Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)

[Pibwl]

Time for Poland, before next release.

The information on British vehicles in Polish service comes as a rule from a great book by J. Magnuski "Wozy bojowe Polskich Sił Zbrojnych 1940-1946" (Polish AFVs 1940-1946)

Class 12 Light tank:

08 Honey II - in Polish Army they were known under the tank's official name Stuart II (Honey was a British nickname). According to Magnuski, they were received not earlier, than 9/42 (now 7/42). This type was used for training only until autumn 1943 (now 5/44) - later they were replaced by Stuart V.
Picture 380 is M3A3 Stuart V, while it should be earlier model. Perfect for the British service is 27736, or a photo 12539.

It should have a stabiliser (like British one), but a gun should be M5 (like British standard Honey). The ammo load seems too AP-biased.

There should be added Stuart V, with M6 gun and slanted armour (possibly the same overall thickness) and photo 380. They were used from late 1943 until 1946.

09 Stuart VI - is OK

453 Vickers Mk VIc - only Mk VIb variant was used (#298 from a British oob) with .50 Vickers TMG and Vickers CMG. Photo 631 is probably OK.
It was used only for training in Egypt from 6/42 until 11/43 (now: 7/40-6/42)

470 FR AMR-35,
473 - FR AMR-35 ZT - they probably represent French tanks (available 11/039 to 06/040), but IMO there's no need for French tanks in Polish OOB, especially, that Polish units used own R-35 at that time.

Changes in Class 12 need changes in formations: 184, 185 which either need a gap in 7/40-5/42 period, or they should start in 6/42, if you remove AMR-35 completely.

Also, in 396 Infantry Tk Co (avail. 07/40-03/41) a light tank needs to be removed. Maybe it should be replaced with Dingo or something else, but I don't know what.

[Pibwl]

Class 105 Infantry tank

10, 11 Matilda II, CS - there is no trace of Matilda II in Polish service.

They could be replaced with Churchill II, used for training from around 8/41 until 5/42 (data like British Churchill I, but with Besa BMG instead of 3in CSH).
There's no evidence, if Polish units had also Churchill I.

16 Sherman I
17 Sherman V
19 Sherman IB - I can't understand a reason why these tanks are used in late-war Infantry Tank units, if they are doubled as ordinary Medium tanks in the OOB (and even tripled as CS tanks). There were no infantry tank units in Polish forces at that time and Sherman tanks were used in combat in the 1st Armoured Division and 2nd Armoured Brigade, not infantry tank units. IMO they could be removed. Otherwise, they should be corrected, accordingly with units 26, 27, 29 (described later).

446 Matilda I - used for training from 9/41 until 9/42 only (now: 7/40-12/40).
Max speed was 13 km/h (now 6) [Magnuski] - same for the British OOB units 27 and 112.

There could be also variant with .50 Vickers TMG, possibly replacing unit 11 Matilda II.

457 FT-18 - there was no official designation "FT-18", and such designation isn't met in Poland (new works suggest though, that even a popular "FT-17" isn't an official designation, and they were just "Renault FT"). Anyway, I suggest a name "FT-17 /37mm" or "Renault FT 37mm"

I don't know why are they supposed to be used until 10/41 - they were used by the Poles until a fall of France in 6/40 only, and for training (in fact, they ceased to be used in 10/39 and were given by the French again in 3/40).

Is radio 1 correct?

471 - FR Char-D2 - Available 11/039 to 06/040
472 - FR Char-B1 - Available 11/039 to 06/040 - again, they are French tanks, not used by the Poles (and I assume, that the Polish infantry did not even met these types in field).

Polish forces in France used in combat R-35, which was by definition an infantry tank, and is forgotten for that period in the OOB. They should be used in 5-6/40. Both variants with short and long 37mm guns were used (according to Magnuski, long guns had platoons' commanders).
Most probably there were 3-tank platoons - four platoons and a commander's tank created a company (like in a Polish 1939 R-35 battalion).

Also R-40 tanks were used in 6/40, all with long 37mm guns, in uniform companies.

R-35 tank can replace #477 H-35 tank - there were only few (2?) used for training only.

It's a matter of choice if R-35 should be 13 or 105 class. Maybe there should be created separate uniform units with R-40 and mixed units with R-35 short barrel and long barrel for a commander. FT-17 with MG / gun could fit into the same formations (gun for a commander - they were used for training only anyway).

---
As a result, all class 105 Inf tank formations need to be changed - they should end in 6/40 and start again in 8/41 (Churchill) until 9/42 (Matilda I).

[Mobhack]

The "French" equipment probably dates from before we introduced the ALLIES button, and were there to represent French troops attached in support of the Poles in that period. (There are or used to be other OOBs that have this sort of stuff, e.g. Free French, the UK used to have the oddities for Polish and French units in Norway at one point).

So they probably can be removed, bar any French-supplied equipment actually in use by themselves in that brief period.

That may well require some pick list changes - its been a long time since I looked at the Polish one.

Andy

[Pibwl]

Since there should be Polish R-35s in 5-6/40, there's no need of French tanks IMO.

I suggest to make it this way:
A standard platoon, for a pick list, should be made of one long gun tank (eg. class 105) and two short gun tanks (eg. class 106, like unit 456 FT-17). FT-17s should have radio code 1, R-35 should have 2.
Four such platoons should create a company (3-tank platoons and 13-tank companies have been confirmed).
Such formations should be available in 3-6/40.

I suggest also to create strengthened platoons, with three long-gun tanks and with two long-gun and one short-gun tank, in 6/40, representing a choice of tanks after less valuable ones had been left without a fuel (they could be marked eg. with ++/+).
It's also worth to create such company, with, say, four platoons with two long-gun tanks - I believe, it would represent better a mixed company taking part in a last skirmish of Montbard.

There should be also added R-40 tank (194 in a French oob), used in uniform platoons and companies. I believe it's best to give it own class, with separate formations. Picture could be 27549 or 27564.

By the way, R-40 could be given a modified icon, with slightly longer tracks to the rear, and a tail.

[DRG]

...........on the list

[Pibwl]

It might be noted, that in 11/39 - 2/40 and 7/40 - 10/40 there were no tanks in Polish units available, and in 11/40 - 3/44 Polish tanks were used for training only (in UK and Egypt/Palestine). They could have faced some invasion however...

Next:

(mainly class 13 Med tanks)

12 Valentine III - this variant was used only from 2/43 until at least 11/43 (now 11/41 - 12/42)
Photo shows some 3-men early variant (as in the British OOB)

13, 14 Valentine IX - similar Valentine VIII is known to be used by the Polish, from 2/43 until at least 11/43 (now 7-12/42 for #13, 1-12/43 for #14 with AAMG). There is no information on Polish Valentine IX.
There are no AAMGs on photos of Polish tanks evident (and it was not, that only after 1/43 all 6pdr Valentines were fitted with AAMG - so they might be two options of the same tank, or merged into one, either with, or without AAMG).

448 Valentine II - used from 11/40 until at least 5/42 (now 7/40-10/41). (Possibly earliest were Valentine I, but it's essentially the same).


By the way, as for Valentines in all OOBs: in Valentine III and V due to increased weight, side hull armour was reduced from 60 to 50 mm, and in VIII-XI - to 43 mm (now they all have 6). Turret rear (at least in 2pdr variants, but maybe in all) had 60 mm (according to some sources, even 65 mm) - now it has 5.


18 Sherman I [as CS tank] - generally 75mm Sherman I wasn't used by the Polish. It should be changed to Sherman III, which was a basic tank of the 2nd Arm.Bde on Italian theatre, used from 10/43 until end of 1946 (now 1/43-5/45).
Photo is M4A1 Sherman II - could be 27725 or 27726.

(I omit Infantry Tank Shermans mentioned before, to be removed IMO)

21 Comet - wasn't used by the Polish.

24, 146 Centurion Mk 1 - sci-fi unit in Polish case.

26 Sherman I (Med tank) - as unit 18, should be replaced with Sherman III, used in 10/43-12/46 (and fitted with AAMG).

27 Sherman V - used from 10/43 (OK) until 11/44 in combat units (now 12/46). (I'm not counting Polish training units in UK, which sure used them longer. In case of the 3rd war they could have been used)

28, 125, 130, 200 VC Firefly - I suggest name Sherman Firefly - there are only Fireflies VC in this OOB, and a difference between Firefly IC (which was also used by the Polish) is not worth mentioning.

Units 28 and 200 [class Gun tank] should be merged into one IMO. The only difference is, that #200 is available in 6-7/44 and has radio code 0, while #28 is available in 8/44-12/46 and has radio code 1, which is strange, since it should be more popular with time, and there's nothing, that could replace it in Sherman troops.
IMO there should be only unit 28 left, with a radio code 0, available from 6/44 until the end.

29 Sherman IB [CS tank] - used from 2/45 only (9/44).

33 Crocodile - wasn't used by the Polish.

The only flame tank used, that could be added, was Wasp IIC (#128 in British OOB), used probably from around 6/44 (no closer date). Photos of Polish vehicles show, that they also had external Bren mounted (same could be for the British OOB).

To finish with class 13 Med tanks:

438 Grant I - should be removed - there were only few recovered Grants used for training as non-standard vehicles. 3 were used as command tanks in the 2nd Arm.Bde. staff.

441 Crusader III - used from 9/42 until some 5/44 in the 1st Arm.Div. (now 4/42 - 4/43) (in training units used even longer)

442 Crusader II - used from 9/42 until some 5/44 (now 1/42 - 9/42) (used mostly as command tanks, so we can finish with them earlier as well). Late tanks had removed BMG turret.

443 Crusader I - not used by the Polish, especially from 5/41

444 A13 Mk II - not used by the Polish.
Should be replaced with A13 Mk III Covenanter (986 in British OOB), used from 5/42 until 11/43. Radio code should be 0 or 1 (now 2 - it was less numerous and worse, than Crusader).
An interesting fact is, that Polish Covenanter is regarded as the first tank knocked out on the British soil by the Germans (bombed on 1/6/42).

474 - FR Somua S-35 - to be removed

477 - H-35 - as I wrote, few were used for training - might be removed.

I'll deal with formations later.

[Pibwl]

Complex suggestions as for formations including Med tanks (post-1939). I hope to make them clear:


375 44 Tank Sqdn
376 44 Tank Troop - available: 06/44-12/45 (OK)

They seem to be on AI pick list in 06/44 - 12/45

Now a troop has 3 tanks and a Firefly, like a British troop. Magnuski writes about three-tank troops INCLUDING a Firefly. He might be wrong, though I can't find a reliable source on British tank troops in 1944 - some web pages say 3 tanks, some 4 tanks.

Such Firefly troops were used by the 1st Arm.Div. in Western Europe in 6/44-10/44, and by the 2nd Arm.Bde. in Italy in 2/45-12/45

By the way: it's worth to change Troop to Platoon, to better fit Polish naming (pluton).



012 46 Tank Company
013 46 Tank Platoon - Available: 01/46-12/46

They seem to be on AI pick list in 1/46 - 12/46

Now it has 4 tanks - a template unit should be changed from a fictitious Centurion.
I think, that four 3-tank platoons will be more appropriate (now it has three 4-tank platoons) - seems, that 3 were standard in Great Britain, possibly with exception of added Fireflies.

Its availability should extend back from 11/44 - it would represent the 1st Arm.Div rearmed to Sherman IIA
In 1/46-12/46 it would also represent the 2nd Arm.Div (former Bde) deprived of Fireflies post-war (switched to diesel-only)

A small problem is, that in 6/44-12/45 the formations used in Western Europe and Italy were different (in Italy Fireflies were received only in 2/45, while in ETO the 1st Arm.Div had switched to uniform Sherman IIA platoons in 11/44). I suggest to solve it this way:

- unit #203 Sherman IIA [Gun tank] should be changed to Med tank with a radio code 2, available until 12/46 (now 12/45). (its usage as a Gun tank is wrong).
- formation 012 46 Tank Company should be the AI pick from 11/44. It will ignore usage of Firefly companies in Italy, but a primary theatre of operation was ETO, where Polish Shermans IIA could be met - and they also fulfilled occupation service in Germany post-war
- formation 375 44 Tank Sqdn should be picked by the AI in 6/44-10/44 only
- if unit 027 Sherman V is available after 11/44, it should have radio code changed to 0

Besides, it's worth to change Company to Sqdn, to better fit Polish naming (szwadron), and to remove "46" naturally.



190 Medium Tank - Available: 11/39-12/46
391 Medium Tank Sec - Available: 11/39-12/46
- concerning Polish tanks only, it should be available from 11/40. And they rather should be used in platoons by 3, not sections by 2.

257 Pel AMC (DLM) - Available: 11/39-06/40
258 Esc AMC (DLM) - Available: 11/39-06/40
- formations of French tanks, to be removed.


377 Cruiser Tk Sqdn - Available: 09/42-05/44
378 Cruiser Tk Sqdn - Available: 07/40-08/42
379 Cruiser Tk Trp - Available: 07/40-05/44
- names are not appropriate, for they also use Valentines (even as a template unit). Before 4/44 Polish tanks were used for training, and the units in ME used Valentines all the time, while the units in the UK switched to cruisers in 6/42, so I suggest to rename it just Tank Squadron / Tank Platoon.

Formation 377 (with 2 CS tanks) should be extended to 1/45, to cover as far, as Sherman-armed 2nd Arm.Bde units before it got Fireflies.

Then, it should be on AI pick list in 1/44 - 5/44 (or maybe even earlier). It seems, that in this period, the AI buys 397 Inf Tk Sqdn, what makes us keep unit 16 Sherman I as an infantry tank. Maybe an OOB creator considered the 2nd Arm.Bde to be infantry tank unit, but I don't think it is the case, even if it was a part of the 2nd Corps and often fought together with infantry. IMO there's no need to introduce more units, than it's needed and duplicate Shermans as Med and Infantry tanks. Especially, that from 2/45 these Infantry tanks should be supplemented with Fireflies.
(BTW, unit 16 could be re-nationalized rather then deleted, since it may be used in some user scenarios.)


As for period from 11/39 until 12/43, it seems, that the AI buys an allied French or British infantry tank company. It seems quite reasonable, for there were no Polish tank units in field at that time, except for 5-6/40. In the last period, we could create an R-35 company, described earlier.

Michal

[Pibwl]

Further in units:

34 Priest - wasn't used by the Polish

37 Bishop - wasn't used by the Polish

Template unit in formation 82 SPA Troop should be 36 Sexton, and it should start at 1/44

43 Humber Mk IV - photo is MK.II/III (proper is 30121). Used by the Polish from 6/43 (now 1/44) - for training only

44 Daimler A/C - used in 8/42-10/43 (now 1/43-5/44) - for training only

45 Staghound (precisely, Staghound I) - used from around 9/43 (now 6/44), radio should be 92 (common).

61 2 pdr AA-Gun - never heard of such gun in Polish units. Should be replaced with ordinary 40 mm Bofors.

104 Hurricane II - precisely IIc (with 20 mm guns).

I assume, that the aircraft don't have to be from Polish RAF squadrons (which had no operational independence), but rather a general RAF air support? (eg. Polish squadrons had no Typhoons)

125 VC Firefly [Med tank, 1946] - to be removed - Fireflies weren't used as Med tanks in that period.

128 4.7in Naval Gun - in Polish it should be 120mm Naval Gun

129 6in Naval Gun - in Polish it should be 152mm Naval Gun (I assume it's allied general support)

130 VC Firefly [Tank destroyer] - I'm not sure, if it's a proper class...
We could alternatively create a platoon of three Class 59 Gun Tanks, available in 6/44-12/46, in case a player wanted to use such support.

131 Archer - received only around 12/44 (9/44), radio code should be 91

132 M10 17 pdr - radio should be 92 (now 91) - it was a basic equipment in ETO.

There should be also basic M10 3in added - since 11/43 until 6/45, radio 90.

[Pibwl]

Further minor tweaks for units mentioned before:

27 Sherman V - photo is M4A1 Sherman II - could be 27730.

29 Sherman IB [CS tank] - radio could be 92, so that it's primary choice after its introduction in 2/45 (or 018 Sherman I and 201 Sherman V could as well end on 1/45)


441 Crusader III - used from 9/42 until some 5/44 in the 1st Arm.Div. (now 4/42 - 4/43) (in training units used even longer)

442 Crusader II - used from 9/42 until some 5/44 (now 1/42 - 9/42) (used mostly as command tanks, so we can finish with them earlier as well). Late tanks had removed BMG turret.

For a sake of convenience, it's better to end them in 12/43, so that they are not picked by the AI in 1944 (provided, that we put a Med Tank formation on a pick list in 1/44-5/44). From 10/43 a main tank became Sherman.


375 44 Tank Sqdn
376 44 Tank Troop - available: 06/44-12/45 (OK)

Now a troop has 3 tanks and a Firefly, like a British troop. Magnuski writes about three-tank troops INCLUDING a Firefly. (...)

In a book by M. Żebrowski (a former Polish officer) published in London on a Polish armour, he gave a composition of an armoured regiment of four 3-tank platoons, although he doesn't specifically deal with Fireflies (possibly he didn't fought in the 1st Arm.Div).

[Pibwl]

Next:

058 17 Pdr AT-Gun - I believe, that the 2nd Corps had these guns from a beginning of Italian campaign (4/44) at least, but I have no info (now starts at 6/44)

163, 164 6pdr GMC T48 - weren't used by the Poles (on Western front at least - the LWP used SU-57)

165, 166 75mm SP Autocar [TD, SP-Art] - used only from 9/44 until the end (now: 1/42-12/43).
Picture should be 27738

Earliest unit in 088 SP-AT Section and 089 SP-AT Troop should be proposed M10 3in, since 11/43.

SP Flak:

177 40mm SPAA Truck - gun should be 40 mm Bofors, not Vickers.
Could be named "40mm C9/B SPAA" - it wasn't just any truck.
It's a detail, but received in 9/43 (6/43) (according to Lalak/Kamiński: "Artyleria samobiezna w Polskich Silach Zbrojnych 1940-1945" - SP Arty in Polish Armed Forces)

178 20mm Quad Truck - I don't know about such weapon used by the Polish. Had the Allies such Flakvierling at all?

184 Staghound AA - received by 3/44 (now 8/44)

Formation 290 AC Sqn AA Troop - Available: 08/44-12/46 might need correction as well

185 Crusader AA Mk1 - aren't known to be used by the Polish.

It could be replaced with Crusader AA III, with twin 20 mm guns - like unit 105 in the British oob, but with a coaxial 7.7mm Vickers K MG, without BMG, and used from 7/44. Withdrawn from most units in the 1st Arm.Div around 11/44 due to allied air superiority and need of crews (might be kept until the end here though)

Formation 160 SP-AA Troop should start later accordingly.

Also, about dozen Light Tank AA I were reportedly used for training in a course of 1943, but it's rather insignificant use. (Lalak/Kamiński: Artyleria samobiezna w Polskich Silach Zbrojnych 1940-1945)

Formation 159 SP-AA Section (Available: 01/43-12/46) might need change according to what is earliest and not deleted. Template unit should be most typical 40mm C9/B

There could also be added M16 SPAA vehicle - used in small quantity from around 3/45, probably until the end (radio 91).

Michal

[Pibwl]

186 Daimler Dingo [scout veh] - received in "early 1942" (1/43).
Specifications should be corrected like in the British OOB: crew 2(now 4), size 2(3), weight 10(0).
Radio should be 90 or 92 - it was most common.

Was its Bren, normally shooting through a slot in armour, really an AAMG? The vehicle doesn't seem to have any AA mounting, so it would have to be fired "from hand" (same for the British OOB).

187 Ironside Mk.III [scout veh] - should be named Humber LRC III. The armament was Bren AAMG (now: .30 AAMG) and it had smoke mortar. Crew was 3 (4). It has weight 0.
It would be good to give it a new icon (also to the British ones - now it is like Humber Scout car).

They were used by the Polish in a small quantity - according to Magnuski, only "towards the end of the war" (no precise info when), and rather they weren't used in combat.

As scout vehicles, also Otters were used by one unit in Italy (#125 from Canadian OOB) - in 11/43 until the end (radio=91).


cavalry tanks

202 Cromwell VII [cavalry tank] - according to Magnuski, Cromwells with 75mm guns were received probably around 6/44 (now 3/44), and they were first of all Cromwell IV model.

The Cromwells were used from 1/44 for training - but they were probably 6pdr Cromwells I or III, that could be added (until 5/44)

There were also used CS Cromwells VI with 95mm howitzers, that should be added (class eg. 104 CS cruiser tank). For sure they were received as replacements by 9/44 - it isn't clear, if there were none before that date.

Formations 147, 148 Recce Tank Trp /Sqdn should be modified according to a first date of availability.

In Recce Tank Sqdn there were only 4 troops (renamed to platoons) - their number was reduced due to low personnel.

