British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Here are my suggestions as for the British OOB:

Light tanks:

002 Mk VIc - according to http://www.historyofwar.org/articles...tank_mkVI.html they were produced since 1939 (now: 9/35). Also David Fletcher wrote, that "shortly before the war" a decision has been taken to mount Besa in MkVI.
Maybe they should be named "Lt Tank Mk VIc", like unit 254? ("MK VI" alone is a generic designation. Same for other light Mk's)

003 Honey - picture 380 is M3A3 Stuart V, while it should be earlier model. Perfect for the British service is 27736. As photos from Italy show, old Honeys remained in use at least until 11/43.

Same for units 185 and 296.

004 Stuart VI - according to a book by J. Magnuski, only 3 Stuarts VI were delivered in 1943, and most in 1944 (now: 1/43)

I think, that 255 Honey II should be renamed to Stuart V, which was most numerous version in British use, delivered from 1943 (picture 380 is OK for this version). Now it's available since 1/43 and represents just a variant with better gun. Stuarts V sure remained in use much later (now 6/43), although I have no info if they were still used with turrets in 1944. Armour (slanted) should remain probably the same, although M5A1 Stuart VI icon would be better (unless there is a new one, with slanted sides).

Early cruisers:

005 A9 - according to AFV Weapons Profile 08 - Crusader tank and http://www.wwiivehicles.com/unitedki...er-mk-i-a9.asp deliveries were first made in 1/1939 (now 1/35) (although the pilot model was in 1936). It would need a change in formations, earliest would be #232 A13.

Same for unit 134 A9 CS (I don't know when it starts, so maybe also 1/39, being still the earliest unit in formations)

006 A10 - picture 635 is A10 E1 prototype with slanted front. 27606 looks correct and is very nice.

007 A13 Mk II - according to a Polish monograph on A13, including a list of orders, first Mk II were ordered in 1939, so I would expect them to start in mid-1939 (now 4/38) (some publications say 12/38, but others, like AFV Weapons Profile 08 claim, that this date concerns A13 MkI).
Turret sides and rear were two slanted layers of 14.5 mm, with a space between, so maybe it should be more (now: 2)
Lesser numbers were used until mid-1942 (now 11/41, which was in fact the end of numerous use - Operation Crusader)
Picture 690 is A13 Mk I without extra armour. Correct is 691 or 27610.

136 A13 CS - should be available not earlier, than A13 MkII above (now 4/38)

232 A13 Mk I - first delivered in 12/38 (now 4/36), according to AFV Weapons Profile 08 - Crusader tank (there wasn't even a prototype in 1936). Needs changes in formations 17 and 79, being the earliest tank.
Better copy of the same picture is 690 (used for A13 Mk II now), or better is 27584.

010 Crusader II - a photo 619 seems Crusader III (without external gun mantlet)

Other tanks:

020 Sherman I - photo 384 is M4A1 Sherman II. Could be 27717

Same for 193, 220

022 Sherman V - photo 384 is M4A1 Sherman II. Could be 27730

Same for 023, 194

300 Sherman II - photo is OK for this version, but 27723 seems a drawing of sand/black British camo.

301, 302 Sherman Hybrid - front cast armour should probably be no better, than 021 Sherman IIA / US M4A1(76)W (9, now 10).

303 Sherman III - photo 384 is M4A1 Sherman II. Could be 27725, 27726

030, 365 Valentine III - according to a Polish book, first Valentine III was produced in 4/42 (now 7/41), and it should remain longer.
Photo 639 is some two-men-turret early variant (I-II)

031, 147, 366, 367 Valentine IX - it's a detail, but these tanks were known for their lack of CMG - would it be possible to shoot an AAMG, between gun shots, with two-men turret?...

Regards
Michal

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

003, 185, 296 Honey - I've found also photo 12539.

010 Crusader II - correct photo seems 12868.

025 VC Firefly - IMO 648 or 12802 photo better shows the tank. Isn't a better name just "Sherman Firefly"?
Same for 119, 168, 221, 222

Some nice early Sherman in British service with welded hull (III ?) is on a photo 12854

045 Bishop - it was also used in Italian campaign, at least until 1/44 (now ends 12/42) [Concord's "British Armor in Sicily and Italy"].
They aren't seen with Brens on photos (if they carried one inside, I doubt, if it was mounted on external mount only after spotting a plane or an infantry)

049 Daimler A/C - first were indeed manufactured in 4/41, but they first appeared on African theatre only "about July 1942" (AFV Weapons Profile 21 - Armoured Cars Guy, Humber, Daimler, AEC)

051 Lloyd Carrier - in fact it was Loyd (for Vivian Loyd - see eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyd_Carrier ).
According to J. Magnuski's book (Polish), in 1939 there was a prototype built, first orders were in 2/40, and they were commissioned in mid-1940 (now: 9/39).
Hull rear wasn't armoured (in fact, they weren't armoured as a standard - there were only kits of front and side armour plates).
It could be given an own icon, for it was quite specific (now it's Carrier's icon - a good model's photo is http://www.militarymodelling.com/sit...1/dsc05118.jpg )

Same for 235 unit

054 Austin 30cwt (Med Truck) - a photo is 6x6 Dodge. Austin rather wasn't met in 30cwt class - most typical in the 1930s was Morris (according to D. Fletcher's "British Military Transport 1829-1956", 'Austin Motor Company had virtually abandoned commercial vehicles between the wars').
In fact, 30cwt was a popular class between the wars, but became a neglected category after Dunkirk. A backbone of the British transport became 3-ton lorries, but we have 3-tonner as a Heavy Truck. If you want a photo of Morris 30cwt, there could be eg. a tractor Morris CDSW found.

55 Bedford (Hvy Truck) - name could be changed to Bedford 3-ton IMO, to better depict the category.
Icon seems quite strange - most typical 3-ton lorries used in field were cab-over-engine (Bedford QL - pictured, Austin K5, Fordson WOT6). Much better is icon 674 in SPMBT.
From 1941, 3-tonners usually came with 4x4 drive.

62, 63, 146 17 Pdr AT-Gun - a photo 65467 is early model on 25pdr carriage (Mk2 - 403 unit). Standard one is lbm 671.

64 40mm Bofors - picture 685 is old SP-1-vintage hard-to-say-what

66 Tetrarch - according to an article on 6th AARR by P. Brown, 6 tanks (of B Special Service Sqdn) were used in a landing on Madagascar in 5/42 (now starts at 4/44) - would need changes in formations (or maybe creating new ones, since they were not used in a role of airborne tanks there). They were available as airborne tanks from 8/42, although not used in action until 1944.

Same for 733, 734 (LJ tanks from 1944)

Formations 149, 150: Abrn Tank Sec, Plt - according to a detailed structure by P. Brown, each platoon had 3 tanks, so they should replace sections.

Regards
Michal

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Self-correction: I've acquired other book by D.Jane, in which it states, that there was 30cwt Austin K30 produced through the war. I suggest to rename it just "30cwt truck" (or "Morris 30cwt", since its only use in the game is towing light AT-guns, so it might be Morris CDSW 6x4 tractor).


93 Beaufighter IV - should be VI (IV wasn't build, according to Beaufighter In Action).

109 Gladiator - picture 30102 shows the plane in Belgian markings.

115 Daimler Dingo - there was a folding armoured roof (until Mk III variant from 1944) - so maybe it should not be open-topped. On the other hand, it seems that it had no special AA mounting for a Bren, which was placed in a slot in a front plate.

