How is vehicle size calculated

[soldier]

I was wondering why the IS 2 tank is calculated at 5 while other major nation heavies Tiger1/Panther, Centurion and Pershing are 4. Its weight and width are more or less equal to the others and its height and profile is actually the lowest of the five but it does seem to be a very long tank at 9.9 metres but I'm wondering if this is mainly including its barrel which hangs well forward of the main body (I don't have stats on body length with or without barrel for some of these vehicles). Does the heavy armament add to its size rating. Also curious about the Shermans size of 4. I think I remember reading somewhere that only its high profile gives it this rating. So is there actually an average process or is it just height

[KG Erwin]

Soldier, somewhere in my notes I have an explanation for the sizing scheme in relation to the game code.
 
The sizes in the Enhanced OOBs match what were intended for use by the game, and these came directly from Michael Wood.
 
One thing to remember, and it's been repeated ad nausaeum -- absolute historical values will often NOT work in SPWaW, as the game code is set to interpret input values within the code's context.  
 
In other words, if the code doesn't interpret the values correctly, then it's "garbage in and garbage out".
 
The old OOB teams didn't have Mike's expertise to refer to, so this is why everything got skewed.    I was there, and I know what happened.  We were essentially going blind.
 
The Enhanced OOBs were blessed by input from the game designer, and Alby's team had to virtually start from scratch.   We were singularly blessed by the enhanced SPWaW OOB editor -- what a wonderful tool.  Mike made it much easier, but these OOBs were combed over countless times. 
 
Now, back to soldier's question -- vehicle sizes are correct.   For the last time -- Historical absolutes do NOT necessarily apply.  This point has been pounded upon over and over, and we'll keep pounding until it sinks in.  [8|]   

[soldier]

Why all the propaganda about Enhanced oobs and Michael Wood. I'm not attacking Mike, the Enhanced oobs (which i actually like) or anything else. You can repeat all that other nonsense over and over as many times as you like but it doesn't relate to or answer my question.

Anyway I thought the IS 2 Has been size 5 in previous versions but why is it correct ?

[Alby]

Unit Size:

How large is the target. Please see version 1.0 of the OOB files, as the crew did a pretty good job on most sizes in these files.

0 = Snipers, 4 man or less machine guns and 2 to 4 man recon patrols.
1 = Infantry, bicycles, crewmen, motorcycles, all mortars, all infantry guns, anti-aircraft guns up to 40mm, artillery up to 76.2mm and anti-tank guns up to 76.2mm.
2 = Anti-aircraft guns of 57mm to 76.2mm, artillery larger than 76.2mm, anti-tank guns larger than 76.2mm, cavalry, utility vehicles and other transport with a carry capacity of less than 10 (or 110),.
3 = Small armored cars, most armored vehicles without turrets such as self-propelled guns and tank destroyers, small tanks, anti-aircraft guns larger than 76.2mm, transport with a carry capacity from 10 (or 110) to 19 (or 119).
4 = Normal sized tanks, large armored vehicles without turrets such as self-propelled guns and tank destroyers, transport with a carry capacity of 20 (or 210) to 29 (or 219).
5 = Large tanks, very large armored vehicles without turrets such as self-propelled guns and tank destroyers.
6 = Very, very large vehicles.

There is a formula to calculate this stuff but I have lost it...

[KG Erwin]

Note: Alby was directly quoting Mike Wood in the above Unit Size comments.  I kept some of these  notes, too.  I just didn't wanna dig for them.
 
 
Thanks, Alby.[;)]
 
 

[FlashfyreSP]

Since "6" is the largest Size number possible, it is usually used for extremely large vehicles (like the Maus) and stationary Fortifications and Coastal Guns. The next step down, Size "5", applies to vehicles like the King Tiger, Ferdinand, the IS series, the M46 Patton, and the ARL 44.

Size is a "relative" rating, in that it doesn't mean just height, or length. It's a composite of the height, length, and width of the vehicle; it's cross-section size from various angles helps determine what the "size" of the vehicle is.

[soldier]

Here are some comparisons between the tanks and a bodgy calculating system that just adds height length and width of the vehicles to get a dodgy mass figure (Physics ain't my strong point)

Clash of the Heavyweights

Vehicle and weight Height Width Length

IS-2 tank at 46 tons 2.7 3.4 7.3 = 13.4 mass (is a size 5 vehicle)
Pershing at 41.9 tons 2.7 3.5 6.3 = 12.5 mass
Centurion at 52 tons 3.1 3.3 7.6 = 14 mass
Tiger 1 at 55 tons 2.9 3.7 6.3 = 12.9 mass
Panther at 44 tons 3.1 3.4 6.9 = 13.4 mass
Tiger 2 at 69 tons 3.1 3.7 7.2 = 14 mass (also a size 5 vehicle)

Probably a poor representation of size but makes for some interesting reading. I don't think the editor actually calculates size and I'm not sure if a proper system to calculate size was ever devised so at the moment its all a bit subjective. Also different nations categorised things differently

[soldier]

Hey my neat table is all messed up  [:@]

[Twotribes]

The format doesnt recognize space bar moves in lines past one or two spaces. Havent tried useing tab, so basicly you will end up with a sentence structure no matter how you line it up in the message block.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: soldier

Hey my neat table is all messed up [:@]

I think you have to use "/"..?
I believe Flash is correct ref "size", it being a combination of height, width (maybe times itself and times weight?)
If it were just height, the Sherman would be a "5"[:D]

[FlashfyreSP]

Size is also an abstract depiction of how much "physical space" a unit occupies in the hex; squads of 10-12 men occupy less "space" than a 35-ton tank, regardless of its height or width. That's why they are Size 1; animal transports like horse cavalry and small vehicles like armoured cars are Size 2 because they take up more space.

One of the problems with Size we found doing the Enhanced Mod was that certain vehicles didn't fit the Size ratings well enough. The Churchill tanks were adjusted down to Size 3 because their overall height was low enough to offset their length/width measurements, allowing the tank to occupy less "space" than the Sherman. Having seen examples of these two tanks displayed in a musuem, side by side, in Overloon, The Netherlands, I can say that the Churchill tank looks diminutive next to the Sherman.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP

Size is also an abstract depiction of how much "physical space" a unit occupies in the hex; squads of 10-12 men occupy less "space" than a 35-ton tank, regardless of its height or width. That's why they are Size 1; animal transports like horse cavalry and small vehicles like armoured cars are Size 2 because they take up more space.

One of the problems with Size we found doing the Enhanced Mod was that certain vehicles didn't fit the Size ratings well enough. The Churchill tanks were adjusted down to Size 3 because their overall height was low enough to offset their length/width measurements, allowing the tank to occupy less "space" than the Sherman. Having seen examples of these two tanks displayed in a musuem, side by side, in Overloon, The Netherlands, I can say that the Churchill tank looks diminutive next to the Sherman.

Flash...You have GOT to get over to the Patton museum at Ft Knox..It is just inside the gate right on the interstate, west of Louisville.....(You know, where they filmed "Goldfinger"?)

[FlashfyreSP]

Yeah, m10bob, I was planning on stopping there on my trip up from Texas a couple years ago, but I got behind schedule and couldn't. I also need to hit the Aberdeen Proving Grounds, which is only a couple hours away from me now.