There should also be two CS tanks in a squadron - there could be made additional entry of Cromwell IV unit as CS tank, before advent of Cromwells VI (it shouldn't be much problem, if in 1-5/44 there will be ordinary 6pdr Cromwells and support 75mm ones)

From 11/44 there should be used Challengers in Recce Tank Sqdn - they were used as a fourth platoon (in 1945 at least), so we'll need a new Squadron.

Unit 546 Challenger [gun tank] should be reclassified as 123 Cruiser Gun tank, so that it is not mixed with Fireflies.


misc

189 Cdo Support - better picture is 553, showing 2in mortar

193 Commando Sniper - it uses anachronistic 1939-era picture. Maybe it should be changed to standard British sniper 12113 (which in turn could be changed to SMLE with a scope - now it's probably newer rifle taken from SP2). Or maybe it could be 30570 (used for 175 Para Sniper)

210 Para Support,
725, 726 3in Mortar - picture 56 of a generic (Soviet) mortar should be replaced with 3in, eg. 601 or 21150

[Pibwl]

misc. less important changes

231 Honey Ammo Tank - should be renamed to Stuart (name Honey applied to early versions rather, and was unknown by the Polish)

236 152mm A Nadbrze
237 105mm A Nadbrze - I suggest more understandable English name rather, like: "...mm Coast Art", "Coast Gun". A name: "A Nadbrze" isn't a valid abbreviation in Polish, just cut words (A[rtyleria? Armata?] Nadbrze[żna]). Eventually "A.Nadbrz.", with points.

238 Lesny Bunkier (forest bunker) - if we keep a Polish name, more natural is "Lesny bunkier".
13077

239 Budynek - might be translated to Building

240 Bunkier - dates 11/39-12/46 don't fit to Polish armament - probably it should be 1/30-10/39. Pistol doesn't seem necessary.

251 Polish HQ - 1940 HQ could not use wz.29 carbines and Vis pistols. The carbine could be replaced with 112 Lebel and pistol with 114.

264, 265, 266 Sniper - it uses 1939-era picture - see unit 193 Commando Sniper above.

278, 279 Partisans - to me, partisans armed with rare Mannlicher and Berthier rifles are redundant if we have otherwise identical standard unit 340.

282 Rifle Squad - its weapon #60 wz.38M rifle was self-loading rifle and therefore should have kill=2 (now 1), BUT such unit was extremely rare and should have radio=3(now 2).


I've just found, that only Paras, Marines, Bicycle Squads and Mot Rifles use a weapon 86 defensive Granat wz.24 Ob, while all the other infantry uses offensive 87 Granat wz.24 Za. In fact, all the infantry used both defensive and offensive grenades, and with offensive grenades only they will be inferior to enemy (I've started a separate thread on grenades in general http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=49960).

Since defensive grenades are generally used by other countries, I think, that offensive Granat wz.24 Za is redundant and all cases of its usage should be changed to Granat wz.24 Ob (renamed to "Granat obronny").
And since 87 seems a standard slot for hand grenades, a new defensive grenade could be placed in this slot.

A standard was two defensive and two offensive grenades for a soldier, so in units which has two slots with grenades, the second entry of grenades could be changed to lighter #80 Granaty (that could be renamed to "granat zaczepny" ie. offensive). This concerns units 284, 285, 289, 290, 293, 306.


330 105mm Gun Bty - correct picture of wz.29 gun is 23598 (in Finnish service). They were used at least from 1934 (now 1/35)

332 100mm Gun Bty - should be used from 1/30 (1/35)

333 81mm Mortars - mortar crews should rather have #173 wz.98 Carabine, than rifle


360 Ursus 'A' [truck] - used from 1/30(1/35). Name could be written just Ursus A

362 Jeep - earliest serial Jeeps were manufactured from late 1941 - I don't know when the Poles got them, but I guess some 1/42 (now: 7/40). Some Austin Tilly (#286 in the British oob) could be copied to fill a gap from 7/40

Michal

[Pibwl]

Another part of shallow digging through plethora of infantry units... Their structures and weapons should be examined deeply, but maybe next year.

287 Rifle Squad - picture 30211 without LMG will be more appropriate

310, 311 Obrona Naradowa - should be Narodowa.

313 Patrol - has a picture of marksman. 15000 could be, as used for #312

318 Rifle Section - picture 30553 seems better, than some soldiers with Sherman (used as mech patrol)

322, 323 Engineer Sec - soldiers on the photo looks rather like Germans to me. Maybe 30553 will do.

324, 327 Engineer Squad - photo 30211 looks better for a French period

325, 326 Engineer Squad - photo 30220 looks better for engineers (not charging on bayonets)


Off-map Artillery

Now 1939 artillery is organized this way:
- Lt arty - 75 mm FG
- Med how - 100 mm FH, 105 mm FG (wz.13), 105 mm FG (wz.29)
- Hvy arty - 120 mm, 155 mm FH, 220 mm

A problem is, that in fact 100 mm FH were used in Light Arty Regiments (along with 75 mm guns), while 105 mm FG were in heavy arty units (along with 155mm FH)

If we want to be closer to original, 100 mm FH battery should be reclassified as Light Arty. There would be available a whole Lt Arty Bn with three 4-gun batteries of 75 mm or 100 mm, which is correct.

A bigger problem is, that heavy divisional arty, using 105 mm FG/155 mm FH, had a different structure (3-gun batteries), than C-in-c Heavy Arty, using same guns (4-gun batteries), plus 120 mm guns and 220 mm mortars. There's a page on 105mm guns, indicating this problem http://derela.republika.pl/105mm_wz13_wz29_schneider.htm

There didn't exist battalions with three 3-gun 105mm batteries, like formation 358 in a present oob.
Unfortunately, it seems impossible to create real mixed off-map divisional Heavy Arty Battalions with one battery of three 105mm guns (wz.13 or wz.29) and one battery of 155mm FH.

That's why I suggest to use 3-gun 105mm and 155mm batteries as single batteries only, and not to include them in any Battalion. Unit #331 155mm How Bty should be reclassified to 10 Off-map arty, like 105mm batteries. If a player would like to create original divisional Heavy Arty Bn, he'd have to take one 3-gun 105mm Bty and one 3-gun 155mm Bty separately.

There should be created new four-gun units, modified from #99 105mm Gun Bty, #330 105mm Gun Bty and #331 155mm How Bty. All these four-gun batteries should be classified as Heavy off-map arty. Of them, 155mm howitzers should be most common.

Unit 416 120mm How Bty should be given a fourth gun to be true (you can read about them here: http://derela.republika.pl/120mm_wz78-09-31.htm).

Then, if we add one more battery to a battalion 357, there will be available heavy arty battalions with three 4-gun batteries of 105mm, 120mm or 155mm, which is correct, or with three 2-gun 220mm batteries, also correct.


Suggested changes to formations to reflect changes above:
form. 358 Med Howitzer Bn - to be removed, as non-existing. A problem is, that it might be on a pick list in assault mode (sometimes there is Lt or Hvy Bn instead).
form. 365 Med How Bty - rename eg. "Hvy Art Bty/3", "Hvy Art Bty(3)" - it will cover divisional heavy arty of 105mm guns and 155mm FH
form. 357 Heavy Art Bn - add the third battery and change template unit (331) to Off-map Hvy Arty, eg. 416
form. 367 Hvy Art Battery - rename eg. "Hvy Art Bty/4" and change template unit


332 100mm Gun Bty - should be named 100mm How Bty or FH Bty, and used from 1/30 (now 1/35)

333 81mm Mortars - if there's a choice, a secondary weapon should be shorter 144 wz.29 Carbine


Michal

[Cross]

186 Daimler Dingo [scout veh] - received in "early 1942" (1/43).
Specifications should be corrected like in the British OOB: crew 2(now 4), size 2(3), weight 10(0).
Radio should be 90 or 92 - it was most common.

Was its Bren, normally shooting through a slot in armour, really an AAMG? The vehicle doesn't seem to have any AA mounting, so it would have to be fired "from hand" (same for the British OOB).


Some Dingos did have an AA mount, called the Lakeman mount.
It was not popular, probably of limited effectiveness, and no doubt removed by many crew to make room in that tight cab.
So I agree that the Dingo is not the best choice for an AA mount. There's plenty of other allied vehicles that I'd give AA mounts before the Dingo.

Just an FYI ;)

Cross

[Pibwl]

349 Partisan MG - I'm attaching a proposed picture of a Polish partisan with wz.28 LMG.

350 Partisan MG - I'm attaching a proposed picture of a Polish partisan with German MG (it would also better fit for unit 347, than a current one)

352 Part. Mortars - picture shows 82mm mortar. I'm attaching a picture for Polish 46mm GL.

A word about formations:
form. 342 Gwardia Ludowa, 343 GL Partisan Co - since 1/44 its name was Armia Ludowa (AL). Gwardia Ludowa existed since 5/42, so we should add earlier formations with this name.

It seems from morale & experience modifier, that somebody liked communist GL and despised rightist NSZ (formation 344) ;)

- well, I don't like nationalist and grossly anti-Semitic partisans either, but -10 penalty in morale & experience isn't justified, neither is +5 in case of GL, which were no better, than the rest. Since Poland has high base morale 75, IMO it's enough for partisans as well.
The partisans had limited possibility of training, so as for experience (with base level 70), I would say, that GL and NSZ partisans should have -10, AK partisans (best organized, form. 340, 341) -5 (=average level 65, eg. of Yugoslavian partisans).


364 Carrier HMG was in fact not a scout vehicle, but an infantry support vehicle, used in separate platoons (4-6 HMG carriers). And they were introduced to the British (and Polish) army only in 1943/44 (now 7/40).
I'm attaching a proposed improved picture of a vehicle in actual configuration - for all countries (a current one looks like some makeshift, with a shielded HMG)


368 Polski Fiat 508 [utility veh.] - picture is 2-seater Italian variant, I'm attaching a correct one.
It could be AT wheel class - it was 4x2, but it had some off-road capabilities (like German Kubelwagen).
Precisely, they were produced from 1935 (1/30).
Earlier, a Ford T could be used.

369 Polski Fiat 618 [APC wheel] - used from 1937 only (now 1/30).
Formations 263, 264 Lt Truck Sec, Plt (Available: 01/30-12/46) should be corrected then (I don't think we need such unit earlier, medium trucks should be enough)

370 Polski Fiat 621 [med truck] - picture is generic SP-1 Renault truck, I'm attaching a proper one.
It was produced from 1932 only (1/30) (earlier there should be #360 Ursus A).


374 30cwt GS Truck [med truck] - 30cwt trucks were rather rare in wartime British and Polish armies, especially in combat units. Maybe 375 Bedford should be re-classified to med truck instead (commonly used in field), especially, that it is used only in two Heavy Truck formations.

375 Bedford - much closer for Bedford QL is icon 674 in SPMBT (same for British oob). If it represents Bedford QL, it should be AT/wheel. Maybe it should be made a Medium Truck - if so, a data of Bedford should be changed to correspond with a Medium Truck (we have already #383 heavy truck in this period).

376 3t Chevy 157 [heavy truck] - it might be called Chevrolet 157 (Chevy abbreviation wasn't known in Poland). It was used only from 1/39 (1/30). In fact it was medium truck, the same class, as Polski Fiat 621 - and it was faster (80 km/h - now speed 15).
If we need Heavy Truck formations 267,268 before 1939, we could create Berliet CBA (up to 35 km/h) - I'm attaching a photo.

381 15cwt GS Truck - much more common, than pictured Chevrolet C15 CMP was Bedford MW (picture 30123) or Fordson WOT2


384 Humber Gun Quad - correct name is Morris Quad FAT naturally, if we want to name a manufacturer (could also be Ford or Chevrolet FGT/CGT).


387 Bunkier - photo 29710 looks much more like Polish bunker (which is in fact, because I did this picture myself long ago ;))


400 37mm AT-Gun - introduced only in mid-1936 (now 1/30).
If we need to feel a gap, #399 37mm wz.18 might be used as AT-gun in 1930-35 (though in fact, there were no AT-guns in Poland at that time at all). On the other hand, during a French period more modern guns were used (below).
Name 37mm wz.18 should be supplemented with "gun", because it was not a standalone mark designation.

401 25mm AT-Gun - radio should be 2(1) - it was standard AT gun in France.

402 47mm AT-Gun - photo is a Japanese gun, and armament is 47mm Bohler. It should be a French gun (weapon #21 47mm SA37 (L53) from French oob), picture 203, radio=0.

[zastava128]

A word about formations:
form. 342 Gwardia Ludowa, 343 GL Partisan Co - since 1/44 its name was Armia Ludowa (AL). Gwardia Ludowa existed since 5/42, so we should add earlier formations with this name.

Wouldn't it be better that the Gwardia Ludowa be moved to spob09 Polish Communists/LWP?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Polish LWP basically "grow out" of the Gwardia Ludowa? If so, then I think the pre-1944 partisan forces are already in that OOB.

[Pibwl]

Wouldn't it be better that the Gwardia Ludowa be moved to spob09 Polish Communists/LWP?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Polish LWP basically "grow out" of the Gwardia Ludowa? If so, then I think the pre-1944 partisan forces are already in that OOB.

You are partly right - Gwardia Ludowa (later Armia Ludowa - People Guards/Army) were communist partisans, conceived in Moscow. In July 1944 it officially merged with the 1st Polish Army in the USSR, creating so-called LWP (Polish People Army - it wasn't an official name however, official was just Polish Army).
(A distinction may be unclear, but there are other words for army as a military unit - "armia", like the 1st Polish Army, and an army as armed forces - "wojsko", although "armia" is colloquially used also in the second meaning).

In my opinion, though, since GL/AL units operated in the country, there's no need to put them into a separate LWP OOB and treat as allies. The idea isn't bad, though.

By the way: a flag representing LWP, with a hammer and sickle, is a bit offensive, since it was never a sign of Polish communists, who used just a national flag. However, I have no better idea. Maybe there could be used Piast's eagle, used by the LWP on caps and badges, but a distinction may be hardly seen: http://histmag.org/grafika/articles6/orzel-bialy5/kurica.png

On the other hand, ordinary Polish flag should have no eagle at all - a flag with eagle was used only as a merchant ensign and a flag of Polish official representatives abroad.

By the way: it could be noted, that despite both groups of partisan movement were unfriendly, and regarded themselves as communist renegades vs fascists, fights between them were sporadic.

Regards
Michal

[DRG]

By the way: a flag representing LWP, with a hammer and sickle, is a bit offensive, since it was never a sign of Polish communists, who used just a national flag. However, I have no better idea.


Exactly, and nobody had a better idea when we first put it in either.

Don

[Pibwl]

However, it's worth IMO to remove eagle from the ordinary flag.

Back to suggestions:


If we need to feel a gap, #399 37mm wz.18 might be used as AT-gun in 1930-35 (though in fact, there were no AT-guns in Poland at that time at all). On the other hand, during a French period more modern guns were used (below).
Name 37mm wz.18 should be supplemented with "gun", because it was not a standalone mark designation.


I should have added, that 37mm Puteaux was indeed used in a small numbers as an infantry gun in Poland - and its designation in towed version was in fact wz.16. It was withdrawn by 1929, so we can use it only if AI needs to have AT guns.

335 CKM wz.30 Pl - radio should be 22 - it was a standard weapon (or 32, since HMGs 406, 407, 408 have radio=30).

403 120mm How - should be 120mm Gun or Canon (eventually "armata" in Polish - in lower case). Better icon is 2116 - it was rather long-barrel piece (on a photo the barrel is in a transport position).
Radio should be 92(91) - it was a rare gun.

407 CKM wz.10 Pl - should be wz.10/28. They were withdrawn by the end of 1936 (sold probably to Spain).

408 CKM wz.25 Pl - it should be original 8mm wz.14 Hotchkiss rather (there were still 2600 wz.14 in 1939 and only 1200 of wz.25, half of them as TMGs).

Weapon #121 should have kill=5 like weapon #100 and should be named 8mm wz.25 HMG (or MMG - though in Poland all were classified as "heavy"). BTW, kill 7 of wz.28 MMG is not justified.

A word on HMG/MMG:

Most HMG/MMGs in the game have HE kill=5 (Vickers, Soviet Maxim, M1917, Mle.14), and I assume, that MG34 (8) and MG42 (10) are better due to higher ROF (some 800 rpm in case of MG34).

But German OOB #122 MG08/18 HMG, which has 6, should have HEK similar to other water-cooled MGs, or even lower, since its ROF is quoted at 300-450 rpm (Wikipedia says 450-500, German Wikipedia 400-450, which is also relatively low). For Vickers also 450-500 rpm is quoted, but for M1917: 450-600. Also for Polish wz.30 (a Browing clone) 600 rpm is given and it has HEK=6. For Russian Maxim 520-600 is given. [I mostly use WarMachine 97 Machine guns of WWI as a reference]

So, if 500 rpm = roughly 5 HEK, I think, that MG08 should have HEK=5, and there is a basis to increase HEK of Browning M1917 and wz.30 and possibly Russian Maxim to 6. On the other hand German MG08 could have increased accuracy due to its ultra-heavy sledge mount.

Returning back to the Polish:
weapon 123 7.92 wz.08 MMG should have HEK=5 (now 8), and it is HMG in fact.
weapon 124 7.92wz.10/28HMG - kill 9 is not justified at all - it should be 6 (Russian Maxim converted to 7.92mm)

Michal

[Pibwl]

1939 guns took me several days:


398 37mm wz.18 [inf gun] - name should be wz.16 and a secondary weapon should be French 112 Lebel

409 65mm Mtn Gun - ending date should be 10/39 (10/49, an evident typo). Radio should be 91(92) - very rare, used only by mountain units.

--------
75 mm artillery:
Only two types of 75mm pieces were used by the Polish by 1939, and both were field guns: wz.1897 (French) used by artillery regiments and wz.02/26 used by cavalry and in infantry regiments. None were specifically assigned to AT role.
You can read more at http://derela.republika.pl/artillery.htm

410 75mm Inf-Gun - as infantry gun, an ordinary 75mm wz.02/26 field gun was used, so a weapon (7.5cm leIG) should be replaced with #64 75mm vz.02 FG (differing in longer range).
If it's important: ammo load in limber and caisson in infantry units were 80 shells (plus 36 shells in caisson's limber).
Icon should be changed to 2111 (as unit 412 - longer barrel)
Speed 1 is correct - it could be pulled by the crew.

Weapon 064 75mm vz.02 FG - correct name is wz02/26 FG
It could receive Sabot round with pen=7, range=60, like weapon #55 75mm vz.02 DFG (75mm gun in AT role).
Then, the gun can receive few Sabot rounds, although not necessarily.

Form. 338 Infantry Guns could be renamed to Infantry Gun Pl
Precisely, they should be given 6-horse limbers instead of wagons, but then the player could also choose inappropriate artillery tractors.
Maybe a limber could be doubled as a kind of wagon?

I'm attaching some proposed pictures of wz.02/26, for 32135 is hard to recognize. It could replace ugly 21172 - also for unit #412 below.

390 Fort - 7.5cm leIG should not be used in Poland at all.
Polish gun-armed fortifications were very rare, but probably first of all, original Russian 76mm wz.02 field guns were used there (without special mountings).
Weapon #32 7.5cm leIG could be therefore converted to 76mm wz.02 FG, with the same specs as #64 75mm vz.02 FG (wz02/26)

Otherwise, main armament of the fort should be just replaced with 064 75mm vz.02 FG (wz02/26).


411 100mm How - was used since 1/30 (now 1/35). Maybe we could use a full name Howitzer? (or Polish "haubica", in lower case).
Icon 2115 with a shorter barrel would be more appropriate IMO (2116 rather fits for #403 120mm gun)

412 75mm Howitzer - should be 75mm Field Gun or Canon (or Polish "armata") or 75mm wz02/26 FG.
In a limber and caisson, 96 shells were carried (plus 32 in a caisson's limber).

413 75mm Howitzer - same as above as for a name, but 75mm wz.1897 FG.
It should be used since 1930, being Polish most common field gun (now: only from 11/39).
Secondary weapon should be changed to Polish carbine 144 (even if it wasn't used in France - or we can create two units with different rifles to be precise).
In a limber and caisson, 96 shells were carried (plus 24 in a caisson's limber).
Icon should be 2112, as French OOB unit 28 (it had quite long barrel).
Better picture is 28018 or 23083 with wooden wheels - current one is French motorized version (same for unit #329 75mm FG Bty)

Weapon 033 75mm vz.97 FG - correct name is wz.1897.
Sabot range should be increased from 20 to 60, like weapon #55 75mm vz.02 DFG (75mm gun in AT role, shooting full AP shots).


414 75mm Field Gun [AT gun] - firstly, in Poland there were no 75mm field guns specifically assigned to AT role, they had no special sights (apart from a handful of guns) and there was little AP ammo available for them (20 per battery).
The same role could be fulfilled by 75mm Inf Gun or Howitzer above, with Sabot ammo, which would offer longer HE range (they would have to have less AP ammo - but it would expend its 8 AP rounds for first few targets anyway). In fact, 75 mm guns could destroy most tanks with HE in 1939.