123 8in Battery - picture is 7.2in gun, same as unit 122 (it has longer barrel)

125 Vickers Medium - IMO better picture is 27608. Size should be IMO 5 (3) - it was large as Sherman. Possibly armour is overestimated - according to AFV Profiles 12: Medium Marks I-III, it was 8 mm max, even though it was sloped in upper front part (but vertical in lower). Crew was 5(4) [AFV Profiles].

129 Morris 15cwt - maybe it's better to rename it to generic "15cwt truck", since most popular were Bedfords MW (pictured), and popular were also Morris CS8, Fordson WOT2 and Guy Ant.

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

supplements:

...129 Morris 15cwt - and I'm not sure, if it should be AT/wheel. Only two not numerous models produced from 1944 were 4x4 (Guy Ant Quad and Morris C8/GS).

Same remarks for 288 Morris 15cwt (Utility veh.)

By the way: I suggest to rename 055 Bedford to generic "3-ton lorry" to cover all 4x4 and 4x2 lorries. It is used in the game for towing of 17pdr gun only anyway... maybe it should be AEC Matador tractor then?

006 A10 - it's a detail, but maybe it's worth to change its class from Cavalry Tank to Heavy Cruiser - that's what it was regarded. It is the only unit of its class, and its formation would end before advent of next Heavy Cruisers (Grant)

110 Carrier AOP - first series of special AOP carriers was ordered in 3/39 and delivered in 1940 (now starts at 1/35) [by J. Magnuski's book; 1939 date is confirmed by Osprey New Vanguard 110 - Universal Carrier 1936-48].
According to AFV profile, they carried a Bren, but I suppose it had to be AAMG, since there was a binocular slot in a place of Bren cover.

next:

150 Vickers Med CS - according to AFV Profile 12 Medium Marks I-III, Medium Mk.IIA CS had 3.7in mortar, fit first of all for firing smoke, using also HE, but not very accurate in this role. There's no info on ammo load. Other remarks like 125 Vickers medium.

157 Valentine II - for the first year they weren't used in combat, and their debut was only in 11/41 Crusader operation (now starts at 11/40, so it can be used in a desert earlier). Maybe earlier they should be available on 'special order' only? Anyway, 3-men Valentines should definitely last later - I don't know when, but I think well after El-Alamein (now: 12/41) - they started to replaced with 4-men Valentine III only from 4/42.

Same for 364 unit (class Light Inf. tank, used in special formations)

158 M15-A1 - picture is M16

159 M16 - according to J. Magnuski, M16s were introduced to British armoured divisions (including Polish 1st Arm.Div) at least from 3/45 (now 1/46).

188 M3 SP 75mm - picture is 105mm SPG - correct is pm27738
Same for 199, 200

189 M3 SP 6 Pdr - correct picture is pm29389

194 Sherman V - a proper photo is 4015 in SPMBT (same for other Shermans V)

211 AEC Mk I - picture 27583 is in fact Mk III (bigger: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...moured_Car.jpg ). Proper seems 12533
They first appeared on African theatre in 1942 (now 10/41) [AFV Weapons Profile 21 - Armoured Cars Guy, Humber, Daimler, AEC]

236 Hawker Hart - crew should be 2(1)

237 Hawker Hind - crew should be 2(1). It's a detail, but accoridng to a Russian book on ground-attack aircraft, it entered service in 12/35 (now 1/35) (Wikipedia says 11/35) (then, a lifespan of Hart should be extended a bit)

241 LRDG Chevy AA - photo is 37mm portee - correct is 16201

(254 Lt Tank Mk VII - referring to what I wrote about #66 Tetrarch, this unit could be used in a landing on Madagascar in 5/42)

286 Austin 7 - it could take only 4 persons including a driver, and is rather not known for a military use. It's best to change it to Austin 10 Tilly (or generic Tilly - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilly_%28vehicle%29 )

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

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

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Note, that this is also used by US 37 mm AA gun

294 Bedford (Prime Mover) - the only prime mover Bedford variant was QLB, specialized for 40mm AA guns ['Bedford to Berlin and Beyond' book]. It should be IMO changed to medium tractor AEC Matador. However, both these AT/wheel trucks were introduced around 1941 (I have no precise date for Matador). Now it's available since 1/30, but there were no British AT/wheel tractors before Morris Quad (#104).

I don't know, if the British used 4x2 trucks to tow guns before, or just limbers and limited(?) numbers of early tracked Dragon tractors. There could be added some generic Dragon (http://www.jedsite.info/tractors-del...on-series.html)

309 Centaur IV - a detail, but isn't a better category 129 Close Support Tank instead of Tank? (it's empty as well)

310 M3 SP 75mm SPA - picture is T19 105mm - should be US T30

327 Hawker Fury - photo shows some 2-seater. 110lb bombs are probably too heavy - according to 'Aircraft Profile 018 Hawker Fury' "most aircraft had provisions to for light bomb racks to carry 25lb practice bombs or flares".

330 Blenheim Mk.IV - with armament of 6 MGs it would be fighter Blenheim Mk.IF (more numerous) or MkIVF. (I don't think, that these variants were often used for strafing anyway)

340-342 Hawker Hart, Hind - crew was 2, if it matters.
Same notes as for availability, as 237 Hind.

350, 351 Spitfire Mk.IA, Vb - photo is some late variant (IX/XVI), with trimmed LF wings.
It's a detail, but first two Spitfires were delivered in 7/38 (now 6/38), and only in 12/38 there was a full squadron (No.19) (the Spitfire Story book). I wouldn't expect wasting such precious fighter for MG-strafing, BTW, especially for Mk.IA.

352 Spitfire MkVIII - it's better to rename it Mk.V C - most popular at that time, and used with bombs since 8/42 (date is correct). First VIIIs were built in 11/42 and were less popular variant.

353 Spitfire Mk.IXe - better photo IMO is 30025.
"e" wing with 2 cannons and 2x0.5in appeared in summer 44 only (now 3/43) [The Spitfire Story]

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

354 A-30 Baltimore - A-30 is redundant, as this is British unit.

Armoured cars:

356 Mrmn-Hrngtn II - an official armament, seen on photos, is Boys, Bren CMG (next to Boys) and Vickers AAMG. It could also carry another Bren as AAMG (or relocate its turret Bren), but I think, that one AAMG is enough.
It would be good to fit it with own picture (now it's MH III).

AFV Weapons Profile 30 - Armoured Cars says, that MH Mk II were first used by South African units from 11/40 (date OK), but their original armament was one Vickers CMG only (plus another one in left hull side eventually, but it had little practical usage). It seems, that only vehicles ordered by the British for Middle East, equipped to a standard laid down by the War Office, and received "about March 1941" had a new turret with Boys and Bren CMG.

Probably they were used longer, than 3/42, but I have no info.

Maybe a more natural name would be Marmon-Herr, or M-H AC?

357 Mrmn-Hrngtn III - it also carried an AAMG - usually Vickers AAMG in addition to Bren CMG.

358 Mrmn-Hrngtn IV - the picture is Humber, correct ones should be in SPMBT.

605 M-H II MG (Colonial AC) - as unit 356 above as for a photo and name.
Seems, that early cars had no Bren AAMG, before they were introduced to ME in around 3/41.

