.com.unity Forums
  The Official e-Store of Shrapnel Games

This Month's Specials

Salvo! - Save $5.00
World Supremacy - Save $5.00

   







Go Back   .com.unity Forums > The Camo Workshop > WinSPWW2 > TO&Es
Notices


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 21st, 2017, 08:10 AM

Kiwikkiwik Kiwikkiwik is offline
Corporal
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 52
Thanks: 3
Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts
Kiwikkiwik is on a distinguished road
Default Carriers

According to the Osprey New Vanguard book universal carrier 1936-48.
Bren carriers should have a carrying capacity of 2 not 6 and a crew of 1 not 2.
Universal carrier Mk I have a carry capacity of or 2 not 6, and a crew of 1 not 2.
Universal carrier Mk II have a carry capacity of or 3 not 6, and a crew of 1 not 2.
There wass no space for extra men!
Universal Mk I could carry one extra man in the second rear compartment if their was nothing in it, but had a total complement of 3 men same as the Bren carrier wich it replaced.
http://ww2talk.com/index.php?threads/armour.23819/
The bigger T16, Loyd and Windsor carriers were largely if not completely used as gun tractors or cargo carriers.

The book lists the differences between the Universal carrier Mark I and Mark II, it says The Mark II has a crew of 4, two in the front and two in the rear of the Hull, one either side.
http://www.perthregiment.org/rperth13.html Shows the TOE/OOB and of a carrier platoon and the tactical deployment of a carrier section. 4 men in total per carrier.
A google seach of -universal carrier layout- shows a lot of the interior space is taken up by various equipment.


Changes needed to conform to this;
Great Britian OOB
The scout carrier was for assault and meant to operate with the 3 men inside, having a front mounted AT gun and centrally mounted Bren, it takes all 3 crew to drive and operate the 2 weapons so this vehicle should have a crew of 3 and carry capacity of 0.
Using Bren or universal carriers Mk I;
Formation 045, Carrier section should have 2 AT rifle teams removed and one Mech support removed. Only 1 AT rifle was carried in each carrier section of 3 vehicles.
Formation 367, Carrier patrol should have one patrol removed and the remaining two patrols changed from 4 to 2 men.
Formation 139 Tnk Regt HQ Sqn could have the Bren carriers removed as a choice, as far as I can find out they only used the scout carrier, the games unit 284 boys carrier.
Also as far as I can find out, unit 284 boys carrier shouldnt be offered in formations 045 367 and 330 unless placed in as the third AT rifle armed carrier in the carrier section and then the AT rifle team could be removed.
Formation 330 mech patrol uses unit 453 Bren carrier this unit has 2 Bren guns, but very likely had only one Bren gun wich could be mounted in the front or on the AA mount mid vehicle, as a 3 man vehicle there is not enough crew to service two Bren guns, drive and have a dismountable team. The carried mech support squad and Heavy mech infantry should be 2 man teams not 3 and 4 man teams.
In 1942 the universal carrier MK II arrives wich has 4 seats.
To cover the Bren, scout and universal carrier formations over the entire war, formations 045 and 367 could be used until 1942/43 and then discontinued and formation 330 begun in 1942. Formation 330 would then have the right number of men in the mech support squad and only one extra man in the Heavy mech infantry team.

The book above says this about experiments testing the mounting of a PIAT in a carrier.
-Extended trials revealed that ... it was impossible to keep the projectile in place. It became dislodged and potentially lethal at the first bump.-
If the PIAT is to be loaded just prior to action then cocking the weapon reqired the user to stand upright, or sit with his legs straight requiring him to most likely leave the vehicle entirely.
So maybe unit 456 PIAT carrier should be replaced with Bren carrier carrying a PIAT team?

Unit 132 HMG carrier should probably have a carry capacity of 0, crew 4
Unit 110 carrier OP was unarmed it has a Bren gun in the game. The port was changed to support binoculars instead of a Bren.
Unit 051 loyd carrier was unarmed it has a Bren gun in the game. Loyd carrier has room for 7-8 possibly 10 not 12 people. It was mainly used for towing guns etc, rarely if ever as an armoured personal carrier. Crew should be 1
Unit 289 mortar carrier, I cant find any evidence that this vehicle had a Bren gun. Bren maybe should be removed.