If we decide to keep it as AT gun, it could be used since 1/30 (now: 1/35), and fill a gap before advent of 37mm ATG.
But then, wz.02/26 gun should be eventually replaced by much more numerous wz1897 FG (as above) - a name of weapon #55 75mm vz.02 DFG can be just changed without harm to other units using it (the river craft used wz.97 guns as well in fact).


In all 1939 guns, rifle should be replaced with shorter #144 carbine - it applies to units 399, 400, 403, 410, 411, 412, 414, 415, also to 405 wz.35 AT-Rifle

By the way: there was no weapon, like #221 wz.29 rifle at all. It should be eventually renamed to wz.98a Rifle (a modernized version of wz.98 Rifle), or changed in all units to #178 wz.98 Rifle.


391 Strongpoint - its weapon #55 75mm vz.02 DFG could be also exchanged to newly added 76mm wz.02 FG or 064 75mm wz.02/26 (like #390 Fort above). Such amount of AP rounds is wrong - it could be a handful at best.


416 120mm How Bty - it should receive fourth gun, and a proper name is 120mm Gun Bty.
Radio should be 91 (now 92) - it was very rare.

418 wz.25 AAMG [2] - it should be wz.14 (see remarks for 408 CKM wz.25 Pl).
Hotchkiss AAMGS were mainly used in stationary AA defence (along with wz.08 Maxims), but in infantry units a standard was wz.30 HMG on convertible AA mount, which should be added as new weapon (it should be also an armament of #548 Taczanka).

420 13.2mm AAMG - there were few used, by the Navy, on stationery naval mounts, in coastal defence. To be removed IMO.

423 194mm Gun Bty - it must be French allied support, but more probable would be a support of ordinary 155mm GPF guns (unit 220 in French oob, with changed class).

[Pibwl]

Promised 75mm wz.02/26 pictures.

[zastava128]

By the way: a flag representing LWP, with a hammer and sickle, is a bit offensive, since it was never a sign of Polish communists, who used just a national flag. However, I have no better idea.


Exactly, and nobody had a better idea when we first put it in either.

Don

What about this flag: http://flags.nava.org/images/poland/polish_peoples_army.png

Again, it's not exclusively communist (save the crownless eagle), but it was historically used by them on some occasions.

[Pibwl]

What about this flag: http://flags.nava.org/images/poland/polish_peoples_army.png

Again, it's not exclusively communist (save the crownless eagle), but it was historically used by them on some occasions.

It is the first time I see it. Seems, that this is a distorted unit's standard, but it should be square, like this one http://flags.nava.org/images/poland/polish_army_ussr_1943.png , and this is not a country flag.

[Pibwl]

400 37mm AT-Gun - I've just acquired a new source, which states, that it was actually deployed to units from 1/37.
A limber had 80 rounds: 16 HE and 64 AP.


tankettes:
425 TK-3 - this tankette is begging for a new picture, instead of SP-1 vintage caricature :) I'll attach some in next posts.
In the future, it is worth to create a camouflaged icon replacing a green one (like 2787 - TKS and 2791 - TKS 20mm) - they were all camouflaged.
The first batch was delivered in 4/32 (now 9/31) (not counting pre-series of ordinary steel) [Magnuski]

426 TKS - picture as above (besides, it shows something more similar to TK-3)
Armament should be 229 wz.25 MG, like TK-3.

BTW: I don't want to overturn all rules, but why BMG has a range of only 10, if it was an ordinary MMG, and its coaxial version has a range of 24?... The tankettes are therefore handicapped in the game (apart from the British Carden-Loyd, which uses CMG)

TK-3 should have FC 0 and RF 0 (like other nations' tankettes), while TKS should have FC=1 (scope sight).

There should be added also Carden-Loyd VI tankette, like British 856, but probably armed with 222 wz.30 CMG [Magnuski], used in 1/30 to some 33.

Formations:
403 Recce Tank Trp (could be renamed Plt, to be more consistent with Polish nomenclature) - earliest unit should be Carden-Loyd from 1/30
It should be available until 10/39 - only few troops received gun-armed TKS

404 Recce Tank Sqdn - last date as above. First date should be somewhat later - around 1/33 will be better (now 1/35) (they didn't exist during a peacetime, and were to be organized during mobilization)

405 Recce Tank Trp - there should be 2 tankettes with a gun. I suggest to rename it "Recce Tank Plt+" or something like that.

406 Recce Tank Sqdn - a commander had ordinary MG-armed tankette (there were only plans to give him gun-armed one). I suggest to rename it "Recce Tank Sqd+" or something like that.

408 Armoured Bn HQ - it should be used until 10/39 (as formation 403)
A name should be just "Armoured Bn", or, preferably "Armoured Bat." or "Batt." to make it more consistent with Polish abbreviation (bat.). They were recce units of Cavalry Brigades, not HQ.
According to this page: http://wp39.struktury.net/dywizjon-pancerny-1939-dowodztwo-dywizjonu.html there might be added a car carrying an AAMG, if you think it's a good idea.

409 Armoured Bn HQ - as above, apart from date. A tankette should be MG-armed. Name could be changed to "Armoured Bat.+" etc.


427 TKS.m - such designation was not used. I suggest "TKS nkm" or "TKS /nkm" (nkm = Heaviest MG).

428 C7P tractor - it had no radio


post-1940 armoured cars
429 Mrmn-Hrngtn IV - a picture shows Humber. They were however used only from 5/45 until 10/45 for training (now 1/43-3/44) [Magnuski]. Radio should be x1.

430 Mrmn-Hrngtn II - used from 5/42 until about 10/43 (now 3/41-3/42).
It would be good to fit it with Mk.II picture - now it has Mk.III (I've proposed one in the British oob).
Maybe a more natural name would be Marmon-Herr, or M-H ?

They were the first armoured cars used by the Polish after 1939 - it would need changes in formation 287.

431 Humber Mk.III - used only for training in 6/42-10/43. Radio should be x1. Picture is Mk.IV (I've proposed a picture in the British oob)

432 Humber Mk.I - not used by the Polish.
Could be replaced with Fox Mk.I (Canadian-built) - used from some 10/43 until some 12/45, also in combat.
The same specifications, but armed with 0.50 Browning and 0.30 Browning, radio=71, crew=4.

433 Scout Mk.II - it should be Humber Scout II. Used from around 6/44 only (now 8/40).

434 Scout Mk.I - as above, used from around 12/43 (now 7/40 - a production started in 1943). In 380-381 unit in the British oob I wrote, that there's no information, that I and II differed in armour - only mechanical changes are mentioned. But I've found no precise info on their armour (they say "max 14 mm" for all variants).

435 Ironside Mk.II [scout veh] - used by the Polish in a small quantity - according to Magnuski, only "towards the end of the war" (no precise info when), and rather they weren't used in combat. It isn't clear, if Mk.II was used at all.
Otherwise, comments as for the British oob (icon, picture etc).

436 Ironside Mk.I [scout veh] - rather certainly didn't used by the Polish.
Otherwise, comments as for the British oob.

437 Mrmn-Hrngtn III - used from 5/43 until some 10/43 for training

From armoured cars, there could be eventually added:
- Beaverette IV used from some 1/41 until some 1943 for training only (#373 in the British oob) [class scout veh?],.
- Morris LRC - suggested to be added to the British oob, used from 11/42

Michal

[Pibwl]

CS tanks

439 Crusader II-CS - Crusaders CS were received only around 2/43 (now 1/42).

440 Crusader I-CS - not used.

Since Poland never used unit 011 Matilda II-CS, we'll need a Valentine VIII classified as CS Tank, available in 2/43-9/43, to fill a gap in formation 377 Cruiser Tk Sqdn (in this period there were used Crusaders CS in units formed in UK, and no CS tanks in units formed in ME, using Valentines)

Therefore, formation 377 Cruiser Tk Sqdn should start at 2/43 (now 9/42), while earlier formation 378 Cruiser Tk Sqdn should be extended to 1/43.


445 C4P Art Tractor - max speed was 35 km/h (12 - now 16). Crew should be 2 (4)

446 Boys Carrier - used from early 1941 (7/40).
It should be earliest unit of Scout Vehicle class - needs change in formation 288 Rec Reg Sct Tp (now available: 07/40-05/43).
Carry should be 104 (now 102)

-------------------------------------------------

Vickers Mk.E tanks

Information on Vickers tanks is based upon a detailed research article by Rafał Białkowski (of course, apart from a page http://derela.republika.pl/vickers.htm)

Correct name for all is Vickers Mk.E type A/B, not Mk.A/B. It could be just Vickers E typ A/B ("typ" is type in Polish).

Short chronology:
- 6/32 - only 38 twin-turret tanks armed with wz.25 MGs
- mid-33 (say, 8/33) - 16 rearmed with 13.2mm MGs, 6 rearmed with short 37 mm
- mid-34 (say, 8/34) - started conversion of 22 tanks to single-turret - all tanks with wz.25 MGs and 37mm guns wiped out by the end of year
- 11/36 (or earlier) - twin-turret tanks with 13.2mm being converted to wz.30 MGs, 13.2mm disappear by the end of 1937 (or earlier)


449 Vickers E Mk.A (armed with wz.25 MGs - earliest) - they were delivered from 6/32 (now 1/30), used until end of 1934 (now 7/34).
Better photo of earliest twin-turret tank is 30225.

In my opinion it should have a camouflaged icon 3472, like newer tanks, despite this icon has modified air intakes (they were camouflaged from a beginning, never green).


450 Vickers E Mk.B (Vickers E typ B) - first single turret tanks were converted in mid-34, because first turrets were delivered in 3/34 (now starts at 1/34).
This unit, available at best for two months (6-7/34), seems redundant, since we have unit 644 following it from 8/34, that can be as well available from 6/34. This unit is probably only meant to represent earliest model without air intakes.
If it is removed, a template unit in formations should be changed to 644.


639 Vickers E Mk.A (armed with 13.2 TMG) - used from mid-33 - might be 8/33 (now 8/34).

640 Vickers E Mk.A (armed with 37mm gun) - used from mid-33 - might be 8/33 until end of 1934 only (now 8/34-10/37).
A photo 29426 is in fact late variant with twin wz.30 MGs (and air intakes). I'll attach a correct Vickers with 37 mm.
It is better reclassified to Cavalry Tank, so that they can play a role of an interim gun tank (before advent of Type B).

641 Vickers E Mk.A (armed with wz.25 MGs, with modified air intakes) - in fact, wz.25 MG armed tanks were used only until the end of 1934 (then, for several years, only 13.2mm and single turret ones).
Therefore, IMO this unit is redundant, for unit 449 can be well used a few months longer. The only difference is supposed to be modified air intakes, but there was no strict date of their adoption.

642 Vickers E Mk.A (armed with final wz.30 MGs) - used at least from 11/36 (11/37)
Photo 30225 is earliest tank, without air intakes - correct is 29426. I'll attach a better copy.


644 Vickers E Mk.B - can be available from some 6/34 (now 8/34) - see unit 450 above.
The tank is supposed to be in early camo, but the photo is late camo. I'll attach a better one.

645 Vickers E Mk.B - much better photo for a late tank is 27618

646 Vickers E Mk.B - much better photo for a late tank is 27618.
Radio=82 is too optimistic. It isn't clear what radio equipment these tanks got in 1939, but 52 would be closer to truth.

Edit:
I'll deal with formations tomorrow


Regards
Michal

[Pibwl]

Vickers E formations:

373 Vickers Tk Sec - Available: 09/30-10/39 - should be from 6/32 (as unit 449). However, a section of two tanks, especially twin-turret ones, is in fact unnecessary, when we have platoons. A section of two single-turret tanks from 6/34 would be more useful, although it's also unnecessary.

384 Vickers Tk Pl - Available: 09/30-12/33 - should be from 6/32 until 7/33 (Type A tanks only)
Now it uses 99-nation tank as a template (could be 449).

385 Vickers Tk Co - Available: 09/30-12/33 - as above

It would be most real-like to create interim formations with 37mm-armed tanks, considering, that there were only 6 - IF unit 640 Vickers E Mk.A is reclassified to Cavalry Tank:

Vickers Tk Pl - from 8/33 until 5/34, with two Cavalry tanks (eg.644) and three Light cavalry tanks (eg.449)

Vickers Tk Co - from 8/33 until 5/34, with 449 Light cavalry tank and three platoons as above

Otherwise, formations below could start at 8/33, but then a company will have more 37mm-gun armed tanks, than it was available.

386 Vickers Tk Pl - Available: 01/34-09/39 - should be available from 6/34 until 10/39.
Proportion of A and B tanks is correct, but a commander's tank should be Type B (more natural would be to place three Type B tanks first at all).
As I wrote, unit 450 is IMO redundant, and could be replaced in a template with eg. 644.

387 Vickers Tk Co - Available: 01/34-09/39 - as above.
A commander's tank should also be Type B.

--------

I'm attaching proposed or better pictures for Vickers, TK-3, TKS and Polish 40mm Bofors. Two are proposed for units 640 and 644.

[Pibwl]

451 7TP wczesny (name, meaning "early", should be changed just to 7TP)
459 7TP - as was stated in other place, both should have no sabot.
Despite common info, according to a research by K. Rudy the tanks with guns were completed and ready only after 6/38 (7/38 should be OK).
Early and late tanks could differ in radio chance only: first one could end in some 6/39 and have some 30 radio chance, second one could start in some 7/39 and have around 50 radio chance (it seems, that only platoons' commanders received radios anyway).

Formations:
383 Medium Tank Sec,
388 Medium Tank Pl,
389 Medium Tank Co should be modified accordingly - and they all should be renamed to Light Tank (it was an official classification).
For a sake of consistency, it's worth to re-classify units 451, 459 as Light Tanks as well (there are no others at that time - they are Med Tanks now).


452 R-35 - better name is Renault R-35.

However, formations: 214 Renault Tank, 215 Renault Platoon, 216 Renault Company should be renamed to R-35 Tank etc, so that they are not confused with basic Renaults in the Polish service, ie. FT.


455 7TP
467 7TP wczesny - although it wasn't their designation, but twin turret tanks could be named "7TP dw." for a sake of convenience (=dwuwieżowy - twin-turret).
Both tanks differ only in icon, and so shall it be.

They should be reclassified eg. to 15 Close Support Tank, so that they are not in mixed formations with FT-18 (formation 380).

There should be new formations of 7TP dw (names are proposals):
Lt Tank Pl (MG) - 7/36 - 9/39 - 5 tanks
Lt Tank Co (MG) - 7/36 - 6/38 - 1 tank + 3 platoons (later most were converted to single-turret)


460 7TP Spychacz (dozer) - it was designed in 1939 only [Magnuski] (now 1/38) and almost certainly remained only a prototype. There are not even known photos.
If we keep it, formation 028 should start later (and might be renamed Prototype Plough or so).

461 Panhard 178 - not used by the Polish. According to a common knowledge, the Polish didn't use any armoured cars in combat in France, however a recent article claims, that at least 3 Laffly 50 were given to the 10th Motorized Brigade in 5/40 and used for training in a recce company. Therefore, it could be replaced with Laffly 50 (unit 391 in a French oob - although a picture 15015 is in fact Laffly 80)

A formation 354 Armd Car Pl should be modified accordingly (with 3 cars, from 5/40).

.

[PvtJoker]

BTW: I don't want to overturn all rules, but why BMG has a range of only 10, if it was an ordinary MMG, and its coaxial version has a range of 24?... The tankettes are therefore handicapped in the game (apart from the British Carden-Loyd, which uses CMG)
Michal

The reason why BMG's have a limited range is, if I remember correctly, because in a typical tank with a turret they are mounted quite low, but even more importantly, the vision devices available to the gunner were quite poor and often the elevation of the BMG was fairly limited as well. All those combined limited the effective range of the BMGs in the mind of the designers, which is fair enough, although there of course would have been differences in how limiting those factors were in different vehicles. As a generalization it is still quite reasonable, since there is limited data available about the actual details of the BMG position in many tanks and the designers could not climb inside the vehicles to check it. The limitation, IIRC, goes back all the way to the original SP.

That said, the assumption that the main weapon position of tankettes is similar to the BMG position in larger tanks is just faulty logic and not a reasonable generalization. I am have little knowledge about details of the Polish tankettes, but at least in the original Carden-Loyd and the Italian CV series tankettes both the machine gun elevation and vision from the commander-gunners position was fairly good, especially if unbuttoned. Vision from a buttoned-up vehicle was of course not as good, but still better than most BMG position I have seen. So, I don't think the tankette main MGs should be called BMGs at all or considered analogous the them. They should have the same range as regular CMGs and TMGs.

[Pibwl]

I agree - all tankettes should be given TMGs.
In the Polish TK-3, an MG had ordinary open sights, in case of TKS it was mounted in a ball mounting, with a scope, and 20 deg of elevation. So they can't be worse, than infantry's HMGs.

(BTW: it will be another story, but Italian early tankettes should have single 6.5mm MG, not a twin).

Michal

[Pibwl]

456 FT-17 - a proper picture for MG-armed FT is eg. 27560.
It seems, that official name was just Renault FT (sometimes called in documents "Renault M 17 FT").

457 FT-18 - name FT-18 was never used in Poland. I suggest a name "Renault FT 37mm".

There is a problem with formation 381 Inf Tank Co, because it should have no commander's tank. Maybe it should be replaced with utility car? Or we'd have to live with a a small inconsistency.


462 PZL P-37A Los - correct designation of bombers is PZL-37A Los or PZL.37A Los, without "P"
It concerns also units 581-584

Unit 462 PZL-37A should be slower - 4 (now 5) (less than 400 km/h)

Unit 582 PZl-37B, with 100-kg bombs, could have radio 92, as most typical.

464 PZL P-23A Karas - the same, correct designation is just PZL-23 or PZL.23, without "P".
Same for 613-615.

[PvtJoker]

I agree - all tankettes should be given TMGs.
In the Polish TK-3, an MG had ordinary open sights, in case of TKS it was mounted in a ball mounting, with a scope, and 20 deg of elevation. So they can't be worse, than infantry's HMGs.

(BTW: it will be another story, but Italian early tankettes should have single 6.5mm MG, not a twin).

Michal

I know. Single water-cooled 6.5mm Fiat-Revelli M.14 on the CV-29 and a single air-cooled 6.5mm Fiat-Revelli aircraft machine gun on the early production CV-33. Elevation and horizontal traverse could be adjusted and locked separately (the mount was a kind of two axis gimbal in the CV-33) very much like a typical HMG mount.

The only Italian tank to use twin 6.5mm coaxial machine guns was the FIAT 3000. The current OOB has such armament on some armored cars as well, but in reality the MGs in those turrets (which were quite big) were on separate flexible mounts and even had separate gunners.

[DRG]

ry much like a typical HMG mount.
in reality the MGs in those turrets (which were quite big) were on separate flexible mounts and even had separate gunners.


Which we cannot model so we use a 2x MG


Don

[PvtJoker]

ry much like a typical HMG mount.
in reality the MGs in those turrets (which were quite big) were on separate flexible mounts and even had separate gunners.


Which we cannot model so we use a 2x MG
Don

Actually, the armament configuration of those vehicles is analogous to dual turrets, so it's most accurate to model them as two separate TMGs rather than as twin coaxial MGs. The basic idea of separate gunners and flexible mounts for the machine guns is to enable the MGs to engage two separate targets if necessary. Of course the SP engine does not model that very well either, but at least two separate MGs gives the vehicle a higher chance to actually hit something than a single twin MG.

[Pibwl]

465 PZL P-11c - it was deployed to units from 11/35 only (now 11/34), so it seems redundant, because it ends at 12/35, and next unit 596 may as well start at 11/35 (now 1/36) [a book on Polish aircraft by A. Morgała]
Otherwise, it could be renamed P-11a and made available from "summer of 1935", until 9/39, with radio=91 and 188 Vickers MGs. But there's no such need IMO.

All P.11 seem too fast - max 375 km/h, so maybe it should be 4 (now 5)

597 PZL P-11c - variant with 4 MGs started to appear in late 37 (say 11/37) (now 1/36) [A.Morgała]

598, 599 PZL P-11c - P.11 could carry ONLY up to four 12.5kg bombs, so these two units should be replaced with one with #193 bombs (unless we want to create the other one with 2 bombs, or 2 MGs instead of 4).
As far, as it is known, no camouflage was used, so icon 2945 is improper (there were only experiments)


466 9TP - no sabot ammo.