606 M-H II ATR (Colonial AC) - as unit 356 above. Boys were used on M-H only from 3/41 (now 11/40).

Why these cars and gun-armed support cars below are "colonial AC" class, not an ordinary AC? Maybe a "colonial AC" should be basic MG-armed variant only, used on secondary theatres? But gun-armed M-Hs were used on a main theatre in North Africa, as support vehicles for ordinary M-Hs.

BTW, we have formation #380 Col Arm'd Cars with two class 230 cars, and formation #385 Col A/C Troop with three ordinary class 11 ACs, so they are inconsistent.

Maybe the first of colonial M-Hs should be Mk I variant, used by the South African from 5/40 in East African campaign, armed with one Vickers CMG (plus a side MG eventually), with 4x2 drive (precisely Mk I was no Marmon-Herrington, which was a provider of 4x4 chassis, but Ford or South African Reconnaissance Car Mk.I).

According to AFV Weapons Profile 30 - Armoured Cars, a few cars in East Africa had Boys, but it isn't known since when.


607 M-H II 2pdr (Colonial AC) - the first modification of fitting M-H with a 2pdr gun from a knocked-out tank is described in 9/41 (now 12/40), by 4th South Afr. AC Rgt. ("claimed to be the first to fit into an armoured car a gun really effective against tanks" - AFV Weapons Profile 30 - Armoured Cars)

608 M-H II 20mm - date 3/41 seems correct ("early in 1941"), but gun-conversions were open-topped (I assume, that it concerns all gun-armed Mk IIs).

609 M-H II 37mm - German 37 mm Pak was sure mounted much earlier, than in 11/42, near the end of combat in Africa, if the first Italian guns were mounted this way in early 1941.

610 M-H II 47mm - first were mounted 20 mm Bredas, so maybe it should be available a bit later (now 3/41)

It would be complicated, but maybe there could be created troops with one gun-armed M-H and the rest ordinary ones? There were no troops equipped with gun-armed cars in total rather.


360, 361 Ironside Mk.I, II - these are Humber LRC, with a combat compartment at the rear, but photos and icons are Humber Scout Car (better photo is 12834 for unit 362, but 360 was turretless).

360 Ironside Mk I - production started in 7/40 [Osprey New Vanguard 177] (now 6/39). Crew was 3 (2), including wireless operator (it should have better radio chance).

Mk.I carried no Boys (introduced in Mk.II, according to Osprey). It could carry two Brens, but one should be enough (there are no mounts visible, and there are no photos with armament seen at all).
Rear was armoured, only roof was not. Mk I and 2 were 4x2, only Mk III was 4x4
Speed was 72 kmh

361 Ironside Mk II - Humber LRC II name was used rather, than Ironside (according to Osprey, Humber MkII was "described in one document as Ironside Mk II").
According to Osprey and AFV Weapons Profile 30, it appeared in 1941 (now 6/40).
It also should be fitted with a smoke discharger.
Maybe roof should be armoured - it had only a tiny open turret, while it received a roof over a combat compartment, comparing with Mk I.
Speed is quoted as 120 km/h (75 mph)

362 Ironside Mk.III - name Ironside isn't used for this variant of Humber LRC at all. According to AFV Weapons Profile 30, it appeared at the end of 1941 (now 9/43). Crew was 3 (2) and it had a smoke mortar.
Bren had a high elevation and could be used as AAMG, while Boys was fixed forward, like in unit 361 above.
Speed is quoted as 96 kmh (60 mph)
Photo 12834 might be Mk.II or III, while photo 6469 from SPMBT is specifically Mk.III (it has a bulge on a right side)


370 Beaverette I - it was conceived only after Dunkirk (now 1/40). Its Bren doesn't seem to be AAMG (normally it was stuck in a forward slot)

373 Beaverette III - appeared "in 1941" (AFV Weapons Profile 30) (now 1/43).
Standard armament was Bren in a turret, not Vickers K(2). It could have an own photo (now there is Beaverette MkI or II) and new icon, for it was shorter and had a turret.


375, 376 Guy Mk.I, Mk.IA - crew was 3 (4) - AFV Weapons Profile

380 Scout Mk.I - precisely, it was Humber Scout I or Humber SC I (there was also Daimler Scout Car). Produced from early 1943 only (now 8/39) [by a Polish book by J. Magnuski and a Czech photo book on Humber Scout car]

381 Scout Mk.II - as above, produced from 1944 only (now 8/40). There's no information, that they differed in armour - only mechanical changes are mentioned. But I've found no precise info on their armour anyway (they say "max 14 mm).

385 Humber Mk.I - size should be 3(2), like Guy.
Date 9/41 is OK for African deployment.

42 Humber Mk.II - size as above

386 Humber Mk.III - size as above.
It's a detail, but they first appeared on African theatre in 10/42 (now 8/42) [AFV Weapons Profile 21 - Armoured Cars Guy, Humber, Daimler, AEC]

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Michal

Unit 350
The Spitfire Mk Ia was not designed to carry bombs, so if we want Spitfires for Sea Lion or Dunkirk we have to resort to desperate strafing.

Unit 352
The Mk VIII was the third most produced Spitfire after the Mk V and the Mk IX. It's less well known because it was mostly used in the Mediterranean and SE Asia, which SPWW2 covers.
Many Spitfire pilots claim the Mk VIII was the best Spitfire.

Perhaps the primary reason not to change the Mk VIII to a Mk V is because the OOB already has a Mk V (see unit 351). The OOB has one each of the five most famous/common Spitfires.

Unit 353
For errors that are not obvious or well documented we should check several sources.

The first Mk IX were delivered in 1942 to No.64 Squadron at Hornchurch, and was the first squadron to go operational with Spitfire IX on 28 July 1942; but these would have been Mk IXc.

There's plenty of sources that say the IXe was delivered in 1943
Here's three Spitfire Mk IXe that still exist today that were apparently delivered in 1943:

Spitfire Mk IXe PL344 Registration N644TB Delivered to 8 MU in March 1943

Spitfire Mk IXe WR-RR serial MA793 This aircraft was produced at Castle Bromwich in 1943 and was delivered to 6 MU RAF on 21 July 1943.
It was shipped to the Mediterranean on 5 August 1943 and was operated by the Mediterranean Allied AF till transferred to USAAF 31 October 1943.

Spitfire HF Mk IXe MJ730 Registration N730MJ - First flight by Alex Henshaw 10 December 1943. Delivered to 33 MU in December 1943, MJ730 served with 249 Squadron in the Balkan Air Force

Cross

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

I'm not going to suggest arming Spitfire I with bombs :) That was only may opinion as for its usefulness in the game...

As for Mk VIII - I was surprised to find, that it was a popular variant (maybe it's because of Spitfire V /IX pilots' memoires, that I grew up reading ;) )
Anyway, for several months from 8/42, a Spitfire with bombs could only be Mk Vc. We can ignore such a minor issue as well. I don't know, which variant was more popular on African theatre.

Thanks. Summer 1944 is given by Afred Price, though it looked suspicious for me as well.

Michal

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

I've seen sources say Summer 44 for the 'e' wing', so it may be true. But at the moment I'm more convinced by the 1943 claims.

I guess it's possible that the above aircraft started life as 'c' wings and then were converted to 'e' wing at some point (all sources only reference the 'e' wing). But that would not just be a matter of replacing the .303 MGs with .5 inch cannon, the wings would have to be replaced.

Perhaps I'll have another go at nailing it down. :)


Cross

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Read a few convincing sources and apparently 'c' wings could be converted to 'e' and that is the likely explanation for supposed '1943' MkIX e wing aircraft.