Canadian OOB
Formation 098 carrier platoon is good. The Bren carriers carrying the 3 inch mortars should have the Bren guns removed.
Formation 330 Mech patrol is good if it starts in 42/43 (that is has 4 seat universal mkIIs instead of earlier 3 seaters) and moves from a 4 to a 3 man mech support squad.
Formation 170 206 233 inf recce sqdn, recce sqdn, road patrol should have the Bren carriers? removed as a utility vehicle as they cant carry 5 men plus crew. Or change the passenger squads from 5 to 2 men, crew from 2 to 1.
Unit 110 Carrier OP should be unarmed.
Unit 132 HMG carrier should have vickers gun only, the Bren gun should be removed. carry capacity of 0, crew 4
Unit 294 Gun carrier, loyd carrier? shouldnt have a Bren MG. Carry capacity of 7-8 not 10. Crew should be 1
Unit 110/132 should have carry capacity of 0, unit 133/284/363 should have a carry capacity of 2, crew of 1.
Unit 051 Universal? carrier mk II has wrong name or picture, picture is Loyd, carry capacity is 10 could be 7-8. If its a Bren carrier Mk II Carry capacity should be 3.
All carriers that carry a dismountable squad should have a crew of 1 not 2

Australian/New Zealand OOB
Formation 081/86 carrier platoon, carrier section, scout/patrol should be 2 men not 4, or 3 men instead of 4 for the mk II after 42. crew 1.
Pair of 81mm mortars should be removed as an alternative to the 2 inch mortar.
Formation 330 Mech patrol, As this unit starts in 11/42 it can have the 4 seater Bren carrier MK II, so its good except for Mech patrol and LMG group should be 3 not 4 man teams.
Unit 132 Carrier HMG should have carry capacity of 0 not 2. Bren gun should be removed, crew 4
Unit 150 attack carrier never saw action.
Unit 110 carrier AOP doesnt have a Bren gun.
Unit 133 Bren carrier shouldnt have 2 Bren just one. If two carry capacity 0 crew 3.
Unit 134 Bren carrier if this is the carrier where the Australians mounted a vickers MG in the front instead of the Bren the Vickers should have a range of 10 same as british OOBs unit 865, weapon 238 vickers BMG with the same configuration. The Bren BMG should then be changed to .303 Bren MG. Carry capacity 0 crew 3.
Unit 051 should have carry capacity 7-8 maybe 10 not 12
Unit 225 boys carrier, The scout carrier was for assault and meant to operate with the 3 men inside, hence the front mounted AT gun and centrally mounted Bren, it takes all 3 crew to drive and operate the 2 weapons so this vehicle could have a crew of 3 and carry capacity of 0.

Poland
Formation 297 Mech scout sqdn is good.
Formation 280 Inf Support Co should have the Bren carriers replaced with Loyd carriers.
Unit 122 carrier AOP shouldnt have a Bren gun
Unit 364 Carrier HMG should have carry capacity of 0 not 2. Bren gun should be removed, crew 4
Unit 447 The scout carrier was for assault and meant to operate with the 3 men inside, hence the front mounted AT gun and centrally mounted Bren, it takes all 3 crew to drive and operate the 2 weapons so this vehicle should have a crew of 3 and carry capacity of 0.
Unit 494 loyd carrier should have carrying capacity of 7-8 maybe 10 not 12. Crew should be 1

France
Formation 376 Eclair Mot Patrol, Eclaireurs should be 2 men not 4, or 3 after 42 if using the universal carrier Mk II
Unit 341 Loyd carrier should have Bren gun removed. Should have carrying capacity of 7-8 maybe 10 not 12. Crew should be 1

Soviet Union
Unit 344 Boys carrier should have carry capacity of 0 not 6. Crew of 3
Unit 467 Bren carrier should have carry capacity of 2 not 6, or 3 after 42 if using the universal carrier Mk II, crew of 1.

Germany
Unit 610 Trager Bren 731 should have a carry capacity of 2 not 6, crew of 1.
Unit 612 PzJ Bren(e) Rkt could have a carry capacity of 0. crew of 4. Should have a MG 34 or MG 42.
https://books.google.com.au/books?id...20Bren&f=false

Belguim
Formation 19 Mortar sec/M Bren carriers, this formation should have Bren guns removed from the Bren carriers they carried thr mortar and shells instead.
Fornmation 330 Mech patrol is good but overall has one extra Bren gun. 5 instead of 4.
Formations 331 332 use Formation 330 Mech patrol.
units 014, 363 should have crew 1 carry capacity 3 if MK II universal, carried teams already OK.

Italy
Units 768 and 769 should have Carrying capacity of 3 crew 1.