470 FR AMR-35,
471 FR D-2,
472 FR B-1,
473 FR AMR-35ZT
474 FR Somua S-35 - French tanks, to be removed.

476 Renault UE - it should have top armour.

477 H-35 - as I have written, there were a couple used in 1940 for training only, so it can be left out.

However, three H-35s (or H-38s - sources differ), acquired in early 1939, were used in combat in 9/39, so it can be changed to represent these units.
I suggest full name Hotchkiss H-35. May be class 102 Cruiser tank.
It should be available in three-tank platoon in 9/39 only.

478 Humber Mk II - used only for training in 6/42-10/43, just like unit #431 Humber Mk.III. Radio should be x1.
It had also Besa CMG.

479 Rolls Royce A/C - precisely Rolls-Royce. A couple were used for training in 6/42- ?/43 (now 7/40-7/41) - they could have seen action, if Rommel had broken through at el-Alamein.
Armament should be 148 Bren AAMG and fixed Boys, it also had smoke mortar.

.

[Pibwl]

483 Spitfire Mk.XIV - I treat aircraft as a general allied support, nevertheless it's worth IMO to replace Mk.XVI with Mk.IXe, which was commonly used by the Polish - and since 4/44 with bombs.
it should be armed with two cannons, 2 x #164 .50 MG, 1 x 500 lb bomb, 2 x 250 lb bombs.
Icon should be 4618 with clipped wings.
Better picture is 30025 - which shows similar LF Mk.Vb, from a Polish 316th Sqdn.

Besides, it's worth to add Mustang Mk.III, also used by the Polish, and since 4/44 for bombing.
It should have specifications and icon like British OOB 186 Mustang Mk.1, but 4 x .50 MGs

(BTW: British Mustang Mk.I should have 4 x .50 MGs instead of 6, and 4 x .30 MGs, and speed=7, not 8 - its max speed was around 628 km/h, only Mk.III and IV had a speed over 700 km/h. US OOB Mustangs P-51B and D have speed=7, while they could have 8).


486 Panhard 178 [scout veh.] - as 461 above - not used.
Formation 455 Panhard Troop - to be removed

491 Honey Recce - in Polish units known as Stuart Recce.
Used from late 1943 or early 1944 (say 1/44 - now 9/42)
Better photo is 27739 (and of correct version)
According to Magnuski, without a turret, a max speed exceeded 70 km/h.

Same for 231 Honey Ammo Tank - name Honey wasn't known.

Formation 149 Recce Tank - Available: 09/42-12/46 needs correction as well

494 Lloyd Carrier - correct form is Loyd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyd_Carrier

It wasn't armed (and as a rule, had no armour - there were kits of front and side plates only)

495 Citroen-K P17 - should be used from mid-31, also in Poland (now: from 11/39)

505, 507 Rifle Squad - picture 30211 without LMG will be more appropriate

.

[Pibwl]

We're over a half - a bigger half in addition ;)

Riverine craft (monitors):

510 Krakow - short-range guns #55 75mm vz.02 DFG should be replaced with #33 75mm vz.97 FG - monitors could provide indirect artillery support.

511 Krakow - weapon #139 .30 cal AAMG should be replaced with #204 wz.30 (2) AAMG (as unit 510).
However, weapon #204 is better to be renamed wz.08 (2) AAMG - it is unlikely, that monitors used newest infantry MGs, most probably they were Maxims.

Traditional sources say, that it received 13.2mm (2) AAMG in 1939, but it is not clear, if these plans were really realized. There could be created another unit with 13.2mm AAMG from 1/39 in this case.

It's worth to create a twin monitor Wilno, also in two (or three) variants.


512 Warszawa - initial armament were #67 105mm wz.13 guns, not 4.7in

Weapon #224 2x8mm wz.14 TMG should be renamed 2x7.92 wz.08 MG - there were no wz.14 Hotchkiss used on Polish ships.

513 Warszawa - it sure wasn't armed with quad 13.2 AAMG (there was no such weapon and it could be removed from OOB). It should be #204 AAMG, as units 511, 512.
Short-range guns #55 75mm vz.02 DFG should be replaced with #33 75mm vz.97 FG

514 Warszawa - same as above.

Icon of 512-514 Warszawa should be changed to 706 (like monitors below of the same type, different from Krakow).

Is there a chance to create real icons of Krakow and Warszawa-class monitors? Now they have Hungarian icons, quite different from their real look. I could provide plans.


516 Torun - same as 513. Photo should be 30300 - now it's Hungarian Sopron.

517 Torun - same as 513 as for 75mm guns, but a photo of late Torun should be 30296.

519, 520 Pinsk - same as 513.

521 Horodyszcze - same as 512 Warszawa (#67 105mm wz.13 guns, not 4.7in)

522, 523 Horodyszcze - same as 513

All monitors from 510-523 had real speed no more, than 14 km/h (now 7 - should be 5, or 6, if we consider Renault FT tank as a lower limit)

It is unknown, why monitors of the same class 512-523 differ in Heat armour. In fact, their armour was up to 8 mm, so maybe all should have basic armour 2, as unit 510 Kraków (there were strict weight limits, since they operated on shallow rivers).


Other riverine craft:

524 Chodkiewicz - same as 513 as for 75mm guns.

It would be best to create an icon of a sidewheel steamer for 524-528 and 531-537...

525 Chodkiewicz - weapon #215 .50 Quad AAMG should be replaced with two twin #226 13.2mm AAMG (2)
Weapons #224 2x8mm wz.14 TMG should be replaced with two #204 AAMG - it was AA ship.


527 Sikorski - weapon #215 .50 Quad AAMG should be replaced with one #226 13.2mm AAMG (2)
Weapons #224 2x8mm wz.14 TMG should be replaced with two #204 wz.30 (2) AAMG
Full name should be Gen. Sikorski

528 Sikorski - weapons #215 .50 Quad AAMG should be replaced with 2 x #226 13.2mm AAMG (2)
Weapon #224 2x8mm wz.14 TMG should be replaced with 1 x #204 wz.30 (2) AAMG

Speed of all the craft above (524-528) was also no more, than 14 km/h (now 7).
Size should be at least 6 - they were river ships, more conspicuous, than monitors.


529 Lekki Okret - it should be renamed LKU (Lekki Kuter Uzbrojony - Light Armed Boat; name Lekki Okret - Light Ship is wrong and wasn't used for anything
It should be available from around 1/31 (1/36)
It's definitely too fast (9) - max speed was 11 km/h (4-6)
Crew was 6 (10)
(http://flotylle.rzeczne.ayz.pl/page-41.html)

530 Lekki Okret - there was no such vessel with such armament.
It's worth to change it to KU-30 river motor gun boat, used from 6/39 (and in hot actions), armed with one #226 13.2mm (2) AAMG, armour: 2 all around, speed=14, crew=8, suggested icon: 434
(http://flotylle.rzeczne.ayz.pl/page-22.html)

533 Dickman - full name was Admiral Dickman.
Same as 513 as for 75mm guns.

534 Dickman - full name as above.
weapons #140 .50 AAMG should be replaced with 2 x #226 13.2mm AAMG (2)
Weapon #224 2x8mm wz.14 TMG should be replaced with #204 wz.30 (2) AAMG
It was used only until 1937 (now 10/39) - then it was turned into a target ship.

535 Szeptycki - full name was Gen. Szeptycki
Same as 513 as for 75mm guns.
Last date is earlier, than the first one - and it should be 10/39

536 Sobieski - same as 513 as for 75mm guns.
It should be available until 12/31 only, for those, who want to play 1920 war (in fact it was withdrawn in 1920s)
Better photo is 30297 (or 30302)

537 Stefan Batory - It should be available until 12/31 only, for those, who want to play 1920 war (in fact it was withdrawn in 1926)
Guns are better changed to 76mm wz.02 FG, which I proposed to create when writing about artillery.
It apparently wasn't armoured (maybe it should have 1 or 2 armour - now it has 4)
Better photo is 30297 (or 30302) - now it's monitor
Size should be bigger (the same for unit 531 Pancerny)

538 Kanonierka - I suggest name Kanonierka Z (kanonierka=gunboat, they were known as Z-class)
AAMG should be changed to #219 7.92 wz.25 AAMG (or whatever AAMG replacing it), instead of non-Polish .30 caliber.
Speed was actually 10 km/h (now 9 - much too big)
Crew should be 17 (10)
Better icon is 712, with two turrets.
(http://flotylle.rzeczne.ayz.pl/page-32.html)

There should be added one fine river craft, which saw action in 1939: heavy armoured cutter CKU Nieuchwytny ("Uncatchable"). It could be based upon unit 538, with armament: #025 40mm Bofors AAG, 37mm wz.18 and AAMG.
Available from 4/34 until 9/39
Appropriate icon is 679
Speed=7, crew=16
(http://flotylle.rzeczne.ayz.pl/page-21.html)

[Pibwl]

540 Wibault 7 - full name, according to Morgała, is Wibault 70C1

541 Lublin XIX [AOP aircraft] - to be removed - it was only a prototype, while we have a series of real Lublin XIIIs (besides, a picture and icon show Fokker C.V).


547 37mm Portee - such vehicles were used by the Polish only starting from combat at Tobruk, in 8/41 to around 12/42 (now: 1/37 - 10/39).
Better photo for 37mm is 27588 (current one shows 2pdr).
Maybe it should be given some SMG, eg 237 Sten for self-defence?

Needs change in formation #152, as its only unit - or maybe it should be reclassified as class 19 TD, made available until 10/43, and then it would be the first vehicle in formations: 088 SP-AT Section, 089 SP-AT Troop (earlier I proposed M10 3in as the earliest unit, since 11/43).


548 Taczanka [SP Flak] - .30 AAMG should be changed to proposed wz.30 AAMG.
I'll attach a picture of typical Polish taczanka (a current one is not Polish)

550 Maxim HMG Pl - all 7.62mm Maxims were withdrawn by the end of 1920s. Unless someone wants to play 1920 war, then it might be kept until 12/30.

There could be added .30 Browning 1919 MMG, used in Italy from some 11/43 until the end (radio=x1).


552 7TP [prototype tank] - it is a fiction category, but to be precise, a prototype with 37mm gun was completed in early 1937 (now 10/36)

553 Wz.31 [prototype tank] - icon looks nice, but there wasn't even built a prototype (and specifications were not much improvement over wz.29 armoured car). I'd remove it.

554 PZInz 130 - photo is Vickers Amphibian tank - I'll attach a better one - or something might be picked from http://derela.republika.pl/en/pzinz130.htm
Depending on sources, it could swim 7-10 km/h, so water speed 2 could be increased. However, armour was only up to 8 mm (now 2).

555 PZInz 130 - speed and armour as above

556 10TP - no sabot.

.

[Pibwl]

A bit more on artillery, mostly used by the Poles in North Africa:

401 25mm AT-Gun - should be available until 8/40 at least (the Polish Carpathian Bde took its guns from Syria to Palestine, and then lent them to the British).
Reportedly they were used until 1942 for training in the UK, but it's not worth adding I guess.

There should be added:
- 37mm AT-Gun available from some 1/41 until at least 5/42 - they were used in action at Tobruk (radio 92).
It could be copied from unit 400, but with #242 .303 rifle and maybe #88 Mills.

- 47mm AT-Gun - captured Italian Breda, available from 8/41 until some 5/42 (unit #578 in the British oob, along with its weapon).

- 20mm AA-Gun - captured Italian Breda, available from 8/41 until 5/42 (unit #748 in the British oob, along with its weapon).

- some Italian field guns used at Tobruk, presumably 75/32 FG (unit #029 from Italy, along with its weapon, with range corrected to 203 - 12.5 km) - used in 8/41 - 12/41 at least

- 65mm Mtn Gun used in 5/40 - ? (presumably 12/40)
It could be copied from unit 409, but with #176 Berthier rifle.
I've written before, that unit 409 should be available until 10/39 only (it has a Polish rifle BTW).

Formation 338 Infantry Guns should end at 10/39, and there should be another one in accordance with new unit, named Mountain guns.

- 18 Pdr Howitzer used around 8/40 - 5/41
(unit #127 from the British OOB, along with its weapon; radio 91)

There also could be added 75mm Mk.I FG (#627 in the British OOB), used for training in the UK, but not necessarily.

[PvtJoker]

A bit more on artillery, mostly used by the Poles in North Africa:

- some Italian field guns used at Tobruk, presumably 75/32 FG (unit #029 from Italy, along with its weapon, with range corrected to 203 - 12.5 km) - used in 8/41 - 12/41 at least


Actually they were probably 75/27 M.906 or M.911 WW1 vintage field guns, which were much more common than the new 75/32 during the whole war, but especially in 1940-1941. Too bad the current Italian OOB does not have them at all as field artillery pieces, since they were only the most common artillery pieces in Italian service (yes, I know, poor sources in the 1990s). Strangely enough they do appear as vehicle mounted guns...

Could have also been ex-Austro-Hungarian 77/28 M.05 field guns (8cm Feldkanone M.5), which equipped the Italian colonial artillery units in North Africa. No, it isn't in the Italian OOB either.

[Pibwl]

558 14TP - it is a very "what if" unit (see http://derela.republika.pl/en/10tp.htm ). It was supposed to be equipped with 47mm gun, but only on later stage, and there was no such gun available in 1939. If it would have been built, it would have #15 37 mm - unless we want to create a future tank.
On the other hand, hull armour was to be strengthened - according to (speculative) publications, even to 50 mm in front.

559 H-39 / SA18 [prototype tank] - I've already mentioned at unit 477 H-35, that three H-35s (or H-38s) were used in combat in 9/39, and their training use in 1940 is negligible, so there should be only one unit left of these two. It should not be Prototype tank class, so that they are used in a whole platoon (I suggested class 102 Cruiser tank).
Its armament should be #142 or #143 gun, not #12 with old AP round.
Icons of unit 559 are long-barrel, so more appropriate is unit 477 (icon 171).

560 75mm wz.97/25 [fortification] - if it is fortification, it should be 75mm wz.1922/24, used in coastal defence, since 1/30 (now 1/35). It was a French naval AA gun, with L/50 length, corresponding with a weapon #133 75mm L50 m.25 (wz.1897/25 was an obsolete mle.1897 AA variant, with shorter barrel)

There could be added Polish modern 75mm wz.1936 AA gun, as a Heavy AT gun, with similar performance (L/50), used since 1/38 (formations could have own C4P tractors). Picture as for now could be 36926.

[blazejos]

Hello

When you talking about modification of Polish OOB I just tough about my file with I done around 2 years ago is more an encyclopedic than playable file so I try separate units and formations in chronological order. Generally I include there everything what I found about polish pre-war army until 1939 for example proposed 75mm AA gun which was discussed by PIBWL .There are also now correct icons of polish riverine ships (yes correct icons was included inside shp in previous release so is even not necessary to add shp files). I try to modelled also polish underground army from 11/39 through creation of the AK to anticommunists organisations post disband of AK 10/44. Polish army in France first infantry units created in September 39 (only for human) to June 1940 with R-40 tanks which also was discussed. Formation for Polish Army in France was copied from French OOB. I never finish part about Polish army in UK lost motivation. Formations are done based on page about polish structures mentioned in previous posts so are as close modelled as I can but I assume that are not exactly correct for game engine and are named in polish comparable to German OOB with German names of formations. Hope that PIBWL will be able take some inspiration about already included icons and units and formations which may be possible to add to polish OOB from that file and rewrite this into specification for changes in official OOB for next version. This OOB now fit inside an blue OOB so is easy to check formations inside game.

Blazejos

[Pibwl]

- some Italian field guns used at Tobruk, presumably 75/32 FG (unit #029 from Italy, along with its weapon, with range corrected to 203 - 12.5 km) - used in 8/41 - 12/41 at least


Actually they were probably 75/27 M.906 or M.911 WW1 vintage field guns, which were much more common than the new 75/32 during the whole war, but especially in 1940-1941. Too bad the current Italian OOB does not have them at all as field artillery pieces, since they were only the most common artillery pieces in Italian service (...)

Thanks for a comment. With 25pdrs and captured material, the Carpathian Light Artillery Regiment in Tobruk grew to 52 guns, but unfortunately, no one writes (and probably no one will know), what these guns were. They had to be left in Tobruk by the Italians in 1940. Curiously, there are photos, reportedly from Tobruk, of Polish soldiers manning German Pak-38 and probably ex-Soviet M.1936 F-22USV (and Australians manning Pak-38 as well), but I guess, that German guns shouldn't be available there in 1941. Maybe they are from a later date.

As for 75/27 in Italian oob - it is another story, but now there is unit 030 Obice da 75L25. I can't find such gun, so probably it should be just 75/27.

PS. I've just "discovered", that picture 127 is 75/32 modello 37. Then, what gun is on picture 301, multiplied in many sources as Italian field gun?.. Mountain 75/18 modello 35?

Michal

[Pibwl]

Self answer - I've found in Hogg's book, that picture 301, used for field guns since SP-1, is indeed described as 75/18 modello 35. An Italian oob will need separate thread.

[PvtJoker]

Thanks for a comment. With 25pdrs and captured material, the Carpathian Light Artillery Regiment in Tobruk grew to 52 guns, but unfortunately, no one writes (and probably no one will know), what these guns were. They had to be left in Tobruk by the Italians in 1940. Curiously, there are photos, reportedly from Tobruk, of Polish soldiers manning German Pak-38 and probably ex-Soviet M.1936 F-22USV (and Australians manning Pak-38 as well), but I guess, that German guns shouldn't be available there in 1941. Maybe they are from a later date.

As for 75/27 in Italian oob - it is another story, but now there is unit 030 Obice da 75L25. I can't find such gun, so probably it should be just 75/27.

Michal

Of course in reality there were two different 75/27 models: the Krupp-designed 906 (or just 06) gun and the 911 (11). The latter was the famous Déport gun, the first production field gun with a split trail. The ballistic properties of those guns were relatively similar after the Italians modified the 06 for higher elevations. The image 36901 does not seem to be neither one of those guns and frankly I don't know what it is.

As for the PaK38 in Tobruk: the Italians did order PaK38 AT guns from Germany in summer 1940, but to my knowledge they were delivered only in 1942, because the Germans could not spare them earlier. The DAK of course had them, but presumably not the Italians. Then again, there is a lot of murky corners in Italian WW2 weapons history, especially if one does not have access to printed Italian language sources. Since year 2000 there has been great books published in English about Italian tanks and other vehicles, but artillery is a less popular subject with less sources available.

[Pibwl]

There are also now correct icons of polish riverine ships (yes correct icons was included inside shp in previous release so is even not necessary to add shp files).

Correct icons are great news :)

So, units 510-511 Krakow (and Wilno if we create it) should be given icon 3488; units 512 to 523 - icon 3487; unit 538 - icon 3489.

Also unit 548 Taczanka should be given more appropriate icon 3492

Other supplements for previous comments:
400 37mm AT-Gun - its weapon #13 37mm wz.36 L45 has worse performance, than identical tank gun #15 37mm wz.37 L45, without a reason. They should be the same, with penetration 5 at least (as I've mentioned before, their performance might justify increasing penetration to 6 IMO - for all countries. Their performance figures are rarely given, but they are generally better, than PaK-35/36 - see eg. Jaeger platoon http://www.jaegerplatoon.net/AT_GUNS1.htm ).


There might be created a formation available in 9/39 only: 'Dubno' Half-Co (a "half-company" of Dubno group), with one platoon of 3 R-35 and one platoon of 3 H-38(H-35). A commander would be given 368 Polski Fiat 508.


Next comments:

561, 562 Wz.28 (available in 9/39) - they should be given other class, so that they can't be chosen in armoured car squadrons (there were only 3 left in 1939). Maybe 230 Colonial AC, with an appropriate platoon (named eg. just "Wz.28 platoon").

Probably in 1939 there only remained MG-armed version, but this is my educated assumption (all but 3 cars had been converted to wz.34, so probably all gun-armed cars were converted). In any case there could remain no more, than one gun-armed.

Name could be changed to Wz.28 Citroen (they were sometimes known as Citroens, also in documents, due to Citroen-Kegresse chassis). This name was in fact also used sometimes for wz.34 car, but not in any modern publications.

563, 564 Peugot M1918 - they were used by the Army until 1935 at least (http://derela.republika.pl/peugeot.htm) (now 12/31)
Photo 29490 of unit 564 actually is MG-armed car - correct is 29488.

These cars were actually known just as Peugeots, and their proper designation is unknown (they were wartime models, so often used "1918" is not correct, and wasn't official in Poland). Maybe MG-armed one should be named Peugeot AM, and gun-armed Peugeot AC, according to French nomenclature? Or gun-armed one should be named Peugeot (37mm)


567 Peugot M1918 - name as above. Better action photo for MG-armed version is 29490

573 Peugot M1918 - name as above. Crew was 4(5).

568 Wz.28 - Could be used until 12/36 at least, like units 664-665 (12/34). Name as 561.

663 Wz.28 - as above.

664, 665 Wz.28 I - there was no such designation - we may call it Wz.28 (late). I'll try to find better pictures. There's no reason for 665 to have rangefinder.
Light sloping of rear 8 mm plate does not justify armour=2 IMO. In fact, all wz.28 cars had similarly thin armour at front (now 2).