The first production run (brand new) MkIXe were delivered in February 44 and that batch was completed in April 1944. At the same time instructions to convert 'c' wings to 'e' were sent out.

main source:
http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/sort...-mk-ixxvi.html


Unit 353
Should have available date moved back to Feb 1944

Thanks Michal

Cross

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Three Polish squadrons got LF Mk IX in May-June 1944.

Anyway, maybe best option would be to create IXc available from late 1942, to utilize increased bombload, with only slightly worse MG armament?

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Ironically, the 'c' wing doesn't have to mean worse armament. The 'c' wing was called the 'universal wing' because it could house several different combinations of weapons (but not 50cal MGs) with the most common:

2x 20mm and 4x .303 MG
or
4x 20mm cannon

The RAF thought the 'e' wing was an improvement because in air to air combat they liked the combination of hard hitting 20mm cannon and high rate of fire .5in MGs (that had better hitting power than .303 MG) and you could carry a lot more bursts of .5in ammo than 20mm.


Cross

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Let's continue:

387 C9/B 40mm SPAA - is it armoured purposely? In fact it had only gun's shield.

388 Humber AA Mk.I - size should be 3(2), like 377 Guy AA

391 1.5pdr Empl - it uses generic SP-1 picture, as 40mm Bofors.

403 17-pdr MK2 ATG - units 63, 146 use a name written: "17 Pdr", and better is "Mk.2" instead of MK2

406 Priest Kangaroo - it carried .50 or .30 AAMG on a ring (several photos with AAMG are here http://www.network54.com/Forum/47208...garoo+interior)
I haven't found information confirming, that it had BMG (original Priest had not), and it's not seen on photos.

490 Honey Recce - better photo is 27739 (seems, that turretless M3/M3A1 were used only in Africa in a small number, while later turretless M3A3 with sloped hull became common and officially approved vehicles)

595 Col 3in Stokes - drawing is a generic mortar (with Soviet 82mm baseplate) - others use 21150 for 3in mortar

601, 604 Morris CS9 - it had an open turret in fact. Maybe it should have more SD? (it had a smoke mortar).
It's known in publications as Morris CS9/LAC (eg. AFV Weapons Profile 21)

603 Rolls Royce - I believe, that it should not be "colonial AC" class - the cars converted with Boys were used in Egypt, on main theatre, by the 11th Hussars, since the very beginning of war with Italy (6/40 - now it starts at 1/42).
The new turret was fixed (so the Boys was fixed as well) and open from a top. They had also a smoke mortar. [Osprey New Vanguard 189 - Rolls-Royce armoured cars]

On the other hand, 126 Rolls Royce A/C (class 11) should end at some 4/40 at best (now 9/41) - unmodified cars weren't used in combat on main theatres of WWII, and the rest of their service is covered by 602 colonial RR (some were waiting for an invasion in Great Britain). If 603 is changed to class 11, then a lifespan of unmodified 602 can be extended.

All 126, 602, 603 Rolls Royce - correct name is "Rolls-Royce" (I suggest "Rolls-Royce A/C", like #126, for all).

Seems, that Guy armoured cars (375, 376) in fact weren't used in combat, apart from 6 vehicles in French campaign. They were next used for training and defence of Great Britain. Maybe they shouldn't be available to a player in African theatre?... (the only British armoured cars in Africa until early 1941 were Rolls-Royce and Morris CS9, then Marmon-Herringtons) [AFV Weapons Profile 21 - Armoured cars]

628 75mm MkII FG - picture 23015 is Russian 3in Putilov

733 Tetrarch ICS - photo 27624 looks like CS

735 Daimler A/C - I suggest to call it "Daimler AC (LJ)" to avoid confusion with ordinary one

865 Carden Lloyd VI - correctly "Carden Loyd VI"

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Several proposed pictures (eg. British Boston and Gladiator, Huricane IIc, British Priest)

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Weapon 25 – 40mm Bofors AAG
The British Bofors was L/60 so should have its accuracy increased from 14 to 15
(The US version was L/56 and so has the correct accuracy).

Weapon 066 – 3.7in CSH
Rename ‘95mm CS How’
Every reliable source calls this gun 95mm not 3.7 inch.
http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/30025513

The ‘95mm CS How’ was the newer L/18 gun used by Cromwell and Churchill tanks.
The 3.7in How (weapon 67) was the older L/12 gun used by A9, A10, A13 tanks, and was also an Infantry Gun, which all appears to be correctly modeled in the game, weapon 66 just needs the name change.

Weapon 85 - Molotov
Rename ‘AW Bomb No.76’ or ‘SIP Petrol Bomb’ or just plain ‘Petrol Bomb’
‘Molotov Cocktail’ was coined by Finland in the Winter War, and wouldn’t have been used by the Brits for some time.

Weapon 96 - Lewis M.25 LMG
Rename ‘.303 Lewis Gun’
Naming the Lewis Gun an LMG is technically correct, but it’s a bit like naming the US BAR
‘BAR LMG’.

Weapon 114 - S&W.38 Revolver
Rename ‘Webley Revolver’
Webley is the classic British WWI & WWII revolver, rather than a US gun, and doesn’t have to be abbreviated.

Weapon 146 – Sniper Rifle
Rename to ‘Rifle No.3 (T)’
The standard WWII British sniper rifle, (T) is for telescopic sight

Weapon 180 - 110 lb Bomb
British had a 120 lb Bomb, which was used a little in the early war - rename 120-lb GP Bomb (or just ‘120 lb Bomb’)
http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index.p...ombs&Itemid=60

Weapon 188 - 5in Naval Gun
Weapon either has wrong class, or should be renamed to ‘5in Coast Gun’

Weapon 229 – Pole Mine
Rename ‘Bangalore Trpdo’?

Weapon 242 - .303 Rifle
Rename to ‘.303 Rifle No.4’ which was the standard WWII British rifle
The .303 SMLE Rifle was the classic WWI rifle, and was still used by Home Guard and Colonial units.


Cross

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Remember that a lot of standard weapons are best left with standard names - so we can find the little darlings with a SQL query when checking statistics.

So "molotov cocktail" is as likely to stay the same as will the default sniper rifle.

Going back to the original "Pistol" might be best to stop trainspotter-like whinging about model names:re:. The pistol names were only put in for some flavour back in the DOS days. I'd be perfectly happy to revert to the old name for all of them, same with hand grenades etc.

303 rifle - covers all the models. And in any case when I was in back in the 70s, we never ever used those No.4 designations or L1A1 and so on bundles of letters. Only stores clerks would refer to the weapon or whatever as such, or civvies - especially it seems American ones;)! So - the "three oh three" was the generic term for any of those weapons, or just "rifle" with "The Smelly" being reserved for the one 1916 or so model SMLE we still had kicking about in the CCF armoury on the occasional time it came out of store to differentiate it. Similarly when I graduated up to the TA as a university student (TA paid more than the UOTC!) - SLR and "Sterling" or "SMG" and never ever L1A1 and whatever the Small Metal Gun was officially designated by the bean-counters.

Cheers
Andy

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

I've noticed, that there's no problem, since Guys are classified as Light AC and available only in a formation Home Defence.

But then, Ironside Mk.III (Humber LRC III) of the same class should also be available as an Armoured car - they were used from 11/42 in North Africa (Tunisian campaign) until the end of war, by recce units of infantry divisions. [Osprey New Vanguard 177 Humber_Light_Reconnaissance_Car_1941-45]

Some British recce units in Italy used also Otters (#125 from Canadian OOB) and Greyhounds, that could be added.