Nationalist China
Unit 004's vickers gun should have a range of 10 not 30 to conform with Great Britian OOB.
Unit 21 and 270 Vickers carrier should have carry capacity 0 crew 4. Start date should be about 10/43 not 34. Maybe this is meant to be unit 004?
Formation 71 Armoured Recce should have one of scout, scout team, carrier team reduced to 2 or 3 men and unit 12 Bren carrier should have carry capacity reduced from 6 to 3 (Mk II) or 6 to 2 if its a Bren or Universal MkI. Crew of 1 not 2.
Could not find formation 83?
Formation Carrier patrol should have scout, scout team, carrier team reduced to 2 or 3 men. crew of 1 not 2. unit 12 Bren carrier should have carry capacity reduced from 6 to 3 (Mk II) or 6 to 2 if its a Bren or Universal MkI. Crew of 1 not 2.

Unit 133, 802 should have a carry capacity of 2 (Universal Mk I and earlier) or 3 ( Universal MK II) not 6 and crew of 1 not 2.

Thailand got 118 carriers in 1944 these don't appear in the Thai OOB.

It is possible Bren carriers and even universal carriers were unable to tow anything before 1944. The Stacy towing attacment was only fitted to universal carriers from 1944 onwards.
Bren ammo carriers have a carrying capacity of 0 because they are full. The other special versions are also full, with vickers ammo, mortar shells, Radio equipment etc. Extra men also cannot fit behind the armour in any of the versions.
The book mentions that the Bren carrier was only bulletproof up to a point.
The armour on a loyd carrier is 7mm same as an AT gun shield, maybe the loyd carrier should also get an armour value of 0 also?
In Great Britians OOB pictures for units 453 and 461 Bren carriers are not Bren carriers, they are T16s or Windsors.
From the internet
Windsor carrier introduced 1943/1944.
T16 began production in March 43.
lloyd carrier designed to carry 8 men, crew of 1.
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-...en_carrier.htm
  #2  
Old May 21st, 2017, 09:09 AM
DRG's Avatar

DRG DRG is offline
National Security Advisor
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: GWN
Posts: 8,721
Thanks: 1,343
Thanked 1,991 Times in 1,047 Posts
DRG is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Carriers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwikkiwik View Post
According to the Osprey New Vanguard book universal carrier 1936-48.
Bren carriers should have a carrying capacity of 2 not 6 and a crew of 1 not 2.
Universal carrier Mk I have a carry capacity of or 2 not 6, and a crew of 1 not 2.
Universal carrier Mk II have a carry capacity of or 3 not 6, and a crew of 1 not 2.
There was no space for extra men!
You have a bad habit of getting an idea, convincing yourself you have found a grave error then spending considerable amounts of time presenting a detailed "plan" on how we should fix this perceived error when a simple question like ...." The Bren carriers seem to be over capacity... why was that done? " would answer the question and save you ( and me ) a lot of work

First off......by your sources standard....this is impossible


or this.... " The crew of a Bren gun carrier 7 October 1942"



Yet there is is.... a Universal Carriers Mk 1 belonging to the British Expedition Force in France, 1940 with a total of FIVE men comfortably being carried. By YOUR quoted source the max capacity for that vehicle is 3 and the second photo shows six men as "crew" of carrier in the western desert in 1942

now count how many Russian soldiers are in this photo


The officer standing beside the carrier would sit to the drivers right...that adds up to SEVEN so the assertion that "There was no space for extra men!" has been proven progressively wrong three times

The Carriers we made slightly over capacity in some cases to accommodate the wide range of units they had to carry in the game and in nearly 20 years of being that way YOU are the one and only player to take issue with it. I invite you to make those change you think are necessary they check every formation that would be affected by what amounts to a major change to see the amount of work required to "fix" something that in the end make NO difference to the way the game plays.

Also, any prime mover has a capacity set to carry guns and crew and that, in many cases is a bit generous and changing it would make far more players UNhappy that would make happy. This is why things like Canadian Unit 294 Gun carrier has a carrying capacity of 10.....to allow it tow the various guns and yes technically that wasn't done " by the book" but it was done just as you repeatedly note that carrier AOP doesn't have a Bren gun.....I can assure you that in combat, there would have been a bren on board and as well the crew is made 2 instead of one because in the game when the crew dies the vehicle is wrecked whereas in real life someone else would have taken over driving duties so that too is an expedient to make the unit more game playable.

