New Russian OOB (or SPR OOB)

[KraMax]

narwan
---------------------
Panzerfaust - was not the regular weapon of the Soviet army, it was the trophy weapon which fighters of red army used in WW2.
RPG-1 - Not only has not been started in a batch production, it has been underfulfilled to a level of production i.e. it is the experimental weapon.

[Marek_Tucan]

KraMax said:
narwan
---------------------
Panzerfaust - was not the regular weapon of the Soviet army, it was the trophy weapon which fighters of red army used in WW2.

but for sure captured PzF stockpiles were kept in wartime reserves? Heck, last Thompsons from Lend-Lease tanks were in reserve till 1997!

[KraMax]

You want that tanks or machine guns on Lend-Lease have been presented at us in OOB?

I am assured that in OOB it is necessary to use the real weapon which was in armies or the weapon which was at war in wars.
I for example did not hear that in the Afghani war - the Soviet army used panzerfaust

[narwan]

KraMax said:
narwan
---------------------
Panzerfaust - was not the regular weapon of the Soviet army, it was the trophy weapon which fighters of red army used in WW2.
RPG-1 - Not only has not been started in a batch production, it has been underfulfilled to a level of production i.e. it is the experimental weapon.

Yes I know and if the soviet union had gone to war in that period these would have been used by it's troops.
Your argument that they didn't use them historically is moot since there was no actual major war the soviet union was involved in in that period and the game assumes that there is!

The same applies to many other OB's. The dutch OB for the 80's is full of stuff that was not part of the active armed forces but which was still kept in some warehouse. By your reasoning this equipment would not have been used (for reserve forces or to replace combat losses) had the warsawpact and NATO gone to war in the 80's.
I can assure you it would have, just like the captured panzerfausts and experimental RPG1's would have been used by the soviets in the late 40's if the soviet union and the western allies had gone to war then.
The game models not just what's on the active inventory of armies in specific historical period's but also what has been stockpiled and mothballed and COULD have been used had war broken out.

[DRG]

Remco, I do appreciate your input here. You've been around long enough to know that there is no way, no matter what we do, could we possibly keep everyone happy .

There's just too many ways of looking at these issues. I'm reminded of " In service" debates that have occurred in the past where someone digs up info that some weapons or vehicle was "introduced" at a certain date but no one really knows for certain if that was the date the first one rolled off the assembly line or was delivered to the depot or was delivered to the troops for familiarization or the first date it actually entered front line service. Little details like that are rarely available so it's a judgment call for introduction dates. A vehicle could be given to troops for the first time in October for example but unless it's a minor modification of an existing unit there is little chance it would enter full operational service right away and that is why so many in service dates are January and probably if the issue was really dug into most of those January in service dates are wrong but really.....so what ? It a game not a historical record and really how many "historical records" do NOT have someone saying they are wrong ? The same is true for weapons taken out of front line service. A lot of assumptions need to be made , were they sent immediately to the wreaking yard ? Were they warehoused and if so, how long and if they were warehoused what other use could they have but to be used as they were intended "just in case" a conflict arose. As you astutely noted........ the entire POINT of this game is to simulate combat that in most cases never occurred. Does this mean we should include every weapon that was tested but not developed ?? NO !!--- but occasionally things like this crop up where including them helps game play and therefore becomes a "design decision" by us.... the game designers.

We are criticised when we are too flexible and allow a certain amount of ' What if" and criticised when we aren't . That was my entire point of mentioning the "experimental " SP guns in the WW2 Russian OOB.

The "RPG-1 issue is really rather amusing under the circumstances. Someone, long in the past, dug up info that something called an "RPG-1" that may or may not have existed in the late 1940's and maybe it was a native Russian device or MAYBE it referred to captured panzerfaust stocks and MAYBE the "truth" was a little of both but it seemed like something WAS in existence and since this gave the Russian OOB an infantry AT device from the beginning of 1946 until a bit past the introduction of the RPG-2. It's seemed a fair compromise even though the info on it was sketchy but we did need something to fill the gap on the OOB and that served the purpose. Nobody... and I mean NOBODY at the time would have ever imagined the amount of time that would be wasted years later debating this issue. And this "issue" goes much deeper and is a bigger PITA than is obvious here. In the Russian MBT OOB this is one weapon slot and ONE unit to deal with if we do deal with it ( "RPG-1"s also exist in the MBT Polish and Czech OOB's and is a separate PITA to deal with ) the biggest problem is the WW2 Russian OOB where 10 units currently use an "RPG-1" and it's looking like they are going to find themselves carrying " something else" if I decide to pull the weapon out.