.

[Pibwl]

I'm attaching several improved or proposed pictures.

(An attached Autoblinda AB-41 is Polish indeed.)

[Pibwl]

Photos of 37mm mle.16 and 65mm mle.06 guns can be as well used in other countries.



561, 562 Wz.28 (available in 9/39) - they should be given other class, so that they can't be chosen in armoured car squadrons (there were only 3 left in 1939). Maybe 230 Colonial AC, with an appropriate platoon (named eg. just "Wz.28 platoon").

Probably in 1939 there only remained MG-armed version, but this is my educated assumption (all but 3 cars had been converted to wz.34, so probably all gun-armed cars were converted). In any case there could remain no more, than one gun-armed.



Actually, I'm quite convinced, that no gun-armed wz.28 cars survived until 1939, and so unit 562 can be removed.
There were initially only "about 30" gun cars, and 37mm guns weren't as freely available, as wz.25 MGs. In 1939 there should be exactly 30 gun-armed wz.34 cars in mobilized formations, so most probably all gun cars were converted to wz.34.

On the other hand, unit 561, with a separate class and platoon, should can start at 1/37, right after units 664-665.

You can read more at http://derela.republika.pl/wz28.htm

[Pibwl]

As for captured Italian guns, they might have been 100/17 howitzers, which seem popular at that time in North Africa.

To finish with 1939 armoured cars:

569 Wz.29 Ursus - they were built and given to the Army in 7/31 (now 1/30).
Speed could be 12 (35 km/h - now 11) - same for units 574, 671.

Armament of all wz.29 cars should be IMO reduced to gun and one TMG only.
The car officially had three MGs in the beginning, but a BMG was rear-facing, what made it useful in peculiar combat situations only.
The remaining three weapons (gun, TMG and AAMG) were manned by a commander and mounted in different sides of a turret, what made quick change of weapon difficult. As for AAMG in an upper ball mounting, it was inefficient, and quickly removed (more: http://derela.republika.pl/wz29.htm)
The first unit 569 could have AAMG instead of TMG, because it had some chance of downing a slower aircraft of that era. In next units it should be TMG.

I'll attach alternative pictures.


570-572 Wz.34, Wz.34 I, Wz.34 II (variants with MG and early camo) - in my opinion, distinguishing between these models doesn't make much sense. They mark only mechanical components, weren't usually used, and can't be associated with either of two types of armoured hull (more: http://derela.republika.pl/wz34.htm).
Wz.34 I is completely redundant - no external difference, nor in specifications, not distinguished from wz.34 II in official statistics.
Wz.34 II was newest model, but according to a military manual, it was in fact a bit slower (50 km/h) than wz.34 (54 km/h) (now wz.34 II has 18, rest - 16). IMO, its speed should be 17 (=51 km/h). It could be merged with wz.34 and named just "wz.34", or we could keep both, one with a picture with old hull (vertical rear) and one with newer hull (slanted rear).

BTW: the picture 29521 of #571 has late camo, while it's supposed to have old camo.


575-577 Wz.34a, Wz.34 Ia, Wz.34 IIa - as above (variant with 37mm gun and late camo). There was no designation with "a" for a variant with 37mm gun (or any other special designation). It might be named "Wz.34 (37mm)"

674-676 Wz.34a, Wz.34 Ia, Wz.34 IIa - as above (variant with 37mm gun and early camo).
Picture 29519 shows cars in late camo, while it is supposed to be early camo. I'll attach a photo of the car with gun and early camo.

678-680 Wz.34, Wz.34 I, Wz.34 II - as above (variant with MG and late camo).
If we'd like a photo, a proper one is in fact 29521 (used for early unit 571)

Michal

[PvtJoker]

As for captured Italian guns, they might have been 100/17 howitzers, which seem popular at that time in North Africa.

To finish with 1939 armoured cars:

569 Wz.29 Ursus - they were built and given to the Army in 7/31 (now 1/30).
Speed could be 12 (35 km/h - now 11) - same for units 574, 671.

Armament of all wz.29 cars should be IMO reduced to gun and one TMG only.
The car officially had three MGs in the beginning, but a BMG was rear-facing, what made it useful in peculiar combat situations only.
Michal

The 100/17 was the standard divisional howitzer of the Regio Esercito since the 1920's. The Italians received a very large number of them as war reparations from former Austro-Hungarian countries and some were captured already during the war. They also made spare parts (including barrels) for them and during WW2 a number were possibly upgraded to longer L/22 barrel (at least ex-Polish 100/22 were used, but the information on the upgrade is inconclusive). So, it was common pretty much everywhere the Italians fought, so indeed it is quite likely that many were captured in North Africa by Allies.

The 100/17 was a little short-ranged by WW2 standards, but otherwise had good qualities (like most Skoda designs, one might add) and was well-liked by Italian artillerymen. The Italians liked the piece so much that it was upgraded twice after WW2, the second time in 1961 with a 105mm L/22 barrel capable of firing standard NATO ammunition. They were scrapped only after the end of the cold war. It must have been one of the longest lasting if not THE longest lasting WW1 artillery pieces anywhere.

Sorry about getting a little carried away; about the rear facing MGs of the wz. 29: such weapons were very common in the 1920s and 1930s armored cars. The rationale seems to have been that armored cars were likely to run into ambushes while reconnoitering and would be required to fight their way out with enemies on all sides. The rear driving positions, often with additional driver, were based on the same doctrine as well. Turning the cars around on narrow dirt roads was often impossible and going cross-country difficult with a 4x2 drive. Even the Italian AB 40/41 still retained those qualities out of inertia, while it was a modern design with much better cross-country mobility, and probably did not have much use for the rear driver in practice other than as an extra help in maintenance.

[Pibwl]

Aircraft:

585 LWS-4A Zubr - correct designation is LWS-6 Żubr (LWS-4A was used in old books and is now declared as wrong). This unit is however in fact redundant - a small series was built and assigned for training only, being inferior to PZL 37 Łoś, not used in combat.
BTW: it has no dedicated icon, but uses Potez 540.

587 PZL P-43 - should be PZL-43 (or PZL-43 Karas). They were produced in 1937 indeed, but for export only (now available from 10/37). Only in 9/39 two aircraft were pressed to Polish service and briefly used. It's rather "what if" unit, but in game terms its only advantage over PZL-23 Karas is 1 MG more, so it might be redundant (the players should rather not treat this plane as a standard one, for it would be inaccurate. Maybe it should be reclassified to 243 Ground attack and used in prototype formation?).

589 SPAD 61 C1 - it could also carry two #193 12kg bombs . Withdrawn from active use by end of 1931 (now 11/32).

[B]590 SPAD 51 C1 - icon is typical PZL P fighter - better is 2906 (slightly larger, from some bomber, but with similar swept wings), eventually 2903.

592 PWS-A - used in units from 7/30 (now 1/30) until end of 1935 (now 12/34) .

[B]593 PWS-10 - used from mid-31 (now 1/31)

594 PZL P-7a - it was used in units only since spring 1933 (now: 10/32 for unit 594) .

Precisely, units 592-594 used Vickers MGs converted to 7.9mm (earlier units: 7.7mm indeed)

[B]602 PWS-26 - only #193 12kg bombs could be carried instead of 25 kg.
Speed should be max 3 (now 4) (217 km/h - it was a trainer)

603 Lublin R-XIIIA - proper icon is 2925 - all R-XIII, including early models, were camouflaged (as is visible on photos).

606 Lublin R-XIIIG - only #193 12kg bombs could be carried instead of 25 kg.
Speed should be only 2 (now 4) (175 km/h)

[Pibwl]

Aircraft - continued.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

.

[PvtJoker]

Ammo-related question:

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

[Pibwl]

Ammo-related question:

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

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

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

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

[DRG]

We are NOT adding armour piercing 7.92 ammo so forget the idea ever occurred to you

Don

[PvtJoker]

We are NOT adding armour piercing 7.92 ammo so forget the idea ever occurred to you

Don

Don, when I wrote that question, I already knew I would get that knee-jerk reaction from you, since I remember it being discussed way back in DOS times with a similar response.

What I don't remember is exactly why you deny even the possibility with such vehement determination. Too much work? I don't think that would necessarily be so, since not every country had AP rounds issued in significant numbers, and even among those that did, they were rarely issued in such numbers to infantry units.

[Pibwl]

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


Mistake as for year - it should start in some 8/37. We don't need another type of spotter plane, but it
According to Morgała, all Potez XXVs (units 624-627) should be armed with #190 wz.33 MG, not Vickers.

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

[DRG]

We are NOT adding armour piercing 7.92 ammo so forget the idea ever occurred to you

Don

Don, when I wrote that question, I already knew I would get that knee-jerk reaction from you, since I remember it being discussed way back in DOS times with a similar response.


I'll let that comment pass this time and put it down as a "language issue". Next time you're gone. I've been doing this too long to put up with crap like that more than once. Strange you remembered the answer but not the reason. Perhaps you need to pay more attention or maybe think things through better ?





What I don't remember is exactly why you deny even the possibility with such vehement determination. Too much work? I don't think that would necessarily be so, since not every country had AP rounds issued in significant numbers, and even among those that did, they were rarely issued in such numbers to infantry units.



"Too much work"...... what a joke. You have NO IDEA how many hours we spend on these patches do you ?. Your welcome.

Here's the answer. It's SP101. The lowest number besides zero we could give for AP penetration for a round like that is 1. The game is a random number generator. That's what kept it fresh for so many years.......... that and us making improvements. Our job is to balance that randomness and if you give 1 AP pen to a round like that you make it far more potent than it was. You could conceivably get 2 pen at point blank range and it's absurd that a 7.92 round could penetrate 2 cm of armour. It would be lucky penetrate half that but we don't deal with fractions of centimeters but the way the AP routine is set up would allow up to 1 penetration out to it's maximum range with is also absurd so we don't give rounds like that AP pen...........and NO we are not going to screw around with the AP calc routine.


Don

[Pibwl]

Our job is to balance that randomness and if you give 1 AP pen to a round like that you make it far more potent than it was. You could conceivably get 2 pen at point blank range and it's absurd that a 7.92 round could penetrate 2 cm of armour.

I'm NOT suggesting, that we should add Sabot ammo to machine guns, but the later example might represent case, when a driver and a commander forgot to close their vision hatches and got shot in heads... :D
Just joking.

[PvtJoker]

I'll let that comment pass this time and put it down as a "language issue". Next time you're gone. I've been doing this too long to put up with crap like that more than once. Strange you remembered the answer but not the reason. Perhaps you need to pay more attention or maybe think things through better ?
Maybe it really was a language issue. I honestly didn't know saying that someone had a knee-jerk reaction to something is a major personal attack. I apologize if I hurt your feelings or sense of pride for this great product (no sarcasm intended). But I hope we can discuss the matter at hand rationally, even if I don't except you to actually make any changes based on my arguments.



"Too much work"...... what a joke. You have NO IDEA how many hours we spend on these patches do you ?. Your welcome.

Here's the answer. It's SP101. The lowest number besides zero we could give for AP penetration for a round like that is 1. The game is a random number generator. That's what kept it fresh for so many years.......... that and us making improvements. Our job is to balance that randomness and if you give 1 AP pen to a round like that you make it far more potent than it was. You could conceivably get 2 pen at point blank range and it's absurd that a 7.92 round could penetrate 2 cm of armour. It would be lucky penetrate half that but we don't deal with fractions of centimeters but the way the AP routine is set up would allow up to 1 penetration out to it's maximum range with is also absurd so we don't give rounds like that AP pen...........and NO we are not going to screw around with the AP calc routine.
Don

What I meant that perhaps it is too much work on top of everything else you do for relatively little gain from a gameplay point of view, but I admit it didn't come out quite right.

Now, for the actual issue: like you said, the problem especially at the low end of penetration and armor are the relatively high randomness and low granularity of Pen/Armor values. A rifle caliber WW2 technology AP bullet wouldn't penetrate 20mm of armor, that is quite true. However, it might under optimal circumstances penetrate 15mm at point blank, since many of the test values at 50 or 100 meters are fairly close to that. Armor thickness of 15mm is nearly always rounded up to 2 it the OOBs. This is my minor point.

My major point is that basically anything with armor plating will get Armor Value 1 in SP, even if the historical plate thickness was just 5mm (occasionally even less). 5mm of armor plate does not reliably stop even a ball round fired at point blank, but the way it is now it gets to stop pretty much anything that doesn't penetrate at least 15mm. In essence that makes thin, less than 10mm armor plate "far more potent than it is" to quote your words.

As for the maximum penetration, which would be 1 up to max. range. If the WW2_APCalc_Help.TXT file is to be believed, the chance of getting the best AP penetration is less than 1%, and even if it happens, the actual effect on the vehicle will often be quite small due to the small warhead size. Do we really have to think that is somehow significant and would ruin the experience, or make the game less "realistic"?

In real life, armored vehicle protection levels have for a long time have separate categories for protection against rifle caliber ball (i.e. soft core FMJ) and AP ammunition, simply because the armor required to stop the latter is much thicker. 7mm is enough to protect against rifle caliber ball rounds, whereas AP requires about ½ inch / 13 mm of armor plate to stop reliably at point blank range. Admittedly, a reasonable protection at 100+ meters range can be achieved with "just" 10mm of armor. Of course the exact numbers depend on the armor plate quality and whether the AP bullet is steel or tungsten core.

[Mobhack]

The game engine cannot deal with rifle calibre AP ammo without making riflemen and LMG etc light armoured vehicle slayers, which makes APC and armoured cars rather pointless things to have. Thus it is not going to be done ever. (Rifle calibre AT rifles are an exception.)

Game armour is a minimum of 1 cm - even if the vehicle had only 5-7mm or whatever. Light armour is bullet proof.

Subject done and dusted, we have heard this topic several times before and we don't want to hear it again.

Andy

[Pibwl]

By the way: I've just recalled, that PzKpfw-I in Spain were able to destroy T-26 (15mm armour) using SmK(H) tungstene-cored ammo up to 150 m. A hunting ended, when the Republicans started to keep a distance and use gunnery advantage. So maybe this MG should be given short-ranged Sabot, as an exception? (I don't insist, because it would be fear for Polish tankettes, or even 7TP ;))

BTW2: frontal armour 3 of T-26 is too much - but it's another story.

[PvtJoker]

The game engine cannot deal with rifle calibre AP ammo without making riflemen and LMG etc light armoured vehicle slayers, which makes APC and armoured cars rather pointless things to have. Thus it is not going to be done ever. (Rifle calibre AT rifles are an exception.)

Game armour is a minimum of 1 cm - even if the vehicle had only 5-7mm or whatever. Light armour is bullet proof.

Subject done and dusted, we have heard this topic several times before and we don't want to hear it again.

Andy

There is really no reason to give infantry and LMGs AP rounds, since they most of the time didn't have them in real life, either. AP rounds were typically issued to HMGs/MMGs in limited numbers (often they were not available in practice), and especially to armored vehicles which had no better anti-tank weapons, for example the PzKw I, German halftracks and Italian tankettes.

That said, I won't be pressing the matter any further, since you seem to be firmly decided that it's not open to discussion and I don't want to waste my time on a fool's errand.

[Pibwl]

Back to the Polish:


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


Mistake as for year - it should start in some 8/37. We don't need another type of spotter plane, but it
According to Morgała, all Potez XXVs (units 624-627) should be armed with #190 wz.33 MG, not Vickers.


After re-thinking, it could start around 8/36, Unfortunately, available publications don't mention when they entered service, but a conversion of 50 aircraft was ordered in 1936, and a prototype flew in 4/36. After tests, it underwent some fixes and was tested again in 7/37 (hence 8/37), but the series might have been already used. It wasn't an advanced design anyway - a modernization of old airfames.

I wanted to write, that we don't need another spotter, so it's better to turn it to an actual bomber. Bomb load should be 4x50 and a bunch of 12 kg bombs (it could take 24, but too big number won't be practical). Possibly after modernization it could take more bombs, but there is no information.

And a self-correction - all Potez XXVs (units 624-627) should be armed with 7.9mm Vickers, not 7.7mm Vickers (it was late at night, when I wrote it...).


Captured tanks:

628 Panther G - best icon would be sand 4091 for all uses - they are always depicted as sand, and obviously weren't repainted green

BTW: formation 254 Captured Tank should have experience modifier around -10 (two tanks were captured during Warsaw Uprising, and their crews were improvised - luckily they didn't have to fight against German tanks, though appeared useful in support)

There should be also added captured Hetzer and SdKfz-251 in 8/44-9/44.

629 PzKw IIIg - a book says, and photos confirm, that they were Pz IIIJ (short gun), so armour should be modified according to German tank.
At least in one memoires they were called "Mk III" - I don't know if it was a rule, though I don't expect Polish soldiers to call them "PzKpfw".
They were used since 7/42 only (now 6/41)
Proper icon is desert 4029 only (used in Egypt)

Apart from formation 252 Captured Tank (used since 5/42 - see below), there should be created 3-tank Capt Tank Plt, used since 7/42 (Polish Carpathian Lancers were assigned for the Nile Delta defence in Egypt, in case of German breakthrough).

By the way, I've just found source, that Pak-38 AT guns were used by the Polish in 7/42 - ? (possibly 10/42, when the regiment was withdrawn)


630 PzKw IVh - I don't know what it is supposed to be - there is known a tank manned by the 2nd Corps in Italy, but rather as a mascot. It could remain as for now, as a curiosity.

631 AB-41 - according to one source, it was acquired in 5/42 (now 6/42). Only one is known to be used, but as a commanding vehicle.
The only icon should be desert 350.
Rear-shooting BMG could be removed.

[zastava128]

BTW: formation 254 Captured Tank should have experience modifier around -10 (two tanks were captured during Warsaw Uprising, and their crews were improvised - luckily they didn't have to fight against German tanks, though appeared useful in support)

There should be also added captured Hetzer and SdKfz-251 in 8/44-9/44.

This actually raises another question: do such "one-off" or "disposable" vehicles need to be included in the OOB at all? Aren't they already covered by the "Set Captured" function under the "Allies" tab?

Also, I think vehicles used purely for training and "mascots" shouldn't be included.

Of course, it's Don and Andy's decision in the end.

[Mobhack]

BTW: formation 254 Captured Tank should have experience modifier around -10 (two tanks were captured during Warsaw Uprising, and their crews were improvised - luckily they didn't have to fight against German tanks, though appeared useful in support)

There should be also added captured Hetzer and SdKfz-251 in 8/44-9/44.

This actually raises another question: do such "one-off" or "disposable" vehicles need to be included in the OOB at all? Aren't they already covered by the "Set Captured" function under the "Allies" tab?

Also, I think vehicles used purely for training and "mascots" shouldn't be included.

Of course, it's Don and Andy's decision in the end.

Pretty much the case - such items can be left for scenario designers to utilise for one-offs.

Things like the the Australian captured Italian armour, which was used fully for a few months, do deserve inclusion since someone just might want a few in his campaign core.

Of course - every OOB designer is free to add such things to say a training or captured tank formation for "flavour". But 2 items used for a month or so, likely not.

Andy

[Pibwl]

This actually raises another question: do such "one-off" or "disposable" vehicles need to be included in the OOB at all? Aren't they already covered by the "Set Captured" function under the "Allies" tab?

Also, I think vehicles used purely for training and "mascots" shouldn't be included.


I won't defend PzKpfw IVH (unless I find it actually fired at Germans), but the rest may stay - one should first know, which captured equipment could be used, to be historically accurate.

There was a whole platoon of PzKpfw-IIIs used, and they had a chance to see action (bigger, than Polish Crusaders used for training in the UK). Autoblinda was, sadly, only one, but it gives much flavour (http://odkrywca.pl/forum_pics/picsforum25/ab41_d10.jpg) and it also could see action.

As for Warsaw Uprising vehicles - Panthers were two, and they fought actively. Also at least two SdKfz-251 were used. Hetzer was one, but, shamefully, it wasn't actually used (kept in reserve, until it was bombed in a garage).

BTW: it would be good to add also insurgent Kubuś improvised APC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kubu%C5%9B
As Błażej suggested, a good-looking icon is 2845 (possibly even it's the one?). It could be used in 8-9/44, crew=2, size=4 (quite big), carry=10, weight=10, speed=some 15 (no precise data), no radio, no FC, no RF, armour 1 all around (or 2 - it was of thin plates, but double-layer spaced, and well-sloped).
The armament is usually given as 7.62mm DP LMG and flamethrower, though it probably was variable through service.

[PvtJoker]

631 AB-41 - according to one source, it was acquired in 5/42 (now 6/42). Only one is known to be used, but as a commanding vehicle.
The only icon should be desert 350.
Rear-shooting BMG could be removed.