I will, however, look into Thailands carriers in 1944....all the rest.....NO...... but feel free to MOBHack your personal OOB however you feel is correct

EDIT

Some more counting for you to do. This first photo was taken in Korea but that is irrelevant..there are 8 men shown having fought out of encirclement in that carrier


Seven in both of these. The second photo is not particularly clear but it shows a seating arrangement the same as the Russian photo. Drive and "co-driver" or vehicle commander in front then three down the left back compartment and two more on the right = Seven

Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Universal Carriers Mk 1-France, 1940.jpg
Views:	208
Size:	40.5 KB
ID:	14723   Click image for larger version

Name:	The crew of a Bren gun carrier.jpg
Views:	193
Size:	49.9 KB
ID:	14724   Click image for larger version

Name:	Image4.jpg
Views:	181
Size:	28.4 KB
ID:	14725   Click image for larger version

Name:	8488640a6bb62994b059b5e726a3ab91.jpg
Views:	171
Size:	66.6 KB
ID:	14726   Click image for larger version

Name:	24201f10.jpg
Views:	109
Size:	87.8 KB
ID:	14741  

__________________

Last edited by DRG; May 29th, 2017 at 01:57 PM..
The Following User Says Thank You to DRG For This Useful Post:
  #3  
Old May 21st, 2017, 09:44 AM
Cross's Avatar

Cross Cross is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK / USA
Posts: 895
Thanks: 32
Thanked 272 Times in 121 Posts
Cross is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Carriers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwikkiwik View Post
The book above says this about experiments testing the mounting of a PIAT in a carrier.
-Extended trials revealed that ... it was impossible to keep the projectile in place. It became dislodged and potentially lethal at the first bump.-
If the PIAT is to be loaded just prior to action then cocking the weapon reqired the user to stand upright, or sit with his legs straight requiring him to most likely leave the vehicle entirely.
So maybe unit 456 PIAT carrier should be replaced with Bren carrier carrying a PIAT team?

Loading and cocking a PIAT are two different things. You are right that when you first cock the weapon this would likely be done outside of the Carrier, prior to entering combat.

But once cocked, you don't have to place a bomb in the tray. Which your book says could become dislodged while driving. I don't know when they conducted those trials, as they did develop a clip to keep the bomb in place. But this is possibly irrelevant. If I was in the Carrier I would cock the weapon prior to battle, but keep the bomb out of the tray until an enemy is spotted.

The PIAT would re-cock itself upon firing, so they would not have to get out of the Carrier to reload. Unless the firer failed to hold the PIAT firmly, but this may not be an issue if it was a solid vehicle mount.

Cheers,

Cross
  #4  
Old May 21st, 2017, 10:10 AM
DRG's Avatar

DRG DRG is offline
National Security Advisor
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: GWN
Posts: 8,721
Thanks: 1,343
Thanked 1,991 Times in 1,047 Posts
DRG is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Carriers

I did find something else amusing while digging up photos of allegedly " impossibly" loaded bren carriers

http://beutepanzer.ru/Beutepanzer/uk...ersal-AT5.html

all the photos but the very first are correct



but anyone can see that is a Pz 1 chassis NOT a bren carrier
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Image6.jpg
Views:	181
Size:	67.4 KB
ID:	14729  
__________________

Last edited by DRG; May 21st, 2017 at 10:19 AM..
  #5  
Old May 21st, 2017, 10:32 AM
DRG's Avatar

DRG DRG is offline
National Security Advisor
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: GWN
Posts: 8,721
Thanks: 1,343
Thanked 1,991 Times in 1,047 Posts
DRG is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Carriers

And I did find a combination we don't have




A Russian Bren carrier mounting a DShK HMG
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Universal_dshk.jpg
Views:	182
Size:	91.7 KB
ID:	14730  
__________________
  #6  
Old May 21st, 2017, 11:06 AM
DRG's Avatar

DRG DRG is offline
National Security Advisor
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: GWN
Posts: 8,721
Thanks: 1,343
Thanked 1,991 Times in 1,047 Posts
DRG is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Carriers

Then there this. Feel free to count heads



not combat ready but still, it's carrying 9 at least
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	carrier.jpg
Views:	176
Size:	49.4 KB
ID:	14731  
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to DRG For This Useful Post:
  #7  
Old May 28th, 2017, 08:19 PM
RecruitMonty's Avatar

RecruitMonty RecruitMonty is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mainly Germany (München)
Posts: 816
Thanks: 172
Thanked 94 Times in 60 Posts
RecruitMonty is on a distinguished road
Thumbs up Re: Carriers