There is also an interesting Morris LRC possible to add, but it would need new icon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_...nnaissance_Car )

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Sorry if you thought my suggestions were 'whinging'.

I'm aware that the German, US, Soviet, Polish, et al, OOB use national rifle names, for example, so I thought it a bit odd that the Enfield wasn't mentioned.

I guess if there isn't a standard naming convention, then it's tough to know if posts will be seen as:

• suggestion for improvement
• a clear error
• trainspotting

I've kind of taken the stance that I'd rather point out all the inconsistencies/issues I see, and then let you guys decide what's an improvement or error.

Perhaps you shouldn't perceived posts as whinging unless the same person brings up an issue more than once.

cheers,
Cross

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

By all means, feel free to comment.

However things that will get ignored when we get round to the winter OOB work, will be. There may be a return to the simple "standardised" pistol and hand grenade ALA MBT, if we can be bothered, just to save future nit-picking on the subject though.

A simple naming system of "Rifle", "SLR", "SMG" and so on (as in the WRG tabletop rule sets) would have been best. If designing from scratch I would most likely have gone that way.

Andy

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Personally, I think switching to generic infantry weapons would be a shame. I like to see nationalised weapons in the infantry sections.

But it's your ball, your rules...


Cross

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

There's no 37mm Bofors AT-gun, which was used in North Africa. I have no precise info, when their usage started, but they were imported from Poland well before the war (BTW, the Polish soldiers were surprised to receive Polish guns at Tobruk).

059 2 Pdr AT-Gun - according to 'Anti-tank weapons WW2 Fact Files' by Chamberlain/Gander it entered service in 1938

216 25mm Portee, 591 2 Pdr Portee - have a photo of bigger 6pdr portee. Correct for 2pdr is 12536

218 6 Pdr Portee - has a photo of 2pdr - correct is 12532

Also, nice photo of 3in mortar is 601

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

What's Weapon 15 - 37mm MkI Bofors then ?


We use it with unit 252 " LRDG Chevy ATG" which represents it's typical application. If it was used by the Poles as an AT gun in the desert then it needs to be in the Polish OOB for that time period.

What we missed with unit 252 is that the 37mm could fire HE and YES I have aleady made a note to fix the Icon used for that unit


Don

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

I meant a towed version which was also surely used (even portee gun was probably sometimes dismounted and put on a ground position). The quoted text says, that they were "often" used as portee, so not exclusively. But, of course, as you wish.

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

514 Insect class - secondary armament were 76 mm AA guns, not 2 pdr (according to Conway's and others).
Better icon IMO would be 707 - it looked like this from a top: http://warships.ru/MK-3/MK-23/efis.jpg

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Standard......maybe........ but that's a Beaverette III and those are twin Vickers K's


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZVIsl29pPq...te+vickers.jpg

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

My source (Magnuski's "Polish army vehicles") treated Bren-armed one as a standard, and twin Vickers one among experimantal ones. I can't find other reliable sources on the subject. My educated guess is, that Vickers-armed variant could have been used in some number by RAF for airfield protection. So, we might keep Vickers-armed variant or supplement it with Bren-armed. They probably never entered combat anyway...

David Fletcher wrote in "The great tank scandal", that due to shortages of turrets "it was thus well into 1942 before they began to appear with service units in North Africa".

I don't insist, but maybe you'd consider adding some improvised armoured Home Guard lorries like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bison_...armoured_lorry or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armadi...ghting_vehicle ?

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Excuse me Don for being THAT late, but you surprised all of us ;) So please, don't shoot. I had some notes on the British OOB almost ready, so maybe I'll write them down. Don't feel obliged to rework the files now, only if you'd notice such need. Main things are, that Bren carriers and 2pdr guns appear much too early, and Humber LRC III lacks an icon. I'm listing also minor things, since I had them ready - maybe for the future use...


001 Lt Tank Mk.III - photo 630 is actually Mk II - Mk III was the first model with new suspension (known from Bren Carrier). I'll attach a photo, or here is one very nice: http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww...MkI-II-III.php

From AFV Weapons Profile 05 - "Light Tanks I-V" it seems that they had radio as a standard (though not very good No.1 set)

There could be also added Lt tank Mk V - basing upon 596 LT Mk VIb, but appearing already in 1934 (12 prototypes sent to the 1st Light Battalion Royal Tank Corps for testing). Armour was 12mm, but it was sloped on a front hull plate, so it might be 2, the rest should be 1. Speed was 32 mph (17). Sadly, AFV Weapons Profile 05 doesn't bother with such details, like detailed dates of entering service. A picture might be of Mk.VIb, or here is one, at the bottom of page: http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww..._light_MkV.php

003 LT Mk VIc - radio was a standard (better No 7 set). Same for 596 LT Mk VIb


059 2 Pdr AT-Gun - sure it was not available before mid-1936 (now 1/35). Osprey New Vanguard 098 - "British Anti-tank Artillery 1939-45" implies, that only in 12/35 a gunbed was chosen for production, and says, that the 2-pdr gun "became a part of the Royal Artillery in 1938, when five field brigades were converted to anti-tank regiments". Older "Anti-tank weapons WW2 Fact Files" by Chamberlain/Gander also says, that it entered service in 1938.
Formations should be corrected accordingly.
Same for unit 594

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

Carriers:

I'm basing mainly on Osprey New Vanguard 110 "Universal Carrier 1936-48 - The 'Bren Gun Carrier' Story" by David Fletcher, and older AFV Profile No.14 - Carriers.

The first small batch of 13 Carrier, Machine Gun No.1 Mark I appeared only in mid-1936, but they were made of mild steel, according to AFV Profile No14.
Mass production of MG Carrier No.2 Mark I started in 1937 only. However, they had Vickers HMG (in a bow), and a place only for 3 men (and they differed in appearance from later Universal carriers, having a single crew compartment at the rear on the left side, with slanted back).
Only from late 1937 they were adapted to carry Bren (AFV Profle says late 1938, but Fletcher seems more reliable). Their purpose was only to carry Bren section and support an infantry battalion. Initially they were used in 10-vehicle platoon of Btn HQ (in 3-vehicle sections). One vehicle in a section was supposed to carry Boys. Later a number of sections grew to 4.

The second main early carrier was Scout Carrier, with a crew of 4 (introduced around 1939). They were supposed to be armed with Boys and Bren as a standard and be used in recce units. At least 1/3 had radios. A structure of a recce battalions of infantry divisions changed several times, but carriers were invariably used in troops of three (only in case of airborne division, scout troops consisted of two carriers and two jeeps).
According to AFV Profile 14, early Bren carriers had armoured only left side, Scout Carriers - right side.

Only in late 1939 there started production of final Universal Carriers, which had some place at the rear for extra troops (first contracts on 1 April 1939). Unfortunately, an arrangement of seats in a rear compartment is not clear, but all these books say, that the carrier could officially accomodate only a crew of 4 including the driver. Possibly there were 5 seats in total.

From 1943 carriers started to be fitted with 2 in mortar with 30 rounds, also able to lay smoke, or with SD.

Passing on to units:

110 Carrier AOP - appeared only in a course of 1939 (now 1/35) and had no MG in a front plate, and probably no MG at all (publications don't tell specifically, if they had no AAMG, but Brens were in a short supply at early stages of war, and I don't think they were given to AOP vehicles). According to AFV Profile, they appeared after 9/39.

