2/R1
2x 7.92mm MG 17 1000 rounds each
2x 20mm MG 151 250 rounds each
1x 250kg bomb
2x 50kg bombs
available 06/42

or

#900 Hs 129B-2/Wa
2x 7.92mm MG 17 1000 rounds each
2x 20mm MG 151 250 rounds each
1x 3.7cm BK 37 12 rounds
available early 43

As a consequence weapon number 210 (7.5cm LW40) could be dropped and number 173 (Werfrgranate 8r) as well. Also I really don`t know what these weapons are. The LW 40 seem to be a variant of the 75mm BK and the Werfergranate 8r is a russian rocket?? (the BM-8 maybe or the 8cm granade of the GrW 34) ?

Cheers

[scorpio_rocks]

Wasn't the Rüstsatz 6 (R6) modification the Werfergranate?
Sometimes refered to as BR 21, a version of the 21cm Nebelwerfer rocket mounted on aircraft (notably FW-190) to attack USAF Bomber "boxes". http://www.luftarchiv.de/index.htm?/flugkorper/wgr21.htm (http://www.luftarchiv.de/index.htm?/flugkorper/wgr21.htm)(in german). Or am I way off base here?

[Mario_Fr]

Yes, the Werfergranate 21 was mounted on some planes (Fw 190, Bf 109, Bf 110 e.g.), in the OOB it`s weapon 175.

But I have no idea what Werfergranate 8r (weapon 173) is supposed to be. Also it`s only mounted on unit #130 Hs 129B-2.

In any case, the Werfergranate was not intended to be a air-ground rocket. As you state correctly, it should break up USAF bomber boxes.