This post should be made a sticky! I have not laughed so hard on this forum in ages.
__________________
"Wir Deutschen sollten die Wahrheit auch dann ertragen lernen, wenn sie für uns günstig ist."
  #8  
Old June 4th, 2017, 08:17 AM

Kiwikkiwik Kiwikkiwik is offline
Corporal
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 52
Thanks: 3
Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts
Kiwikkiwik is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Carriers

There is some confusion here between Bren and Universal carriers, your example pictures all seem to be Universal carriers.
A Bren gun carrier is not a Universal carrier, this page shows the differences,
http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=303564
The Bren and Scout carriers have a rear compartment on one side only. Universal carriers have a rear crew compartment on both sides.
The Bren carrier rear compartment has a sloping rear. so 1 crew and 2 men is the maximum people that can fit IN it. The scout has the rear compartment squared off but the extra room is filled with a radio and its batteries so again 1 crew and two men. Wich is how they were actually crewed.

How many men can fit IN the carrier is different to how many men can fit ON the carrier. As these vehicles have all round armour of 1 only the amount of men that can fit IN are protected from small arms fire. Extra men ON the carrier are unprotected. Overall carry capacity of 4 for Universal carrier MkII means the rear two men can lie down on the internal mudguard to avoid being shot, with 6 men in the back it is impossible for them all to get behind the Armour. This is why these vehicles have a total crew of 4 not 8.
If the bren or scout carriers have any more than 3 men or the Universal carriers have any more than 4 men then the extra man should be vulnerable to small arms fire just the same as tank riders are because just like tank riders they are ON the carrier not IN it.

Pictures with more than 4 men in a universal carrier are showing the vehicle used as a transport, clearly they did not go into battle like this as it would be suicide.
I can see how 2 crew works to keep a soft vehicle alive a bit longer, but I can't see how this works for an armoured vehicle? Isnt it destroyed the same wether it has 2 crew or 1?
Looking at this comment from
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-...en_carrier.htm

An example of its limitations are best summed-up in the following account: On 23rd November 1942, General Clowes at Milne Bay, New Guinea ordered a small number of Bren Gun Carriers to Cape Endaiadere as direct support to American troops operating in this area. It was made clear to the Americans that the Carriers were too lightly armoured and the crews too exposed for them to be used as tanks. In addition, they lacked any overhead protection from sniper fire, shell splinters and were extremely vulnerable to flank attacks. Thus they were forced to work with infantry support.

A crew of 1 could be said to show how vulnerable the vehicle is. Especially with such low sides, if it is tilted towards the enemy at any point it is possible to shoot into the top very easily.
As General background the minatures website also says this

Bren carriers were used first to motorize a .303 Vickers machine gun and then as a general utility vehicle for infantry companies and above.
Scout Carriers were used by both infantry and armoured formations in a recce role.
Universal Carriers replaced Bren Carriers starting in 1940 and later replaced scout carriers too. Universal Carriers were used in both infantry and motor battalions of Armoured units.
Universal Carriers and Camden Loyd Carriers were used to tow 6 pdr AT guns. Universal carriers were later replaced by T-16 and Windsor carriers in the towing role c. 1944.
All universal carriers had three road wheels per side. Windsor and T-16 carriers which came into service in 1944 had four wheels per side.

The book I mentioned originally says this about PIAT carrier,

The PIAT had an effective range of just 100 yds, and the chances of an enemy tank permitting a carrier to get that close are too slim to be worth worrying about.

Clearly there is a much greater chance of success if the PIAT is used from outside the vehicle as a stealthy approach is then possible. Same thing would apply to the German Unit 612 PzJ Bren(e) Rkt

I noted and checked all the effected fighting formations. I can't see that reducing the bren/scout/universal units crew, carrying capacity or the number of men in the carried teams would cause problems, I am no expert in Mobhack though of course. As far as towing artillery Universal cariers can tow a 6 pdr in an emergency but probably should have any towing capability. Loyd carriers were specifically allocated to tow 6 pdrs. They are not big enough to tow any 17 pdrs or Howitzers, these and their ammunition are too heavy for a lloyd carrier. Loyds carriers should be removed as a towing option in formations containing Howitzers or 17 pdrs. This is discussed here.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/47208...+and+Wireless-

It appears I am not the one and only to take issue with carriers, Pibwl brought up this very issue of overloaded carriers in his last post on the last page of this thread
British OOB7 corrections/sugestions as for the British OOB:
thats back on page 3 0f 18 three pages back in the TOE section.
He posted on April 2011, thats 6 years ago not 20. Using the same reference he also mentions the Universal carrier should have a crew of 4, and comes to many other of the same conclusions as I do. His post is interesting reading not particularily funny unfortunately. I think I am in good company.