132 Carrier HMG - apparently they didn't carry Brens in addition to their HMGs (and they didn't need to) - photos don't show them with Brens, neither sources mention Brens describing them. Precisely, they were designated MMG Carrier

We have four basic Bren Carriers: 133 [APC halftrack], 289 [APC], 453 [Gun APC tracked], 550 [scout vehicle] - available too early (1/35):

Class 24 APC (halftrack):

Might represent Scout Carriers and later Universals used as scouts.

133 Bren Carrier - Available 01/035 to 12/046
284 Boys Carrier - Available 01/039 to 12/042 *has X3 Radio Code

I suggest to make 284 Boys carrier a basic unit to choose in the first period - it was a standard armament of Scout Carrier. Unit 133 Bren Carrier should be an alternative unit in the first period and basic unit after withdrawing of Boys. At least 1/3 of these vehicles had radio.
There is no clear information, when Scout Carriers entered service (in a course of 1939), but it should be a starting date of these units and formations.

There might be added another Bren Carrier with 2in mortar from 1943.

Formations using class 24:
045 Carrier Section.
There is some problem of doubled Boys rifles in this formation: carried as AT teams and being an armament of vehicles. Also, we probably load too much men onto vehicles with an official crew of 4. Maybe we should just get rid of Boys teams from this formation in an initial period, and create a second entry with Piats after their introduction?... Or give one AT team and two Mech supports?

072 and 111 Scout Car Sec/Troop both should be replaced with a section or troop of 3 carriers (D. Fletcher uses both names section or troop in different periods). Besides, it should be named rather Carrier then Scout Car.
Formation 72 is used in 97 Armour Car Sqdn, I don't know how about 111

Same for 367 Carrier Patrol, which should have 3 carriers. Military Training Pamphplet No.41 insists, that a section (of 3 vehicles) must not be split up.
However, this formation might be redundant since we have formation 45.

For the reasons given above, formation 370 of 2 Carriers seems unseen in practice.

Form. 93 TD Battery, 162 TD Regiment - a carrier is used as a commanding vehicle. It might remain there (although I don't know if they used a carrier, or maybe some armoured car) or replaced with some MG-only armed, or even unarmed.


Class 252: APC

289 Bren Carrier [APC] - used only to carry 3in mortars in the game - could be named Mortar Carrier. 3in mortars on carriers were introduced from 1942. Photos don't show mortar carriers with Brens and it's rather doubtful, if it carried one, for it was not meant to direct combat.

There is a corresponding formation 118 Mortar Sec[2]/M and mortars 725-726. A carrier carried 66 rounds of mortar ammo (including smoke), so it might be increased in mortars.
According to Magnuski, a section consisted of 3 mortars with carriers (there were platoons of 6 mortars and a command carrier). Fletcher only wrote, that a platoon consisted of six detachments.
Class might be changed eg. to "light SPM", so APC class could be used for something else.


Class 127: Gun APC (tracked)

453 Bren Carrier - there rather weren't carriers armed with two Brens, maybe except for non-standard vehicles in North Africa. They are also not seen on photos. It seems, that Bren wasn't a standard armament of the vehicle, but rather of the carried section.
I suggest to leave only MG in a slot 1, and make it a standard Bren Carrier used for infantry support.

456 - PIAT Carrier - PIATs rather weren't used as vehicle armament - according to D. Fletcher, trials showed, that it was impossible to keep the projectile in place during a rough ride, and the PIAT had an effective range of 100m, so "the chances of an enemy tank permitting a carrier to get that close are too slim to be worrying about"

There should be added also MG Carrier with bow-mounted Vickers (#137 Vickers T/CMG?) as the first unit, available around 1/37-12/39. (BTW: there's no reason, I believe, for tankettes, to have BMG with range of 10, much worse, then infantry HMG of the same model)

Bren-armed Carrier should start not earlier, than around 11/37. From 1943 there could be a carrier with 2in mortar. All these carriers had a crew of 3 and as a rule did not carry other men (and before Universal Carrier, weren't able to)

Formations:
329 Mechanised FO - date to be adjusted

330 Mech Patrol - non-existent formation of 4 carriers.

332 Motor Coy 43 - no changes needed

345 Motor MG Pl 43 - has 4 Vickers HMGs and 4 carriers #453, with two Brens each. In fact, these carriers were #132 MMG Carriers, but I guess it is impossible to model a MMG, that disappears as a vehicle armament when dismounted... So we should live with it? Anyway, as it was mentioned in unit 132, they didn't carry Brens.

I suggest also to make a standard section of one class 24 Boys carrier and two class 127 carriers, through all lifespan of Boys.


class 32 Scout vehicle
550 Bren carrier - I think it should be removed, so that it won't replace wheeled scout cars in formations, which is probably inaccurate. Might be changed to general use unarmed carrier of other class.

There will be a gap in formation 97 Armour Car Sqdn between an ending date of 865 Carden Loyd VI (12/34) and starting date of Dingo (11/39), but it would be anyway, since the carrier shouldn't be available before 1937. A carrier is a single Scout vehicle there (there are carriers of other class in 072 subformations). The simplest is to make this squadron available from 11/39. Besides, I suspect that mixed AC/carrier Sqdn is a later-war recce unit, but it would demand further research (under a Reconnaissance Corps, from 1941, a scout platoon of divisional Recce Bttn consisted of a section with 5 LRC and two sections with 3 carriers each). In BEF period, carriers were used along with light tanks in recce units, not with armoured cars.


BTW: 865 Carden Loyd VI deserves some other formations, since its only use is the mentioned single entry in Armour Car Sqdn, while it was very widespread vehicle in early 1930s, "used as light tanks, as recce vehicle, as machine gun carrier and as tractors" (according to Armour in profile no.16 - Carden Loyd Mk.VI). Sadly, no details are given as for their tactical usage in the British Army.


That's all for carriers as for now. There is also 399 Ammo Carrier, which also starts too early, but I don't know, if armoured carriers were used as ammo carriers at all.

-----------

293 Limber - a better photo of a limber might be 23142, showing a limber with horses, instead of some antique piece with a limber (for other countries as well)

362 Humber LRC III - should have icon 3254 (the first is non-existent)

380 Humber Scout I - was produced from early 1943 only (now 6/41) [by Polish J. Magnuski and a Czech monograph book on Humber Scout car]

381 Humber Scout II - produced from 1944 only according to these sources (now 6/43).

582 Colonial 4.5" H has no winter icon

603 Rolls-Royce AC - turret was open from a top

607-610 M-H II 2pdr etc - gun conversions were open-topped and they should use a picture 21118


I couldn't help from attaching a proposed picture of (hard to find) Norwegian Fokker C.V - current units 51,53 in Norwegian OOB have a photo with clear Dutch markings.
I'm also attaching alternative in flight photo pm20580 of Norwegian Hover MF11 floatplane.

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

None of this is getting in. Get serious. You had a year to post this and waited until I announce the patch....... IMAGINE how little "impressed" I am at this moment.... then double it. There were plenty of hints dropped we were finishing up and from what I can see a number if these issues have already been dealt with.. you DID notice how many photos I added to the game didn't you ?