I think the standard has been that rear-facing machine guns are modeled as normal machine guns as long as there are enough weapon slots to do so after all forward-facing machine guns and TMGs have been included. Or do you mean that the machine gun was physically removed from the captured vehicle?

[Pibwl]

631 AB-41 ...
Rear-shooting BMG could be removed.

I think the standard has been that rear-facing machine guns are modeled as normal machine guns as long as there are enough weapon slots to do so after all forward-facing machine guns and TMGs have been included. Or do you mean that the machine gun was physically removed from the captured vehicle?

I meant, that IMO rear-shooting MGs should be removed from all vehicles, but of course it is up to decision of SPWAW staff.
Since armoured cars usually attack targets in front of them, it would be impossible to fire a gun and CMG, then to turn back to enemy and fire rear MG in the same move (unless the car wanted to withdraw). Rear MGs were in reality useful only in peculiar and probably rare conditions, so IMO it's more accurate to never use rear MGs, than to use them all the time.
BTW: it's the same for T-35, which could not fire from both 45mm guns at the same target without turning a tank, but it's another story.

[PvtJoker]

I meant, that IMO rear-shooting MGs should be removed from all vehicles, but of course it is up to decision of SPWAW staff.
Since armoured cars usually attack targets in front of them, it would be impossible to fire a gun and CMG, then to turn back to enemy and fire rear MG in the same move (unless the car wanted to withdraw). Rear MGs were in reality useful only in peculiar and probably rare conditions, so IMO it's more accurate to never use rear MGs, than to use them all the time.
BTW: it's the same for T-35, which could not fire from both 45mm guns at the same target without turning a tank, but it's another story.

Don and Andy may not know that they belong to the SPWAW staff now. Besides, I thought that game ceased development years ago :D
(on a related note: I can't believe Matrix still charges €53.99 + VAT for the Download General's Edition; the game is 13 years old and has not been upgraded in any way since 2005!)

I tend to agree with you that the rear guns should be removed, but that would require modifying many other units as well beised the AB 41, so there should be an "official" decision from the SPWW2 (;)) staff to do so, and then it should be done for all the OOBs in the same update, if possible. Since it would not affect the actual gameplay much and having the rear guns probably does not give those vehicles too much unfair advantage, I don't know how high priority such a project would get. But yes, it's up to the staff.

[Pibwl]

Don and Andy may not know that they belong to the SPWAW staff now. Besides, I thought that game ceased development years ago :D


Oopss... Old habits. :doh: Seems, I'm like Dr. Strangelove... ;)

[Mobhack]

Rear Mgs - it is up to the OOB designer to determine if they are usefully placed or not. As with some odd armoured car I added to Swiss "blue" OOB that had one in each corner - there I made the decision to give it 2 since probably 2 would bear in each direction.

Many Japanese tanks have their "co-ax" in the turret rear, as do some KV and IS series.

SP does not have any concept of "rear" armament - see the UK Archer tank destroyer.

In the great scheme of things, its neither here nor there quite frankly. It might get some rivet-counter's underwear in a twist should you include one, but who really cares about that?:happy:!

Andy

[blazejos]

Just do like to mention about subject of horse carts with Machine-gun called Taczanka. They were invented by Russians during civil war after revolution and they were intended as a machine-guns which can follow cavalry and give them immediately support without complicated unpacking and preparations. Poles copies this idea from soviets during 1920 war they were used by Cavalry army. Around 1928 standardisations happens and first model Taczanka wz.1928 was created with german maxim 1908 HMG was build icon for such type is 3491 they was equipped in three horses and can keep the speed of cavalry units but wasn't prepared for AA shooting.

[Pibwl]

Just do like to mention about subject of horse carts with Machine-gun called Taczanka. ...
...Around 1928 standardisations happens and first model Taczanka wz.1928 was created with german maxim 1908 HMG was build icon for such type is 3491 they was equipped in three horses and can keep the speed of cavalry units but wasn't prepared for AA shooting.

Indeed, if there's an icon, it's worth to add earlier model of taczanka, with wz.08 MG, available in 1/30-9/39, with radio 01. But, probably, its wz.08 MG should be AAMG as well. It isn't written directly, but according to a new booklet on Polish Maxims, a cavalry mount for wz.08 HMG, taken from the Schwarzlose, "enabled quick conversion for AA fire", comparing with MG-08 sledge mount. Probably there was an additional mast mounted (it could be mounted on some Polish trucks, carts and even horse wagons). I'll attach a photo of early taczanka.

Then, unit 548 Taczanka, apart from icon 3492, should be available from 1/36.
There could be "wz.28" or "wz.36" added to names, but it's not necessary IMO.


649-654 Austin AC's - in fact, in cars, that survived until the end of 20s, most probably armament was changed to standard-caliber 7.92mm MGs, first of all wz.05S (German MG-05/S). Weapon #200 could be renamed so, #202 is redundant.
(more on Austins http://derela.republika.pl/austin2.htm)

655, 656 Ford Tf-c - one of them is perfectly redundant - they differ only in a machinegun's name, with the same performance.

BTW: weapon 207 7.92wz.08/15TMG has class 3 instead of 5, and range 30, while weapons 200 and 202 have range 20 (they were all the same Maxims - it should be at least 24 - or 30 since they were water-cooled?)

668 Wz.29 [armoured truck] - it should be renamed Ursus and represent a different Police lightly armoured Ursus truck (it had no specific name, but I'd call it: "Ursus (panc.)" - short for "armoured"). I'll attach a proper photo - a current one shows unarmed loudspeaker car of unclear purpose (it isn't known, if it belonged to the army or police).
It actually could have an armament of rifles in loop-holes, maybe even wz.25 TMG (it had even a turret with some weapon mounting, but the photos doesn't show weapons).
Carry capacity was probably more - some 10.

693 Fiat 3000 L5/30 - Poland bought one Fiat 3000 in 7/31 (now: 1/30), most probably with MG armament (twin MGs, #224 fom Italian OOB) (if it was armed at all...).
"L5/30" Italian designation should be deleted.

699 TK-3 [prototype tank] - I'd call it "TK-3 nkm".

700 TKS-B [prototype tank] - not much improvement over TKS, but if we want to be precise, it was broken down in 1938 (rebuilt to TKS-D SP gun - http://derela.republika.pl/tkw.htm)

702-703 TKD [prototype tank] - it had no any special AP (sabot) ammo (it should increase HE by 5).
If we want to keep within facts, they weren't built of armour plates - maybe apart from a gun shield - http://derela.republika.pl/tkw.htm
Two units in the same class are redundant (I guess it was supposed to represent newer camo, which is a vague difference). Since a whole platoon of these vehicles was actually used for experiments and training (and even a reclaiming of Zaolzie province), I suggest to change class of unit 703 to 39 SP-gun, make it available in 5/32-3/39 (before the war only) and create a formation of two vehicles like "Prot. SPG Plt" or "Exp. SPG Plt" (until 9/39).
Unit 702 should be available then in 5/32 to 9/39.

704 TKD - there was no vehicle with 47mm Vickers gun, BUT it should be changed to actually used in combat TKS-D prototype, with #13 37mm wz.36 L45 gun, ammo: 68 rounds in total, crew 4, available 4/37-9/39, class 39 SP-gun, photo 29799.

715 220mm Battery - radio should be definitely 91, not 92 - it was a siege artillery of very dubious usefulness, rarely met in field.

725, 726 3in Mortar - photo should be 601 instead of a generic Soviet one.

[Pibwl]

730 DMntd Troopers, 731 Cavalry Squad - armament should be short #144 wz.29 carbine instead of long rifle ("wz.29 rifle" wasn't existing BTW).

But I've noticed another problem: #144 wz.29 carbine and #173 wz.98 carbine (600mm barrel) have correct lower range 8, than #178 wz.98 rifle (740 mm barrel). But currently they are handicapped against other nations, because German Kar.98k had the same 600mm barrel, SMLE had 640 mm, M1 Garand had 610 mm, and they all have range 10.

I don't think, that a range of these well-established rifles should be reduced, so maybe these carbines should have range 10, and a range of long rifles should be increased to 12? (like LMGs, which had barrels around 600mm BTW)

It concerns also weapons like: #112 8mm Lebel (800mm), Soviet OOB Mosin M91/30 (730mm), French OOB 231 Mle 16 Rifle (800mm).
Soviet OOB carbines 144, 178 have range 8, but they had only 508mm barrel.


736, 737 Bicycle Squad - armament as above

793, 796 Bren Carrier, Ammo Carrier - armament should be probably Bren, if they deserve MG armament at all (793 is used only by mortar section). In other case, it should be .303 rifle, or SMG.

[zastava128]

About the rifle/carbine ranges - I'm pretty sure this was standardized a few versions back. I remember the 8mm Lebel rifle used to have range 600m in an older version of WinSPWW2, for example.

If I understood correctly, the rifle names are for flavour only. Partially for balance reasons, and partially since, on the scale of this game, any differences are negligible. There's even been talk of replacing them all with just a generic "rifle" weapon (like it was in the original Steel Panthers games).

I'm not necessarily against your suggestion, but the above mentioned factors should be considered. In WinSPMBT a difference of 100m in rifle ranges (assault vs. battle rifle) can make a big difference. Now imagine if Soviet rifle squads had a 100m longer range than the German ones - it would make a *big* difference in gameplay.

[DRG]

All I can say politely about post #74 is I will refrain from commenting further and I'm going to ignore most of what was written there. There comes a point when I just have to say ENOUGH. ..........Are we REALLY having a discussion about rifle barrel lengths in a brigade level game ? What I'm going to do is rename both wz.29's in the game "Kbk wz.29" and make the range 10 for both. I am not removing either as it would mean re-issuing every scenario . This is a prime example of the type of nitpicking that is makes us both wonder why we bother anymore

as for the 793, 796 Bren Carrier, Ammo Carrier issue I suspect that is the result of a cut and paste " error" when it was copied from the Brit OOB......same weapon numbers

Tell me.. Is there ANYTHING in Blazej's OOB that you HAVE NOT asked for a change ?

[Pibwl]

702-703 TKD [prototype tank] - ...
I suggest to change class of unit 703 to 39 SP-gun, make it available in 5/32-3/39 (before the war only) and create a formation of two vehicles like "Prot. SPG Plt" or "Exp. SPG Plt" (until 9/39).
...

704 TKD - there was no vehicle with 47mm Vickers gun, BUT it should be changed to actually used in combat TKS-D prototype, with #13 37mm wz.36 L45 gun, ammo: 68 rounds in total, crew 4, available 4/37-9/39, class 39 SP-gun, photo 29799.


Better class would be 139 Self propelled gun, so it is farther in armour purchase screen, as an experimental formation.

Although a name TKS-D is commonly used in books, but it seems, that a form TK-SD was more original (BTW: newer publications claim, that a tankette TKS was in fact written as TK-S in documents, so unit 426 might be changed).

Flamethrowers:

- There should be added infantry flamethrower units in 1930-39, class eg. 170 (there's no units in this class before 1940).
A flamethrower section reportedly had 7 men, with two #93 flamethrowers, carbines and probably grenades. Unit 500 may serve as a pattern, but I'll attach a photo of Polish FT's.

A section should be used in a flamethrower squad of 3 sections. A single section might be a formation as well.

- There should be also added flamethrower units of Warsaw Uprising, in 8/44-9/44 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_pattern_flamethrower)
A section should consist of 4 men, with pistols and one FT. Good and unused class seems 235 Partisan pioneer.
It should be used in single sections rather.

[Pibwl]

All I can say politely about post #74 is I will refrain from commenting further and I'm going to ignore most of what was written there. There comes a point when I just have to say ENOUGH. ..........Are we REALLY having a discussion about rifle barrel lengths in a brigade level game ?


No, but then #144 wz.29 carbine and #173 wz.98 carbine should have range 10, like Kar.98k. The difference between carbine and rifle will be only in names then. BTW: I'm not enthusiast of multiplying rifles in the game, and it wasn't my idea.


Tell me.. Is there ANYTHING in Blazej's OOB that you HAVE NOT asked for a change ?

I guess there are a few things. I agree, that some of my suggestions are minor tweaks, maybe not necessary, but improving accuracy anyhow. But, as you have seen, some were more serious issues. At least we are through with units, and they are really thoroughly verified and there shouldn't be problems with them in the future.

(I must remark, that infantry still needs a closer examination, but I'm reluctant to do this as well - I think I'll leave it for a next season)

Regards
Michal

[DRG]

#144 wz.29 carbine and #173 wz.98 carbine should have range 10, like kar.98k.


they do now

[DRG]

Flamethrowers:

- There should be added infantry flamethrower units in 1930-39, class eg. 170 (there's no units in this class before 1940).
A flamethrower section reportedly had 7 men, with two #93 flamethrowers, carbines and probably grenades. Unit 500 may serve as a pattern, but I'll attach a photo of Polish FT's.

A section should be used in a flamethrower squad of 3 sections. A single section might be a formation as well.
.

#93 flamethrowers ??? what is this ?? A flamethrower is universally the same in the game so any pre 1940 unit would use the same weapons as unit 500 and they will be the same unitclass and they will be available through the Engineer Pl

[DRG]

The flamethrowers are in. I'm surprised there wasn't an FT unit in the game pre 1940

[PvtJoker]

About the rifle/carbine ranges - I'm pretty sure this was standardized a few versions back. I remember the 8mm Lebel rifle used to have range 600m in an older version of WinSPWW2, for example.

I'm not necessarily against your suggestion, but the above mentioned factors should be considered. In WinSPMBT a difference of 100m in rifle ranges (assault vs. battle rifle) can make a big difference. Now imagine if Soviet rifle squads had a 100m longer range than the German ones - it would make a *big* difference in gameplay.

I think the crux of the matter is what is a rifle and what is a carbine and how do they actually differ. Carbines which fire normal full-power rifle cartridges had roughly the same effective range as full-length infantry rifles. Both are highly lethal to 1000+ meters and able to deliver suppressive area fire up to 600 meters at least. However, once LMGs became common, firing at such long ranges was usually (but not always) left to them and to specialized sniper and marksmen (Mind you, in WW1 and even WW2 those guys used normal infantry rifles and sometimes did not even have any special optical sights. They were just better shooters and perhaps had a better vision than the average rifleman.)

Any accuracy differences were more due to the user not being able to see his target and hit it at long ranges with just iron sights. If some difference has to be modeled in the game, then instead of giving the long barrel rifles a longer range, they should have slightly higher accuracy than carbines. That would better represent any inherent differences between them.

No, I am not suggesting this should be implemented in the game now, later or never. It's just what my reading, minimal experience in shooting rifles and talking to more experienced shooters of infantry personal weapons have made me think about the matter. Food for thought, if you will, nothing more.

[Pibwl]

#93 flamethrowers ??? what is this ?? A flamethrower is universally the same in the game so any pre 1940 unit would use the same weapons as unit 500 and they will be the same unitclass and they will be available through the Engineer Pl

Sorry, it was supposed to be #83.

But they shouldn't be the same class IMO, because in 1939 we have #326 Enginer Sqd of class 140, while flamethrowers were used in separate flamethrower platoons, not in engineer squads.


...However, once LMGs became common, firing at such long ranges was usually (but not always) left to them and to specialized sniper and marksmen (Mind you, in WW1 and even WW2 those guys used normal infantry rifles and sometimes did not even have any special optical sights. They were just better shooters and perhaps had a better vision than the average rifleman.)


...and usually they had specially selected rifles, with best accuracy.

[Pibwl]

...while flamethrowers were used in separate flamethrower platoons, not in engineer squads.

I'd like to precise it: I proposed to create a section, and 3 sections should be a squad (platoon-level in the game). A platoon consisted of 3 squads, but I don't think it's useful to create such big FT units.

[Pibwl]

I'm surprised there wasn't an FT unit in the game pre 1940

There were rare in the Polish Army, so they are usually overlooked - maybe it's because.

I'm attaching proposed pictures, and several improved ones - you might decide, if they're better enough (armoured cars have correct proportions on my pics).

Michał

[DRG]

...while flamethrowers were used in separate flamethrower platoons, not in engineer squads.

I'd like to precise it: I proposed to create a section, and 3 sections should be a squad (platoon-level in the game). A platoon consisted of 3 squads, but I don't think it's useful to create such big FT units.




OK fine....... in the pre 1940 Polish army flamethrowers were not only rare but organized in separate flamethrower platoons, not in engineer squads.

Consider this.......... if I set them up the way you want to set them up the AI will never use them and if I set them up the way I am going to set them up the AI will, occasionally, buy a team and actually use them in the game which is better than making them a human only formation simply because the "official" TO&E says they were used " in separate flamethrower platoons". If I make them part of the engineer organization ( Like they are in virtually all the other OOB's in both games ) the AI will use them AND they will be available to the human player which is the better solution to the issue..........BECAUSE......this is a game

Don

[DRG]

I'm attaching proposed pictures, and several improved ones - you might decide, if they're better enough (armoured cars have correct proportions on my pics).

Michał

I'm not sure which graphics program you use to create your photos but does it give you the option of choosing either colour matching or error diffusion dithering when you apply the pic palette with it ?


Also, the game does not like non standard sizes and pm29522_wz34_Image4.lbm is only 159 wide. I have corrected it but it saves me a lot of time I don't have much to spare when I don't have to check everything


Don

[DRG]

Just do like to mention about subject of horse carts with Machine-gun called Taczanka. ...
...Around 1928 standardisations happens and first model Taczanka wz.1928 was created with german maxim 1908 HMG was build icon for such type is 3491 they was equipped in three horses and can keep the speed of cavalry units but wasn't prepared for AA shooting.

Indeed, if there's an icon, it's worth to add earlier model of taczanka, with wz.08 MG, available in 1/30-9/39, with radio 01. But, probably, its wz.08 MG should be AAMG as well. It isn't written directly, but according to a new booklet on Polish Maxims, a cavalry mount for wz.08 HMG, taken from the Schwarzlose, "enabled quick conversion for AA fire", comparing with MG-08 sledge mount. Probably there was an additional mast mounted (it could be mounted on some Polish trucks, carts and even horse wagons). I'll attach a photo of early taczanka.

Then, unit 548 Taczanka, apart from icon 3492, should be available from 1/36.
There could be "wz.28" or "wz.36" added to names, but it's not necessary IMO.



Could you please clearly explain what it is you want me to do here .

What point would there be in having one start 1/30 and another start 1/36 if the MG.08 is a AAMG ? There is no purpose to having 2


Don

[PvtJoker]

Indeed, if there's an icon, it's worth to add earlier model of taczanka, with wz.08 MG, available in 1/30-9/39, with radio 01. But, probably, its wz.08 MG should be AAMG as well. It isn't written directly, but according to a new booklet on Polish Maxims, a cavalry mount for wz.08 HMG, taken from the Schwarzlose, "enabled quick conversion for AA fire", comparing with MG-08 sledge mount. Probably there was an additional mast mounted (it could be mounted on some Polish trucks, carts and even horse wagons). I'll attach a photo of early taczanka.

Then, unit 548 Taczanka, apart from icon 3492, should be available from 1/36.
There could be "wz.28" or "wz.36" added to names, but it's not necessary IMO.



Could you please clearly explain what it is you want me to do here .

What point would there be in having one start 1/30 and another start 1/36 if the MG.08 is a AAMG ? There is no purpose to having 2
Don

If it was an AAMG or not does not really depend solely on the mount, but on whether AA sights were provided or not. Hitting aerial targets of faster than 100 km/h with ground sights is pretty much hopeless. Tracers help a little, but still aligning the target without the reference points provided by an AA sight is very difficult. Adjusting lead without speed rings is extremely hard as well (even a single ring is much better than none). Ring and bead sights were certainly crude, but much better than nothing. Hitting a fast moving aerial target without an AA sight would be like hitting a ground target with a rifle at 25+ meters without using the sights (Rambo style :D). Except more difficult.

[DRG]

Which does not answer the question. There is a 08 as an AAMG in the OOB now so why would I need a second Taczanka in 1936. Michal posted, let him answer

[PvtJoker]

Which does not answer the question. There is a 08 as an AAMG in the OOB now so why would I need a second Taczanka in 1936. Michal posted, let him answer

Sorry, I just stick my nose everywhere :angel

Seriously, I just wanted to point out that an MG on a high mount is really not yet a proper AAMG. For sure you could shoot at aircraft with one, but it would have been more for psychological reasons than in any real hope of hitting or even significantly harassing the aircraft.

[Mobhack]

Which does not answer the question. There is a 08 as an AAMG in the OOB now so why would I need a second Taczanka in 1936. Michal posted, let him answer

Sorry, I just stick my nose everywhere :angel

Seriously, I just wanted to point out that an MG on a high mount is really not yet a proper AAMG. For sure you could shoot at aircraft with one, but it would have been more for psychological reasons than in any real hope of hitting or even significantly harassing the aircraft.

Which is all any tank commander's AAMG is in the game, so that is what it will be treated as. Especially since it is now built into the AI pick list in the AA section for that period and I don't want to change that.