I think Pibwl and mys suggestions make a difference for example; your Carrier section with 3 Bren carriers has 18 men actually it had 9 men if it has Bren or Scout carriers, and 12 men if it had Universal carriers Mk II. With a carry capacity of 6 the Bren carrier section can have 24 men, that is 15 extra men per 3 carrier section. Bottom line to me is that with 2 crew and able to carry 6 men these units work as APCs, which they definitely were not.
The Following User Says Thank You to Kiwikkiwik For This Useful Post:
  #9  
Old June 4th, 2017, 09:51 AM
Cross's Avatar

Cross Cross is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK / USA
Posts: 895
Thanks: 32
Thanked 272 Times in 121 Posts
Cross is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Carriers

Kiwi,

You have made some good observations about carriers that I had thought about...
But I will keep my comments limited to the PIAT.


The PIAT had an effective range of just 100 yds, and the chances of an enemy tank permitting a carrier to get that close are too slim to be worth worrying about.

Clearly there is a much greater chance of success if the PIAT is used from outside the vehicle as a stealthy approach is then possible. Same thing would apply to the German Unit 612 PzJ Bren(e) Rkt


What about flame-thrower vehicles, do we also do away with them because a tank wouldn't permit them to get close?

The PIAT had a range of 350 yards (indirect 'house-breaking range) and a direct fire (effective, hit a moving tank) range of 115 yards.

The PIAT was an excellent weapon, much maligned and underappreciated in our modern era.
Unlike the Bazooka, you didn't need to wear a gas mask to shoot it. You don't the gas masks in many photos, because it just doesn't look cool...

The PIAT didn't need a large shield, like the Panzershreck.
You could fire the PIAT from a building.
You could not fire the Panzershreck, Bazooker or Panzerfaust from a building or bunker.
The PIAT had a very small smoke signature compared the above weapons.
Fire a Bazooka and everyone in line-of-sight instantly saw your position.
The PIAT was rated the best platoon weapon by Canadian Officers in WWII, even better than the Bren Gun!

How do you model this in SPWW2?

Cheers,
Cross
  #10  
Old June 4th, 2017, 09:54 AM
DRG's Avatar

DRG DRG is offline
National Security Advisor
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: GWN
Posts: 8,721
Thanks: 1,343
Thanked 1,991 Times in 1,047 Posts
DRG is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Carriers

Feel free to open up all the affected OOB's and edit until you and Micheal are content. Any change you and he have suggested in this regard make a negligible change to gameplay for a very substantial amount of work just to keep you two happy so you are correct about one thing.... you are not the only one in 20 years who has complained about this.....there are actually 2 of you ( 3 if you include Cross's support for your post )

This is becoming HUGELY tiresome but let's go back to your first post

Quote:
Universal Carrier Mk I have a carrying capacity of or 2 not 6, and a crew of 1 not 2.
Universal Carrier Mk II have a carrying capacity of or 3 not 6, and a crew of 1 not 2.
now this latest


Quote:
your example pictures all seem to be Universal carriers.
by your quoted source the Mk I universals can carry 3..crew 1, carry cap 2 = 3

Yet the FIRST photo I posted showed a "Universal Carriers Mk 1 belonging to the British Expedition Force in France, 1940" with a total of FIVE men comfortably being carried......an obvious point you ignored and all the other photo except the last, which was an indulgence...show carriers crewed the way they were crewed in real life, with up to 7 men and in the game they get 1 point of armour all the way around with no top armour and that is the best we can do. I will concede that in this case the standard 2 crew we gave to most vehicles like this could be changed to one but that's as far as it's going to go

As well if you actually buy a Brit Carrier Patrol or a Carrier section you will see that although the capacity is rated 6...they carry 4 men, except ONE carrier that carries 6 the crew of 2 is just the way they have been set up for decades and although in that one carrier a crew of 2 and 6 men in the back IS stretching things a bit there is NOTHING there that justifies the amount of text that has been generated and if we reduced the crew to one that would put the "carriers" well within real life practice

As well "Bren" Carrier is used in most carrier descriptions simply because "Universal Carrier" does not fit and for most people, the name "Bren Carrier" suitably describes the unit even if it's not technically a "Bren Carrier"
__________________

Last edited by DRG; June 4th, 2017 at 01:09 PM..
The Following User Says Thank You to DRG For This Useful Post:
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2017, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.