The work is locked down. The only reason its not released now is we are triple checking things but that's things already in the game NOT anything new dropped in our laps after a years work was done and I really... REALLY don't give a crap if some "new source" puts our introduction dates in the mid 30's for something that hardly anyone bothers with is now out by a few months

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Minor things, for 2021 release. I'm just reading "Tempest in Action", and there is some information about Typhoons.

729 Typhoon IA - bombs were adapted in late 1942 only (now 9/41). Early Typhoons were mostly used as interceptors or strafers. It says, that "ater extensive trials, the Typhoon was finally cleared to carry two 500 pound bombs under the wings and by September of 1942, Nos 181 and 182 Squadrons became he first to equip with what were sometimes known as Bombphons". But it would be Typhoon IB rather, with 20 mm cannons (icon 8307).
For bomb armed Typhoon, there is photo 8368.

Possibly it's better to make IA strafer a separate unit, so that removing of bombs from 729 unit doesn't interfere with scenarios.

183 Typhoon IB - 1000lb bombs were used operationally from early 1944 only (trials were begun in 4/43, and "it was a year later, however, before Typhoons used 1000 pound bombs in action").
It could rather use an icon with stripes, especially, that it uses early earth/green scheme.

95 Typhoon IB - photo 2354 has invasion stripes, while this is pre-6/44 unit, while 731 Typhoon IB is post-6/44 unit and has photo 850 without stripes - they might be swapped for a cake of consistency with icons.

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

No $hit really?

Seriously.........Do you ever think that MAYBE you (and others) are bit too OCD about totally insignificant details and that one day all this endless frigging rivet counter nitpicking will end development once and for all of the game you (and others) profess to actually like but endlessly criticize becasuse there are only two people willing but more important CAPABLE of keeping it going ??

Hmmmm ?

If anyone reads..... "Hmmmm ... I think Dons finally getting really pissed off" into my recent posts well CONGRATULATIONS for figuring it out.

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Don just ignore all this drivel it’s just useless nitpicking by two folks, every post by these two as soon as I see a gal zillion letters I just scroll by and don’t even bother.

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Don't read it as "criticising". By no means I mean to criticise the games and your effort. I only try to give some hints, how to improve several details, if you'd like to. If not, please, ignore.

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Don, just ask yourself, 'Does it make a difference in game terms?' If not, toss it into the wpb and go have a pint of bitter.

troopie.

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Troopie

That question, and variations of it, are SOP and in all cases the answer comes back a variation on "not really". There have been very few what I might consider real "game changer" OOB corrections made over the years and I honestly cannot recall the last time I found one I thought would make a real difference to how a game battle would play out.

Without belaboring the point the Typhoon IA "error" is a fair example since we are in that thread. We had it 9/41....it has been 9/41 as far back as I can check which is 2004. The odds someone won or lost a game because it was in with bombs a year early is infinitesimal because even with it moved to a later date there are other aircraft that can deliver the same basic firepower and bomb-load to do the same job as it so for whatever the "average" player is it would change nothing in how his game played out even though by this new information there was an historical error in the game.

I have posted elsewhere that "perfect" OOB's are an unobtainable goal and to even try to make that happen would require someone who really understands how the game is put together and uses all that data for AI and ( most importantly )actually likes to do the work and understand how it all fits together so as to NOT cause knock-off effects and that's a very ( very ) short list. I said back in 2019 when we release SPWW2 V12 that OOB work on winSPWW2 is frozen. Apparently all that did was stimulate even more reports and more "bright ideas" on how the game "should" be changed to make it "better". Right now there are just over 13,000 units in SPWW2 ( 39,468 in MBT ) Each unit has 59 data entry points ( 66 in MBT ). Each unit has a potential to use 4 weapons and each weapon has 13 data points and there are 4,983 of them ( 16,393 in MBT ). Those units are used by 7,082 formations ( 17,936 in MBT ) and each formation has 20 data entry points and each one of those data entry points could contain what someone might claim to be "errors" so the OOB's are an easy target for someone with an axe to grind.

If we did this for another 100 years the chance that no one could find what they consider a flaw in the OOB's is absolute zero and even if all the flaws could indeed be corrected the game would play little different than it does now.

Both SPWW2 and SPMBT are games. They were never intended to be the definitive historical simulation of battles that covers a 95 year time span even though we have expanded and fine turned the OOB's from the original game and from the very start SPww2 deviated from historical reality by allowing Germany and Japan to have armed forces after both ceased to be in reality to allow players to "what if". That was part of the game design process that any "historical purist" would have issues with.

We've been doing this since 1998. Neither Andy nor I ever expected we would still be working on it 23 years years later and we both agree we both probably would have given the whole thing a pass had we known.

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Yep, was 98 or so when a guy from Canada emailed me some SHP files that completely blew me away, they totally changed the game from the lurid green and brown stodgy things SSI were providing. They were in camoflage so the name Camo Workshop came from those initial files of I think, some BTRS... been that long, I can't reccolect precisely what but they were utterly fantastic.

And like Don says, if I had known then that we would still be at it 23 odd years later I too would have run away screaming!:shock:

cheers
Andy

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Well I for one want to public thank and praise you both! If it were not for Don and Andy, I probably would have given up on SP way way back in 2003 or 2004. I really really tried to like that other game but something was just off, when I found the DOS versions of this game and MBT I was totally blown away and eventually created my first 20 scenarios way back then at the instance of Ed. I took a break, had a bad divorce (are they ever good, except when you move on, lol) and got back into playing the games happy solo for years and then sometime in 2017 or 2018 I went on design craze that barely has stopped (up to 300+ now, lol) and along the way I have met two of the finest folks in the world.

So I therefore am glad you two have slogged on and unfortunately put up with so much from so few, because I would have never met you or had your friendship and to me that is priceless.

So thank you so very much.

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

The game is great, yes we all want tweaks, but none of us want to see it go away.

For me, this game (both this one and MBT) brings back those hours of fun fighting the green army men vs whatever else I had. It also gives me the chance to try out ideas and enjoy learning about the battles and what all happened. Plus it feeds right into my next three hobbies, history, reading, and model building.

Don and Andy have done an amazing job and here we are in 2021 and the game is still fun and enjoyable. I want to say I will still playing it in 2031.

Keep at it, ignore the crazies, you guys have done more with this than anyone thought possible.

Thank you.

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

I sympathise with people complaining about inaccuracies, but nit-picking can be taken too far. For example, after autumn 1941 most Soviet aircraft, including some Lend-Lease types, did NOT have stars painted on the upper wing surfaces. I don't like this inaccuracy, but can live with it. More objectionable IMHO are those stupid black SS objective markers. What's wrong with just the normal Third Reich flag? If anyone can tell me how to remove these SS markers, I would be most grateful.

As for British OB vehicle usage dates, consult Chapter H notes in the Advanced Squad Leader board wargame, For King and Country. I was one of the researchers on the ASL project, and Bob McNamara went to great lengths to get things right. We used a host of sourcs and resources, including the Tank Museum in the days when queries could be submitted free. Happy to help with any queries. Regards Charles

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Personally I don't mind the SS VH Objective flags, no different really that seeing the Communist Soviet VH Objective flags. Every time someone objects to having SS runes or 3rd Reich swastikas' flags, they never ever complain about the Soviet Communist flags. Both were murderous regimes, but I'd wager that the Communist were more ruthless and murderous and for longer than the Nazi's.

I have played ASL since 1985/6 and despite AH and MMP's best intentions there is a lot of discrepancies in their data, also most of the research was done without the benefit of newer source materials available today.