Andy

[DRG]

Seriously, I just wanted to point out that an MG on a high mount is really not yet a proper AAMG. For sure you could shoot at aircraft with one, but it would have been more for psychological reasons than in any real hope of hitting or even significantly harassing the aircraft.
<!-- / message -->

Michal already said the weapon was set up to "enabled quick conversion for AA fire" and that would presuppose it was AA capable....... now can we PLEASE wait for an answer from the guy who posted the info ? All I want to know is why I should have two of these units when one seems to cover everything with the new icon and a AA capable 08 MG

[PvtJoker]

Which is all any tank commander's AAMG is in the game, so that is what it will be treated as. Especially since it is now built into the AI pick list in the AA section for that period and I don't want to change that.

Andy
Actually, the commander's machine gun was practically always provided with a simple ring AA sight in WW2, either flip-up or detachable one depending on the weapon. US tankers usually did not have them on after North Africa and Sicily, since they faced decreasing air threat, but they were still part of standard equipment.

[Pibwl]

Indeed, if there's an icon, it's worth to add earlier model of taczanka, with wz.08 MG, available in 1/30-9/39, with radio 01. But, probably, its wz.08 MG should be AAMG as well.
...

Then, unit 548 Taczanka, apart from icon 3492, should be available from 1/36.
There could be "wz.28" or "wz.36" added to names, but it's not necessary IMO.


Could you please clearly explain what it is you want me to do here .

What point would there be in having one start 1/30 and another start 1/36 if the MG.08 is a AAMG ? There is no purpose to having 2


Earlier taczanka (wz.28) should be armed with wz.08 AAMG, later one (wz.36) - with new standard wz.30 AAMG (both weapons should be added). Yes, both could be fitted with detachable AA sights. Firstly I didn't suggest creating the second tankette, but since we have beautiful true icons for both, they shouldn't be wasted :)

As for flamethrowers: personally, I would vote to have them in human-only units. There were few flamethrower platoons on a front, so the Germans had little chance to meet them.



I'm not sure which graphics program you use to create your photos but does it give you the option of choosing either colour matching or error diffusion dithering when you apply the pic palette with it ?


I've never checked this option - which one should I use?



Also, the game does not like non standard sizes and pm29522_wz34_Image4.lbm is only 159 wide. I have corrected it but it saves me a lot of time I don't have much to spare when I don't have to check everything

I must have cropped too much - sorry.

Michal

[DRG]

Earlier taczanka (wz.28) should be armed with wz.08 AAMG, later one (wz.36) - with new standard wz.30 AAMG (both weapons should be added). Yes, both could be fitted with detachable AA sights. Firstly I didn't suggest creating the second tankette, but since we have beautiful true icons for both, they shouldn't be wasted :)

Done



I'm not sure which graphics program you use to create your photos but does it give you the option of choosing either colour matching or error diffusion dithering when you apply the pic palette with it ?


I've never checked this option - which one should I use?


If possible use diffusion dithering. It smooths the transition better between colours / tones for photos with a limited palette.

like this...... the dithering version is on the right. Less blocky in the background ( this was enlarged 2x for clarity )

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=12702&stc=1&d=1384112668

I rarely use colour matching anymore though occasionally a photo turns out better using colour matching 99% are now done using the dithering option

[Pibwl]

Unit 668 Wz.29 - with a change to Ursus armoured truck, better icon would be 1373, with wide rear compartment (of M-H AC)

Unit 415 40mm AA-Gun - in fact they were used from mid-36 only - there were no light AA guns before at all (I don't know how about a pick list - if there's a need to keep Flak all the time, there might be created 7.92mm wz.08 AAMG in this class)
If the date is changed, it needs changes in formations 075, 076 (there didn't exist such special mixed platoons and they are better removed BTW), 328, 329, 330


Units worth to add:

- C2P light tractor - like unit 428 C7P tractor, but icon 2753, picture 29484 (29485 shows a prototype), carry=110 (in fact 3 soldiers), speed 15, size 2, radio=0, no armour (the same for C7P as well), used from 7/37

They should be used in formations 328, 330 AA-Gun Pl (M) (before their advent there will be other tractors or limber)

- 75mm De Dion - 75mm SPAA gun, used sometimes against tanks - like eg. unit 057 3RO 90L53 in Italian oob, but: photo 29868, green icon 342, available 1/30-9/39. Should be fitted with engine hood armour and gun's forward shield.
Armament should be 75mm wz.18/24 AAG (to be added), with specifications like 033 75mm wz.97 FG. In fact it carried no AP ammo, but several tanks were destroyed with HE. 180 rounds of ammo were carried by ammunition truck in fact. Possibly class 52 SP-AT vehicle will be better.

There should be added formations: 2 vehicle platoon and 4 vehicle battery.

- partisan HMGs, used mostly during a Warsaw Uprising (8-9/44), but also in some partisan skirmishes since 11/39 until the end. Possibly they should be separated from 04 Machine gun class, and create units with one HMG only (eg. class 193 MG unit?).
There should be: wz.30 HMG (11/39-end, real Warsaw Uprising photo 29365), MG-34 (some 1941-end), Soviet Maxim (1944-end, weapon #122 if it hasn't been chaned)


Formations (only few changes):

121, 122 Marine ATR, Marine ATR Co - there were no such big AT rifle units in (so-called) Marines - formations to be removed. ATR in unit 216 should be enough.

153 SP-AA Section - better name is SP-AAMG Platoon. In fact there were 3 taczankas in a platoon.

[Pibwl]

When I finally dived into regular infantry formations of 1939, I've found major error, that should not wait until next season. Now, there can't be assembled a correct infantry platoon at all and it's very underpowered.

A platoon in 1930-39 is formation 300 Rifle Platoon, consisting of:
- one class 40 Heavy inf.
- one class 1 Inf.
- one class 64 Medium Inf.

In fact, all three squads were identical.
In both regular and reserve infantry each squad had an LMG. Lacks of LMGs could be encountered only in part of second-line units, like Obrona Narodowa (which is treated separately), and few improvised units, non representative for a bulk of the Polish infantry at all. So, all Rifle units without LMG have no reason to exist.

In reality a platoon had a 5-men HQ section, which included a marksman, in 1939 changed to AT-rifle.
I don't know, if it's better to add AT-rifle to one squad (preferably Heavy infantry class), or to add unit 405 wz.35 AT-Rifle to a platoon of three identical squads. In the first option, we should artificially increase a squad from 19 to 20 men.
In the second option, there should be a different platoon with a marksman, and only after 6/39 it could be replaced with a platoon with AT-rifle (assuming, that all units opened their top-secret only-in-case-of-war boxes). The platoon with a marksman could remain to choose in 1939 also anyway, but the one with AT rifles should be on a pick list.

Besides, 46mm grenade launchers were never used by rifle squads, but were used in a whole GL section with 3 GLs on a company level (long time ago, when I corrected SP-1, I also thought, that one squad in a platoon should receive a GL, but many things were written since that time).

So, as for Class 40 units:
282 Rifle Squad - with SLR and SMG - was extremely rare (radio should be 3), but it should have LMG.
283 Rifle Squad - without LMG - should be removed
288 Rifle Squad - without LMG, with 46mm GL - to be removed
289 Rifle Squad - without LMG - should be removed
302 Rifle Squad - without LMG, with 46mm GL - to be removed
303 Rifle Squad - the same unit as above with different radio
307 Rifle Squad - early unit with LMG 05/15 and Lebel rifle, available until 1936 - there could be kept an unit with French rifles (rather Berthier) until end of 1934, BUT by the end of 1930 all regular infantry units were given wz.28 LMG instead of 08/15, so it should be changed (BTW, currently it's the only class 40 unit with LMG).

Class 1 units:
284, 300, 306 Rifle Squad - all without LMG - should be removed.

Class 64 units:
285 Rifle Squad - correct one, with LMG and 19 men
301 Rifle Squad - with additional rifle, which does not seem accurate, because a weapon in the 1st slot should be multiplied already.

Apart from a standard unit with wz.98 rifle, wz.28 LMG and some grenades, available in 1930-39, it's worth to keep one with #176 8mm Berthier Rifle and wz.28 LMG, until 12/34 (Lebels were earlier withdrawn from regular infantry, remaining in second-line duties). There also could be created newest squads like 282 Rifle Squad, with radio 3.

There should be created units:
- grenade launcher section with three #220 46mm wz.36 Mrtr and wz.29 carbines, 14 men, from 7/37 to 10/39. Ammo was probably 60 (using a section's cart; crew only carried 20).
- grenade launcher section with three #216 46mm wz.30 Mrtr, available in 2/33-10/39, radio x1 (details and ammo could be the same)
- grenade launcher section with three #218 46mm wz.16 Mrtr, available in 1/30- (say) 12/35. Details and ammo could be the same for simplicity (I have no data), but according to Polish sources, max range should be only 300 m, and it wasn't 46mm (it was a spigot mortar - http://www.bulgarianartillery.it/Bulgarian%20Artillery%201/Granatenwerfer%2016.htm)


A rifle company - formation 301 should have 3 platoons and GL section - and it would be most correct to replace its leading class 51 Light infantry unit with 7-men HQ section, but it probably won't be practical. Or we can assume, that it's a HQ squad gathered of all company logistic support soldiers, wagon drivers and cooks, excluding medical section (it would be 17 men). They should have no LMG indeed.

Regards
Michal

[DRG]

..........on the list and I have not looked into this beyond skimming this post but if the units without the LMG are a problem because they don't have an LMG why not just add the LMG ?? Do do know when you remove units it screws up scenarios?

Also, after saying "Lebels were earlier withdrawn from regular infantry" and asking me to delete about half the infantry units available......WHY is unit #305 not on this list ??


Don

[Pibwl]

I know, that removing these units will screw up scenarios, that's why they should be just renationalized - it should solve problem, and we won't have a plethora of redundant units to choose, differing in addition of an extra rifle.

Adding an LMG to each unit won't be a good idea, because now there are 12 units of three classes, while there should be only 3 or 4 in one or two classes: a standard squad with wz.98 rifle, an early one with Berthier, an experimental one with SLR (radio 3) and maybe a standard squad with ATR.

I didn't mention unit 305, because it is class 51 Light infantry (a company HQ), which I haven't checked yet. Speaking of class 51:
- 286 Rifle Squad - correct, but weapon 144 wz.29 Carbine or 173 wz.98 Carabine (should be Carbine) is more appropriate than rifle
- 286 Rifle Squad - Lebel should be changed to Berthier, and it should end in 1934
- 305 Rifle Squad with two Lebels - redundant, especially, that command sections even had less rifles, than men

A number of men in these units could be easily reduced to around 10, since they were HQ sections, with many specialized and logistic troops, not all of which had rifles and not all were involved in action (apart from necessity).

By the way, as for formation 315 MG Company, which also used Light Infantry: the fourth MG platoon should be on taczankas - so it should be replaced with formation 153 SP-AA Section - which in turn should have three taczankas and be renamed SP-AAMG Platoon.

Speaking of MGs: formation 85 MG Section should be renamed "platoon"

Oh, I forgot: regular infantry squads with Berthier rifles should also have weapon 91 VB Rifle Grnd (with unknown number of ammo, say 10 like unit #287 of 1940)

Michal

[DRG]

As we have said, over and over and over and over ........making a specific unit the HQ section is not a good idea because a human opponent will find and target them, Sure we could make them all 10 men and they will be the first units killed because a 10 man unit stands out like a sore thumb in a group of 19 man units which is why we avoid doing that and we had worked out compromise in unit / formation construction to allow for that but every year someone comes along and wants us to do it "by the book". The only reason I haven't told you to do the work yourself and I'll put the OOB into the game is because I know I'd end up with even more work to do

So you are free to make suggestions but I'm the one who has to make it work and YES, I could re-nationalize those units and have done that in the past but I tend to do that to spread the work over a couple years as re-nationalizing is just a way to delay their inevitable deletion so I will be deleting those units and rebuilding the scenarios............. now wasn't someone going to take a break from force feeding me OOB corrections ? I know you mean well but it's all getting to be a bit much. Your last two posts probably generated three additional days of work., Go Christmas shopping or something......

Don

[DRG]

Speaking of class 51:
- 286 Rifle Squad - correct, but weapon 144 wz.29 Carbine or 173 wz.98 Carabine (should be Carbine) is more appropriate than rifle
- 286 Rifle Squad - Lebel should be changed to Berthier, and it should end in 1934
- 305 Rifle Squad with two Lebels - redundant, especially, that command sections even had less rifles, than men

>
>
>
>

Oh, I forgot: regular infantry squads with Berthier rifles should also have weapon 91 VB Rifle Grnd (with unknown number of ammo, say 10 like unit #287 of 1940)






If you are going to offer suggestions to correct our work then you better start double checking your work so I don't have to guess what you are referring to

Two references to 286 ? Maybe the second one should be 304 ?

unit #287 has 10 rifle grenades because it has 10 men. If it had 12 men there would be 12 rifle grenades

[Pibwl]

If you are going to offer suggestions to correct our work then you better start double checking your work so I don't have to guess what you are referring to

Two references to 286 ? Maybe the second one should be 304 ?

Yes, sir. Sorry, sir. :)


unit #287 has 10 rifle grenades because it has 10 men. If it had 12 men there would be 12 rifle grenades

I don't know, so you can put how many you like - however, not all soldiers had VB launchers.

[Pibwl]

As we have said, over and over and over and over ........making a specific unit the HQ section is not a good idea because a human opponent will find and target them, Sure we could make them all 10 men and they will be the first units killed because a 10 man unit stands out like a sore thumb in a group of 19 man units which is why we avoid doing that and we had worked out compromise in unit / formation construction to allow for that but every year someone comes along and wants us to do it "by the book".

OK. I didn't know that, but anyway it was only a weak suggestion (I wrote, that "it probably won't be practical").


So you are free to make suggestions but I'm the one who has to make it work and YES, I could re-nationalize those units and have done that in the past but I tend to do that to spread the work over a couple years as re-nationalizing is just a way to delay their inevitable deletion so I will be deleting those units and rebuilding the scenarios.

It seems, than in case of infantry, the only problem, when the unit was deleted from OOB, is lack of picture (and lack of data on information screen). The unit still moves and shoots. I agree, that such situations should be avoided, but it doesn't affect playing like removal of a vehicle (IIRC the game takes icon, armour and picture from the OOB).

Anyway, I have an idea: some of infantry units in OOB could be replaced with similar Obrona Narodowa (National Defence - territorial army), which should give them pictures. They existed in a few variants and were less uniform, than regular infantry.

Now we have only units 310 and 311 Obrona Naradowa (should be Narodowa) - class Militia and Militia support (with LMG), used in formation 310 Militia Platoon.

Firstly, according to http://wp39.struktury.net/obrona-narodowa-pluton-strzelecki-batalionu-typu-iii.html there should be 16 men only in a squad (in type II and III battalions, other types had 14-15).
Secondly, ON units were created only in mid-37, earlier they were non existing.
Picture 32134 (like of unit 311) should be used for all, including 310 (it has some insurgents rather).

Apart from these two units, armed with Mauser rifles, there should be created units with more popular Berthier rifles.
In a class Militia there could be created:
- Berthier, grenades (radio 2)
- Berthier, #91 VB, grenades (radio 0)
- wz.98 carbine, wz.28 LMG, grenades (radio=1 - there existed some platoons with LMGs in each squad)
- Berthier, wz.28 LMG, grenades (radio=1)
- #112 Lebel, VB, grenades (radio 1) (optional)

In a class Militia Support there could be:
- Berthier, #95 7.92 wz.08 LMG, VB, grenades (radio 2)

Formation 310 Militia Platoon should have three squads only (one Militia support and two Militia). Maybe a better name is "ON Militia Plt"?

There could be also created ON company, but maybe next year...

As for weapon #95 7.92 wz.08 LMG - correct name is "7.92 08/15 LMG" or "7.92 wz08/15LMG".
Its HEK should be at least 5 - now it's 4, while it had a ROF like all other heavy Maxims - and practical ROF of a belt-fed 08/15 was higher, than of magazine LMGs.
On the other hand, I've just read in a newest book on Polish Maxims, that MG-08/15 was rather inaccurate because of its bipod in a centre of gravity, and water spilling in a radiator along with barrel recoil... Now it has accuracy 23, better then Bren (21) and BAR (17)

BTW: weapon 185 wz.1928 LMG should be better named "7.92 wz.28 LMG"


It is one of last suggestions from my side - I'm not going to review all formations :)

[Pibwl]

As for VB rifle grenades (Polish weapon 91, French weapon 93), their scaled range was 170 m, max range 190 m (detailed Polish page http://www.dws-xip.pl/encyklopedia/grannasvb-fr/) - now it has range 2.

[DRG]

OK, but 9 countries use that weapon not just those two

[Pibwl]

OK, but 9 countries use that weapon not just those two

I hoped, that you have some magic tools to find other OOBs using it, so I haven't checked remaining 41 OOBs, indicating only its "mother" French OOB.

Michal

[Pibwl]

A minor issue: 694 TK-1 and 695 TK-2 have swapped pictures (TK-1 had sprocket wheel at the rear)

[DRG]

...most of these are "minor issues" Michal. The chance that any of these changes is going to affect the outcome of a battle in the game are about as close to zero as you can get. That said this correction will go in along with the rest

[blazejos]

Polish 75mm AA Strachowice gun was found some time ago in artillery museum in Sankt-Petersburg. This gun was captured by Red Army 1939 and is only surviving piece of this equipment now very likely.
http://www.dobroni.pl/rekonstrukcje,polska-armata-przeciwlotnicza-kal-75-mm-wz-36-w-muzeum-artylerii-w-sankt-petersburgu,8019


btw
Will be nice to have this gun inside game. That was AA gun but also with possibility for ground fire and there are stories about using them in Starachowice factory against German advanced tanks. Advancing was stooped and Germans HQ reported strong AT defence. That was probably most mighty polish AT gun when fire against ground target. Icon for that gun is already existing 2815 & 2816 in winter camo

[Pibwl]

...most of these are "minor issues" Michal. The chance that any of these changes is going to affect the outcome of a battle in the game are about as close to zero as you can get.

Well, in early 1930s the Polish infantry, thanks to LMGs and VB grenades can possibly win some battle ;)

I'm attaching a couple of additional or improved pictures.

[DRG]

Let me know if you ever have a squad that lasts long enough to throw all those grenades :)

[blazejos]

Just do like to add some lbms photos of polish KbUr AT-Rifle in Polish German and Italian service

Generally 7.92 Maroszek Kb Urugwaj wz.35 was in service in many nations. Germans captured around 700 of them and using until 1942 they sell them also to Italy and Finish army also buy them together with other ex-polish equipment they were know as 8 mm pst kiv/38 http://www.jaegerplatoon.net/AT_RIFLES2.ht (http://www.jaegerplatoon.net/AT_RIFLES2.htm)m . Soviet also has plenty of this AT rifles captured after 17 of September and used them as is know especially in desperate days of December 1941 in Moscow Defense.

[DRG]

Units 28 and 200 [class Gun tank] should be merged into one IMO. The only difference is, that #200 is available in 6-7/44 and has radio code 0, while #28 is available in 8/44-12/46 and has radio code 1, which is strange, since it should be more popular with time, and there's nothing, that could replace it in Sherman troops.
IMO there should be only unit 28 left, with a radio code 0, available from 6/44 until the end.




No.

The only problem with unit 200 is it has sabot and it only became available 8/44 ( this matches the Brit and canadian OOB ) and that's why unit 200 is there for those two months but ammo hadn't been adjusted. It has now. The AP/Sabot count has been corrected to sync with the Brit and CDN OOBs

Don

[DRG]

Complex suggestions as for formations including Med tanks (post-1939). I hope to make them clear:


375 44 Tank Sqdn
376 44 Tank Troop - available: 06/44-12/45 (OK)

They seem to be on AI pick list in 06/44 - 12/45

Now a troop has 3 tanks and a Firefly, like a British troop. Magnuski writes about three-tank troops INCLUDING a Firefly. He might be wrong, though I can't find a reliable source on British tank troops in 1944 - some web pages say 3 tanks, some 4 tanks.

Such Firefly troops were used by the 1st Arm.Div. in Western Europe in 6/44-10/44, and by the 2nd Arm.Bde. in Italy in 2/45-12/45






"three-tank troops INCLUDING a Firefly"........... including a firefly WHAT ? tank ? Platoon ?. It appears you are saying these should be two tanks plus a firefly instead of 3+1 but it could also be you are saying one of the platoons was pure firefly and therefore there should be three tank platoons plus a firefly platoon

Don

[Pibwl]

Now a troop has 3 tanks and a Firefly, like a British troop. Magnuski writes about three-tank troops INCLUDING a Firefly. He might be wrong, though I can't find a reliable source on British tank troops in 1944 - some web pages say 3 tanks, some 4 tanks.