The entire issue is developing into a very a big headache over what is really a very trivial "error" . It's all so MUCH easer to deal with when all you have to do is change an OOB and not consider the impact those changes make on other parts of the game.

However, in some cases simple problems can cause big headaches and problems that appear less simple can turn out to have simple fixes and in this case the "fix" is somewhere in between and should keep almost everyone happy

Don

[KraMax]

The USSR have anti-tank granades RPG-43 and RPG-6. After war all RPG-43 were not used in army and have been transferred to use in friendly allied armies. After war in the Soviet army granades RPG-6 were used.
I think after WW2 - panzerfaust also have been transferred to use to the allied countries USSR. There are no data confirming, that in armies were used after WW2 panzerfaust or RPG-1. In any lists of anti-tank tools of the USSR consisting on arms - is not present RPG-1 or panzerfaust.

[badger45]

Hi Don,

I have just stumbled upon the book, dedicated to rocket assisted grenades in Russian army. As it is in Russian, I will just summarize info about RPG-1 and RPG-2 found there. BTW it is free for download at http://www.army.lv/?s=2002 / direct link: http://www.army.lv/files/133.pdf

RPG-1 was developed from 1944 to 1947. The development was finally canceled due to "much time lost on finalizing the grenades (this was connected with unsatisfactory performance caused by imperfect function of fuse ...) leading to moral obsolescence of the complex. Works did not continue in 1948, the weapon was not finished and it was not accepted in service."

Practical firing distance on target height 2m was 50 meters, penetration 150mm. Grenade weight 1.6 kg, initial speed 40 m/s. Calibre of weapon 30mm, grenade 70mm. Grenade designation PG-70.

Works on RPG-2 started at 1947, in 1949 it was accepted for service. 1957 appeared new modification which had some infra sight and was designated RPG-2N (probably N=nocnoy=night).

Practical firing distance on target height 2m was 100 meters, penetration 200mm. Grenade weight 1.84 kg, initial speed 84 m/s. Calibre of weapon 40mm, grenade 80mm. Grenade designation PG-2.

The book seems pretty reliable and realistic (Russian sources are sometimes biased, so one must be careful). For example, recently discussed B-11 has following data: practical firing distance on target height 2m was 450 meters, penetration 290mm. Grenade weight 12.54 kg, initial speed 400 m/s. Calibre 107mm.

Regards,
badger45

[KraMax]

In this book it is written that aim range of shooting B-10 = 1000 metres and B-11=1200 metres. But these data do not coincide with data taken of the documentation (the shooting table) to these guns.

[badger45]

It very much depends on what you define as aim range, which is not specified there and therefore does not interest me.

BTW I see, the edition is from 1965... I wonder if it is possible, that during about 10 years between first model of B-10 and the edition of the manual there was some modernization of sight. It looks quite different than more primitive equipment of SPG-82. What I suggest is, that 1000 meters were used with early models from middle fifties and 1400 meters applies to newer ones of middle sixties. But that is only hypothesis

Regards,
badger45

[KraMax]

badger45 said:
It very much depends on what you define as aim range, which is not specified there and therefore does not interest me.

BTW I see, the edition is from 1965... I wonder if it is possible, that during about 10 years between first model of B-10 and the edition of the manual there was some modernization of sight. It looks quite different than more primitive equipment of SPG-82. What I suggest is, that 1000 meters were used with early models from middle fifties and 1400 meters applies to newer ones of middle sixties. But that is only hypothesis

Regards,
badger45

There are no data about that that B-10 or B-11 were modernised sometime. There is a table of shooting of these tools, the crew conducts shooting under these tables. The distance of 1400 metres - HEAT will overcome a shell approximately for 5 seconds.
The distance of 450 metres - speaks only about that that this distance of a direct shot for which it is not necessary to regulate a sight.