Case in point Glantz's works were not available to AH back in the day and lot of folks from that era were influenced by the German's biased accounts of World War II.

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

EXACTLY RIGHT. We added the ability to swap in ID tags and V hex markers to allow some personalization to scenarios. The SS runes were the last one added as I knew as the sun rises that SOMEBODY at some point would get their knickers in a knot about it but as you say....NOBODY ever suggests we remove the hammer and cycle but I figured if someone was going to complain about the runes it would be someone who uses the German cross set of tags we include and I actually never considered someone would say " What's wrong with just the normal Third Reich flag?" ( just saying THAT in the wrong place could get you in trouble ). There is nothing "wrong" with it just as there is nothing "wrong" with the Flag of the Soviet Union or the Chinese Communist flag even though those two are together responsible for 3x the number of deaths as Nazi Germany. They are part of history and on one hand we are chided for putting red stars on the wings of Soviet aircraft ( and YES I am WELL AWARE that was generally not done during the war years ) but OTOH are criticized for including SS runes for use with SS units in the game.

We include the USMC flag but no one has ever suggested that's a problem and when the next update is released there will be an optional Imperial Japanese ID tag and V hex marker and there a places in Asia that have issues with what that flag represents in their history.

So on one hand we don't have the level of accuracy some think we should have and OTOH have what some consider inappropriate levels of accuracy in other areas. We can't win. There are places the Israeli flag offends but no one suggests we remove it. There are places the Union Jack offends but no one suggests we remove it... With nearly 8 Billion people it's IMPOSSIBLE to not offend someone about something somewhere

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Folks, I understand and appreciate, that Don makes a tremendous work with the games, but I just suggest some tweaks, which might improve historic accuracy and usually don't demand creating new icons, changing formations etc.
Sorry, I admit I'm quite addicted to improving accuracy in many fields. I started from writing notes on book margins, now I have improvable media like Steel Panthers (which luckilly is being developed by a a group of devoted staff) and Wikipedia ;)
If you don't want to bother, just ignore. But something might be considered as worthy.

Agreed :)

So do scroll, if you have nothing to say on the subject...

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

In subject of Swastikas, SS runes etc. Is possible to have official blessing:eek: to use THOSE symbols in our game since 2018.

Since beginning of SPWW2 there was a additional shp files folder because German law were strict and don't allow THOSE symbols in any form in video games even in historical context.

But since 2018 German law makers made an exception for video games if follow this procedure

1. game is registered in USK
2. Authors of the game will register game in their system and ask about permission to use Hitlers symbols.
3. Permission isn't automatically. E-mail starts a discussion and this organisation will ask about context of the game and why authors want to use this symbols?
4. If they will be happy with answers. Use of THOSE will be well explained they can give official permission to use them without fear in distribution of game on territories and dependencies of German Federal Republic :angel.

So if main authors will be interested WinSPWW2 can have official German government blessing and use swastikas without fear and remove this folder :up: which was created because stupid law case related with Wolfenstein 3D.
Game will probably have after this procedure such age symboldon't know which age rating will be for game with THOSE symbols but propably somewhere from higher numbers.
https://64.media.tumblr.com/f5e0e027...qlahma_500.png

Here articles about change of german law in 2018 in context of video games
https://www.lexology.com/library/det...8-863f2181874c
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/...n-video-games/
https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/JrgF...hould_care.php
https://kotaku.com/games-in-germany-...now-1828238768

And here USK [Unterhaltungssoftware Selbstkontrolle] institution where game must be classified and then is possible to ask about blessing.
https://usk.de/en/

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

Błażej. The game stays as it is with the additional shp files folder. We are NOT going to ask anyone for official permission or their "blessing" to do what we have been doing for over two decades.

With the additional shp files folder, anyone who DOES prefer to use the Cross rather than the Hakenkreuz has that option so the folder will remain. Besides, there is no real way to remove the folder that is already in thousands of computers...nor do we have any desire to

Re: British OOB7 corrections/suggestions (v.6)
 

I've recently found out some interesting information about UK OOB007 Weapon 038 17 Pounder Gun.

Normally, I wouldn't comment on it; because there's a risk of the subject devolving into everyone advocating for their own specific nationality (as can be seen in the World of Tanks / War Thunder boards); and I do like the SPCAMO approach of using generic data wherever possible; because it "normalizes" everything to the same baseline and represents a level of abstraction in simulating a very messy business called war.

But in this case, the discrepancy is large enough, I think, to merit discussion.

Recently (I don't know when exactly), the Canadian government finished a 10 year project to digitize scores of microfilm reels and place them online.

https://heritage.canadiana.ca/view/o...2/4878?r=0&s=5

On 24 March 1945, the War Office in Whitehall, in a memorandum issued to every major British Formation (21AG, 15AG, AFHQ, CINC Middle East, India, PAIC, ALFSEA), said:

Both trials and operational experience have shown that 17-pr D.S. Shot is inaccurate. As a result of further accuracy trials with a mixture of APCBC and DS shot, it has been found that DS shot leaves a deposit in the bore and when this deposit has accumulated sufficiently the accuracy of subsequent rounds is seriously affected. After as few as 15 DS rounds the accuracy with APCBC may become appreciably worse than that with D.S.

...

All 17-pr guns which have fired DS shot must therefore be regarded as suspect as regards accuracy.

They suggested limiting the issuance of APDS shot to specific guns in a battery to minimize the issue; and that "further trials are being carried out....you will be notified of the conclusions from these trials as soon as possible."

https://heritage.canadiana.ca/view/o...2/4876?r=0&s=5

Several months later, on 19 May 1945, Whitehall issued a followup memorandum afer trials, and basically said:

The basic accuracy of the 17 pounder was:

APCBC shot average 90% zone was 4.3 ft diameter at 1000yds
DS Shot average 90% zone was 8.2 ft diameter at 1000 yds

Essentially, the 90% zone is just that -- the area in which 90% of shot will be expected to pass through.

"The amount of degradation varies from gun to gun, but it was found that after firing only 10 rounds of D.S. shot the 90% zone in a certain gun had increased by 9.7-ft. Thus, if the initial accuracy of this gun was as given in para 2, the 90% zone to be expected with APCBC after firing the 10 rounds of DS would be 14-ft."

They found:

Provided that the fouling by DS is not allowed to progress too far it can be removed by successive rounds of APCBC. The fouling caused by 5 succesive rounds of DS shot may be expected to be removed by the next 10 APCBC rounds. Accuracy will not therefore be endangered by firing odd rounds of DS shot provided that the majority of the shooting is done with APCBC.

There was also apparently firing trials done in the Summer of 1944 with two Fireflies against a target roughly the size of a Panther turret and issued in WO 291/1263 and WO 165/135, both dated 22 September 1944 and mentioned by Nick Moran in the Chieftain's hatch:

https://worldoftanks.com/en/news/chi...armour-part-1/

400 yds
APC hit 90.5%
APDS hit 56.6%

600 yds
APC hit 73.0%
APDS hit 34.2%

800 yds
APC hit 57.3%
APDS hit 21.9%

1000 yds
APC hit 45.3%
APDS hit 14.9%

1500 yds
APC hit 25.4%
APDS hit 7.1%

As I mentioned earlier, the discrepancy is big enough I think, to warrant discussion, because 17 pdr APDS shot is powerful enough (28 pen) vs normal APCBC (17 pen) that without lowering accuracy to compensate, it makes the weapon artificially powerful.