"three-tank troops INCLUDING a Firefly"........... including a firefly WHAT ? tank ? Platoon ?.

I mean a troop of 2 Shermans and a Firefly. Sorry for not being clear.

[DRG]

It might be noted, that in 11/39 - 2/40 and 7/40 - 10/40 there were no tanks in Polish units available, and in 11/40 - 3/44 Polish tanks were used for training only (in UK and Egypt/Palestine).





Complex suggestions as for formations including Med tanks (post-1939). I hope to make them clear:

-snip
<SNIP>

377 Cruiser Tk Sqdn - Available: 09/42-05/44
378 Cruiser Tk Sqdn - Available: 07/40-08/42
379 Cruiser Tk Trp - Available: 07/40-05/44
- names are not appropriate, for they also use Valentines (even as a template unit). Before 4/44 Polish tanks were used for training,

<SNIP>-snip

<SNIP>

As for period from 11/39 until 12/43, it seems, that the AI buys an allied French or British infantry tank company. It seems quite reasonable, for there were no Polish tank units in field at that time,

<SNIP><SNIP>-snip


Michal

there are now NO Polish armour between, as you say "11/40 - 3/44 Polish tanks were used for training only "

I'm not building training tank formations for Poland. Sorting this all out so it all works at the end is PITA and I am not the least bit interested in doing it again next year so I hope you're happy with what you end up with since you have given me the "Polish tanks were used for training only between 11/40 - 3/44 more than once so that's what you're getting. The AI will be picking allied formations and a human player can pick allied if they need armour during the interm and I'm ripping out everything post the fall of France that isn't used by a line unit starting 4/44.


Don

[Pibwl]

I'm not building training tank formations for Poland. Sorting this all out so it all works at the end is PITA and I am not the least bit interested in doing it again next year so I hope you're happy with what you end up with since you have given me the "Polish tanks were used for training only between 11/40 - 3/44 more than once so that's what you're getting. The AI will be picking allied formations and a human player can pick allied if they need armour during the interm and I'm ripping out everything post the fall of France that isn't used by a line unit starting 4/44.

Don

As you wish, though I can't say I'm happy with it.
I think, that with minor tweaks they could stay - it would be pity to throw all Crusaders, Valentines, Churchills II. In case of invasion on the UK they would have been used... what leads me to a thought, that Canadian Rams should be thrown out for the same reason (BTW: Polish 1st Arm.Div. on Crusaders took part in great manoeuvres against Canadian 4th Arm.Div. on Rams).

Leave Panzer IIIs and M3 Stuarts at least - they were very close to see action in Middle East.

[DRG]

At least you're predictable. I fully expected you to bring up the Ram in the Canadian OOB
"In case of invasion on the UK " you can use the allies button. YOU are the one that repeatedly tells me this or that unit was only used for training or not used leaving formations in tatters........ you asked for it. That's why half the armoured cars are gone and the SP arty.

34 Priest - wasn't used by the Polish
37 Bishop - wasn't used by the Polish

43 Humber Mk IV - for training only
44 Daimler A/C - for training only

All gone, And everything else like that....... gone. What exactly did you expect was going to happen ? That I was going to hunt around finding gaps with things you'll tell me later the Poles didn't have........... that's why all this crap is in there now because previous people who have had to wade through this mess tried to make it work as a continuous set of units and formations with " could have used" units that you are now asking me to remove but this mass of changes you want doesn't allow for that.... Tell me Michal.... did you make the changes to the OOB you ask for as you wrote them down to see how all this would work together ? I doubt it. That's what I'm trying to do now

Captured tanks are a different matter but you need to be VERY CLEAR as to what armoured units saw combat and when. When did the TD's enter combat, the light tanks......... 4/ 44 ??

You tell me " 441 Crusader III - used from 9/42 until some 5/44 in the 1st Arm.Div. (now 4/42 - 4/43) (in training units used even longer "......... which contradicts what you told me that there was NO Polish armour until early 1944...... now you say different. What's the real story here ? It's all fine to write this stuff down but making it work is a different matter. Garbage in , garbage out........... you say no armour until early 1944 then say Crusaders were used from 9/42. Explain this so the poor dumb grunt working 14 hour days on this crap can understand it clearly

Don

[Pibwl]

A revenge for pestering you is sweet, isn't it? ;)

At least you're predictable. I fully expected you to bring up the Ram in the Canadian OOB

I thought about it only after a while, when I thought about Polish troops in Crusaders... :)


"In case of invasion on the UK " you can use the allies button. YOU are the one that repeatedly tells me this or that unit was only used for training or not used leaving formations in tatters........ you asked for it.


But in case of invasion it would be Polish armoured units with tanks with "PL" badge, not the allies.
Well, I wanted to be honest...


You tell me " 441 Crusader III - used from 9/42 until some 5/44 in the 1st Arm.Div. (now 4/42 - 4/43) (in training units used even longer "......... which contradicts what you told me that there was NO Polish armour until early 1944...... now you say different. What's the real story here ? It's all fine to write this stuff down but making it work is a different matter. Garbage in , garbage out........... you say no armour until early 1944 then say Crusaders were used from 9/42. Explain this so the poor dumb grunt working 14 hour days on this crap can understand it clearly


Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but I wrote, that in 7/40 - 10/40 there were no tanks in Polish units available, and in 11/40 - 3/44 Polish tanks were used for training only. So there was no armour in field. Crusaders were used for training yet longer, but I wanted to cut them when real tanks became available.

There was one exception: Carpathian Lancer Regiment took positions in Egypt in 7/42 - 9/42, ready to defend the Nile Delta, and it used PzKpfw-IIIJ and, since 9/42, M3 Stuarts (and Marmon-Herrington and Rolls-Royce ACs).

I have an idea: maybe we could keep all training tanks, like Covenanter, Crusader III, Valentine (all models), Churchill II in one generic category (like "tank") and use them in simple generic formations for a whole period from 11/40?... Please?... For example, they could simply replace existing Infantry tank formations (without bothering with CS tanks).

Matilda I and Mk.VIb would be also desirable, but of minor importance. We could do without Crusader II and IICS. If you want, I can sum it up once again, giving dates of availability for all these tanks.

And the second thing: normal armoured units could be used since 1/44, when the 2nd Armoured Brigade was already deployed in Italy, and combat-ready, using Shermans. It entered combat at Monte Cassino or a bit earlier (4-5/44), but it could have been as well available from 1/44, which BTW gives us a tidy date. The same concerns TDs and light tanks (M5)

Michal

[DRG]

Maybe I wasn't clear enough,


Yeah "maybe"



but I wrote, that in 7/40 - 10/40 there were no tanks in Polish units available, and in 11/40 - 3/44 Polish tanks were used for training only. So there was no armour in field. Crusaders were used for training yet longer, but I wanted to cut them when real tanks became available.
Michal


Then what does this mean ?



Crusader III - used from 9/42 until some 5/44 in the 1st Arm.Div. (now 4/42 - 4/43) (in training units used even longer ".........
since you have confirmed that there were NO polish armoured units in the field between that date I have to wonder why you said the Crusader III was used from 9/42 until some 5/44 in the 1st Arm.Div. .....if the 1st Arm.Div. only existed on paper as a training division

In one of these posts you say



Their structures and weapons should be examined deeply, but maybe next year

:eek: No Michael------- what has happened here this year is NEVER going to be repeated again. If you think I am going to start this all over again with you next year you are very much mistaken. After next release you have a problem with an OOB that takes 65 posts to get through you need to learn how to edit OOB's and submit them to the MODs section and if you issue complete notes and haven't decided to be " creative"....maybe we'll consider adding it to the master game but I am NOT going to wade through the pile of notes I've had to this year again. You want an OOB re-written you are going to be doing the work yourself ( that goes for the Finn as well ) You've made a very impressive tag team this year........ like a feeding frenzy of sharks ....totally out of control this year and if I had time to spot the trend earlier I would have posted this replay back in the summer when you both were just warming up. I have double+ the pages of notes to deal with I normally would and in a "normal" year I struggle to get everything done ...........so ..... if you want an OOB totally re-written.......after next release you are on your own.



Don

[PvtJoker]

( that goes for the Finn as well ) You've made a very impressive tag team this year........ like a feeding frenzy of sharks ....totally out of control this year and if I had time to spot the trend earlier I would have posted this replay back in the summer when you both were just warming up. I have double+ the pages of notes to deal with I normally would and in a "normal" year I struggle to get everything done ...........so ..... if you want an OOB totally re-written.......after next release you are on your own.

Don

I have to object to that, Don. The corrections I suggested for the Finnish OOB hardly qualify as a "rewritten OOB". A large part of them were just small modifications like artillery range adjustments, since off-map arty ranges clearly did not follow the rules given in the Mobhack Guide. Others were stuff like AP penetration data adjustment based on data that the earlier people who worked on the OOB did not have. I suggested a few unit additions as well, but they were just that -- suggestions, nothing more, nothing less.

I could have done all that stuff to a corrected OOB myself, but you have specifically stated that full OOB mods have relatively little chance of ever getting to the game at this point. I thought it would be easier for you and better use of my time to post them as corrections and suggestions list for the official OOBs. For me personally it would be easier just to put make a modified OOB and post it on these forums and let you to sort it out, if you wish, but I wanted others to have the best chances of benefiting from the research I have done knowing that only a small number of people actually use player-contributed OOB mods.

Now, I do appreciate the fact that there has been a lot of stuff going on here since late summer and I have certainly contributed my fair share of that. But as promised, I will not contribute any new OOB stuff until you give the permission and next year I will try to be even more critical of what I post here.

[DRG]

Your "just small modifications" took up most of a week to track down spin off effects in other OOB's. The cumulative affect of all this enthusiasm for "error" correction is me working 12+ hour days just to try to get in front of it before Christmas. It's all well and good to say FH X should be 202 range not 206 but SOMEBODY ( me ) has to track all the other ones in any other OOB and since there has been such enthusiasm for "National naming" I can't just enter 152mm booglegun in to my search engine and expect to find them all because some may be named 15.2cm booglegun ( etc etc ) so they also have to be cross checked by range so one "simple" line can take an hour or more of time.

I have seen me work a full day and only get the equivalent of one page of work done because every item ate up 20X the time to sort out than it did to write down,

The Finn OOB has been through the hands of more Finns than I ever expected to have to deal with and I have no doubt you won't be the last. Michals tearing another Poles OOB apart....... one I thought was in excellent shape ( ditto the Finn ). I doubt there is a unit in that OOB now that hasn't had some effect to it even if it's just a photo or a weapon tweaked and I'm MAYBE 1/3 the way through. I've started work on other OOBs for a few days just for a change of scenery and because I was starting to get a *bit* pi$$ed off about the whole process

You may think you offered a few "suggestions" but anything that any other OOB could use has to be checked as well or I ended up with more error reports down the road and I had thought by now I would be able to cruise through a game work season and actually be able to start thinking about adding something new to the game but that idea went out the window a month ago. Between WW2 and MBT I have 249 pages of "errors" and "suggestions" and I am just past halfway through them and that is only because I get up in the morning and work 12+ hours then start again the next day. Some "retirement"

The problem with people making their own changes is they only do one OOB and we end up right back to the problem we started with and most years I end up with 100 or so pages but this year...... this year has just totally spun out of control with WW2 ( do you guys ever actually play the game or just troll through the OOB's for something to do ? ) and there's also a major rewrite going on with an OOB in MBT as well but that has been farmed out and I hope it's going to turn out well. What I do know is there will be a huge number of re-issued scenarios but those always get done last, after I have locked down the OOB's and that's a half weeks worth of work

Don

[PvtJoker]

since there has been such enthusiasm for "National naming" I can't just enter 152mm booglegun in to my search engine and expect to find them all because some may be named 15.2cm booglegun ( etc etc ) so they also have to be cross checked by range so one "simple" line can take an hour or more of time.

The Finn OOB has been through the hands of more Finns than I ever expected to have to deal with and I have no doubt you won't be the last. Michals tearing another Poles OOB apart....... one I thought was in excellent shape ( ditto the Finn ).

You may think you offered a few "suggestions" but anything that any other OOB could use has to be checked as well or I ended up with more error reports down the road and I had thought by now I would be able to cruise through a game work season and actually be able to start thinking about adding something new to the game but that idea went out the window a month ago. Between WW2 and MBT I have 249 pages of "errors" and "suggestions" and I am just past halfway through them and that is only because I get up in the morning and work 12+ hours then start again the next day. Some "retirement"

The problem with people making their own changes is they only do one OOB and we end up right back to the problem we started with and most years I end up with 100 or so pages but this year...... this year has just totally spun out of control with WW2 ( do you guys ever actually play the game or just troll through the OOB's for something to do ? )

Don

I don't know who originally thought about using national names for weapons and units, but since they are already used, I thought they should be used consistently and correctly whenever possible. The genie is already out of the bottle, so to say, and the only way to fix it would be to eradicate all national naming in all OOBs so that everything is named according to the country of origin. I have actually nothing against such a move, personally, as long as it doesn't mean going back to completely generic SP1 style naming. In many ways using the original name would be easier for the players as well.

As for the Finnish OOB, it actually was in pretty good shape as far as the things most people care about were, namely tanks and infantry. Artillery does not interest people so much and that's where the "errors" mostly lied. On the other hand I have a special interest in artillery and AAA stuff. Then some of the corrections were based on data that the earlier Finns probably did not have, since Jaeger Platoon site did not have it yet. There's stuff there that isn't available in any secondary sources, or if it was, the books are long out of print.

Still, if I had known how much stress this would put on you, I would have been more critical of what I post here. I have a great respect for the fact that you still update this game after more than 10 years, and yes, I do play it, although admittedly I would have time to play it more, if I didn't care about the OOB stuff at all.

[DRG]

Here's an example of information that while accurate, has only limited game application

Weapon 103 203mm H 17 Hwtz: max. range only 11,200 meters (201).

It had been 209. A gun with a range of 11,200 meters would be 12,248 yards and that would only translate to 202 and the ONLY time any of that is of any use to the game is when there is off map counter battery fire and that whole routine is a simple abstraction because that's all it needs to be. Where did 209 come from ? I have no idea. It could have been a bad source, it could have been a cut and paste error, it could have been a number of things but when things like that are reported the only way to prevent " Hey what's up with this ?. The Rurristani gun has 8 more range then the Fredonia version" is if I track them all down and that takes time when one is named 143mm H-23 and another is named 14.3cm H/23 and another is named 5.6in M1923. That's only a slight exaggeration and that's just the way it is and why I have tricks to find things but that depends mainly on the info in each OOB being more or less the same kind of wrong.

Last night I spent 3 hours sorting though one short error report that had me checking the HEpen for every gun in SPWW2 and finding far more non "standard" number than the original complaint suggested there may be and that has generated a note to run the same check on SPMBT where there are 3x more OOB's to be wrong and I figure it may have taken 5 minutes to issue an error report ( and it's valid otherwise I would have just ignored it ) and that spun into 3 hours work in one game and I hope it won't turn into 9 hours work in the other but .......... BUT........... most of this will never really impact game play to any degree that battles are won and lost because an artillery unit has one less HEPen than it should. But it is an error I want eliminated because one day I hope to get to a point where OOB work isn't all I do between October and March. This year was the games "Katrina"

Minor point but in MOBHack help this.....

Each kilometre over 10km adds "1" to the range.
•10km - 11.4km = 201
•11.5 - 12.4 = 202
•12.5 - 13.4 = 203

should read ( and will with the next patch )

Each kilometre over 10km adds "1" to the range.
•9.5 km - 10.4km = 200
•10.5 - 11.4 = 201
•11.5 - 12.4 = 202
•12.5 - 13.4 = 203


Don

[Pibwl]

Crusader III - used from 9/42 until some 5/44 in the 1st Arm.Div. (now 4/42 - 4/43) (in training units used even longer ".........
since you have confirmed that there were NO polish armoured units in the field between that date I have to wonder why you said the Crusader III was used from 9/42 until some 5/44 in the 1st Arm.Div. .....if the 1st Arm.Div. only existed on paper as a training division


I thought it was simple: the division was formed around 1942 and until a deployment in France 1944 it trained in the UK, using mostly Crusaders (it didn't exist on paper only). It's your decision, but we have examples of tank units existing even though their country did not fight with tanks at the moment - and we have also prototypes in some oobs, which also didn't fight, and are only an option to a player. I believe, that training tanks should be available, in one, simple formation pattern, for those, who'd like to play purely hypothetical battles. Should we delete also infantry in periods, when the Polish army didn't actually fight on any front?


I'm sorry that I wasted your time - and wasted mine, trying to rework large, but in many places inaccurate (and in several - seriously inaccurate) Polish OOB. I confess, that by the way I've also indicated minor issues, that I've spotted, to make it more perfect. I thought, that this year I started early enough...

A proposal about me correcting an OOB with complete notes is interesting - but we all wish it was earlier...

Michal

[DRG]

Where did I say you wasted my time ? I'm trying to get this mess sorted out so I don't have to go though phase 2 next year. You are the one telling me the units that we put in to fill gaps weren't used....... OK, expect gaps then

What you should have done is contacted Blazej and worked with him to correct it , his name IS on the OOB and I would expect there would be few communication problems. I would have happily accepted an OOB from him as he's been down that road with me before, but I'm already too deep for that now


Don

[DRG]

408 CKM wz.25 Pl - it should be original 8mm wz.14 Hotchkiss rather (there were still 2600 wz.14 in 1939 and only 1200 of wz.25, half of them as TMGs).

Weapon #121 should have kill=5 like weapon #100 and should be named 8mm wz.25 HMG (or MMG - though in Poland all were classified as "heavy"). BTW, kill 7 of wz.28 MMG is not justified.




Michal........perhaps you could explain why on one hand you are telling me that unit 408 should be the " original 8mm wz.14 Hotchkiss " then in the next line tell me to change weapon 121 to 8mm wz.25 HMG when unit 408 is the only unit weapon 121 is used in ?

[Pibwl]

I must have done it in case wz.25 MMG isn't removed - or I didn't check the users, only indicated what's wrong with this weapon...

edit: I probably made a mistake - it should be naturally 8mm wz.14, not wz.25. Sorry.

Unfortunately, the issue of Hotchkisses MMG in 1939 isn't well researched (and only in March there is announced a new book on the subject). What is sure is, that:
1) Hotchkiss was least popular MMG in 1939 (after wz.30 and Maxim wz.08), used probably only by some of second line Obrona Narodowa units and some militia,
2) wz.25 was less popular, than wz.14 (apart from TMG use).

BTW: the only #690 Renault NC-27 was armed with #12 37mm wz.18 L21, not TMG (ammo load like FT-17?).

Michal

[Pibwl]

I've managed to find a decent photo of Polish pre-war 81mm mortar.

Current photo pm30563 shows probably a British one, judging from helmets, although it's hard to say. If you don't find it useful, skip it.

[Pibwl]

Sorry to bother you, but I've fought about one addition. There are reports of using molotov cocktails in 9/39 - both by civilian volunteers (eg. during a defence of Grodno against the Red Army) and in rare cases by troops. However, I have no idea how to implement it, since it wasn't standard issue (it might be similar to other countries).
I think, that there might be squads of several men, maybe armed with pistols (volunteer tank hunter militia) - and maybe an infantry squad with molotovs and rarity 1 or 3.

Michal

[blazejos]

I also heard about using Molotov cocktails in 1939 btw. they were invented during Spanish civil war.

according to this discussion http://www.historycy.org/index.php?showtopic=34280 unfortunately in polish only but I try wrote summary here they were use rather in second part of September campaign when situation start to be more desperate. They were use against soviet and German tank especially in town fighting examples Grodno, Wilno, Białystok, Pińsk, Kowel. Is know story about 2psk (Wołyńska BK)[cavalry brigade] in 3/4 of September during fight near Kamieńsk use this bootless. They destroy 30 tanks and 16 cars from 1DPanc. gen. Hans Schmidt. 49 Huculski (Mountain infantry) destroy many vehicles from SS "Germania" with use of Molotov in last days of September. In book about Army "Prusy" on page 123 there is info about infantry company equipped with Molotov against tanks. In 9th of September Polish high command release instruction for fighting with tanks. There are mentioned IED build from mines and bootless with fuel. In book "Wojna Polsko-Sowiecka 1939", s. 89 was mentioned that in 11th before soviets starts war companies on eastern border in that area has a training in use of Molotov against tanks based on experience from first days of war. There is also story from Army "Pomorze" that they use such Bootle's when they spend all grenades they were use in defence of Koronowo near Bydgoszcz in 2th of September. I can said that Molotov wasn't standard equipment of polish pre-war units but they start to be used more intensive during September as campaign progress. I also herd that soviets tanks in 17th because they progress so fast often they attacking without infantry in narrow streets of towns in eastern Poland often were welcomed with Molotov's falling from windows on their engines.