8.0 Corrections/Suggestions

[panda124c]

ORIGINAL: Kevin E. Duguay

British 2 Pounder towed guns DID have HE rounds issued. The tank guns were only issued AP Shot.[;)]

IIRC the HE rounds were issued late in the war after most of these guns had been relpaced with the 6 pounder. I could be wrong, I have been in the past and plan to be in the future. [:D]

[Major Destruction]

ORIGINAL: Kevin E. Duguay

Here are a few things I found while making my own Icon Bible when the Forum was down;


Czecoslovokia;
Wrong Icon for P-11, shows PZ II Lynx.

British; Mustang III has Nationalist China markings?

Hope this can be helpfull[;)]

Is the P-II not a Lynx?

I think the UK Mustang has the RN blue roundal with white centre?

Very helpful. Thank you![:)]

[Major Destruction]

ORIGINAL: Kevin E. Duguay

pbear,

The AP is wrong!


"This was a high explosive shell round. The projectile was machined from a steel bar to give a tubular body with sloping flanges, the front flange being pierced. The bursting charge was a pellet of PETN/wax weighing 5gm(0.18oz/77.1gr) and the shell was fitted with a percussion fuse. The propelling charge was 150gm(5.29oz) of Nz R P. The Ballistics of this round were the same as those of the piercing projectile, the maximum engagement range still being 800m(875yd)."



How about 20mmPzgr Patr 40 ?
PEN at 100m--------40mm at 0 slope (tungsten round)

Same book!![:)]

I can't see a shell of that size with an exploding charge of 5 grams being very effective as an anti-personnel weapon. So HEKill 1?

How common was the 20mm Pzgr Patr40? In France or Poland or later campaigns?
I assume it was not available at all before 1940 and possibly not available in the France Campaign. Therefore what value would it have in shooting at T-34's. I am getting at the feasibility of the unit to engage a tank. In game terms, a pen value of 40mm would give this unit a fighting chance against most early-war tanks, but was the intended use for fighting tanks and therefore should this ammo be modeled in the game?

[Kevin E. Duguay]

Major,

Yes the P-II is a Lynx. To much coffee I think! Sorry about that one!

One question though. With so few built (101 to 131 depending on source) how did the Czechs obtain this vehicle when the Germans could'nt produce enough for themselves?

P2, Did the Royal Navy use Mustangs? Did they use them for Army ground support? I don't have a clue, it's just my opinion that maybe this plane needs a rework of its art work to make it RAF.

Oh BTW, the Netherlands are useing a PBY Catalina for a Donier. Hope I spelled that right.[&:]

Later!![:)]

EDIT; Yes HE value of 1 would seem about right. Pen like a 20mm maybe?

[panda124c]

Ok, back to the Sd Kfz 250 in general, they all have to high of a carrying capacity.

"In the standard armoured infanty carrier version a crew of six with an armament of two machine guns"
'German half-track vehicles 1939-1945' Almark Publications No 4.

So the 250/1 with a crew of two and a carry of eight is wrong, working from this basic carry the other 250's are also wrong. No more that a total of six men per vehical, as you increase the crew (adding heavier weapons) the carry should decrease, adding turrents (2 cm AC turrent) the carry should decrease even more. I should think that the 250/9 would have zero carry crew four. The 250/10 and /11 should have a crew of four and a carry of two.
The two MGs in the /1 could be reduced to one since one was an AA mount. The /10 and /11 had the forward mounted MG replaced with the AT gun so no MG unless the AA mounted gun is modeled.

To make the weapons load out work correctly there would have to be a Lt MG section of two men with a lower rate of fire than the four man Med MG section. I do not wish to open that can of worms, so if an MG is added to the /10 and /11 then the carry for these two vehicals should be reduced by two to none.

Yes I love my HT's and AC's [:D]

[panda124c]

ORIGINAL: Major Destruction


How common was the 20mm Pzgr Patr40? In France or Poland or later campaigns?

This gun first saw service in 1941 and was in limited service in 1945. Apparently as the barrels wore out and the shell became rare they were replace with other weapons.

I have been unable to find any production numbers for this weapon but I do find pictures of captured one on all fronts. Also I have a book on Iron Cross winners and one speaks of using this weapon in Russia by an infantry unit to bust open bunkers (this was evidently an Infantry Lt AT unit).

[Major Destruction]

Sorry. [:o]
I thought I was talking about ammunition.

[Major Destruction]

What is the opinion on this Forum regarding any changes that might be made to the rate of fire of offboard artillery?

.....or any specific artillery pieces for that matter!

[Goblin]

Slow them down some, or give them more ammo, I think. I read constantly about hour long barrages and such, but the OB arty runs out of ammo fairly quickly. If the rate of fire was slowed some, then the ammo would last longer. Alot of the shots are redundant after the first few anyways, as the target has gone to ground.

Goblin

[hogg]

The other thing that has crossed my mind is on board artillery - specifically the (so-called) portable mortars, 82mm or less.

Surely, such a weapon in a prepared position, in a defend or delay scenario, would have more ammunition available than the same unit in an advance or assault, that relies on what it's crew (and friends!) can carry?

Still have mortars in defend situations running out of ammo after turn 4 - can't be right?

[KG Erwin]

The ROF adjustment for off-board arty is still in the testing phase--this was primarily to improve the 75s, which too often were out of contact and had plenty of ammo left at the completion of a campaign scenario. Now, my preliminary tests indicate that for the 105s and 155s, holding a battery or two in reserve for late-game situations becomes more important.
As has been mentioned elsewhere, it's always a good idea to turn off one gun for each off-board battery anyway. This actually is a de rigeur tactic, as a malfunction does not disable an entire battery. Ammo conservation should play a part on the scale of these battles anyway. You gotta remember that your battalion is borrowing regimental and divisional assets--to assume a never-ending ammo supply (unless you turn reduced ammo "off" in your preferences) is just unrealistic.
I see no need to increase ammo loads, as this defeats the purpose of the ROF adjustments. I believe that the current ammo loads are more than adequate. On the "Historical Arty Delay" thread, I gave the proposed adjusted ROF chart. You guys can do your own tests, and let us know what you think. We need to discuss this more. IMHO, I think it's a good idea.

[Resisti]

ORIGINAL: hogg

The other thing that has crossed my mind is on board artillery - specifically the (so-called) portable mortars, 82mm or less.

Surely, such a weapon in a prepared position, in a defend or delay scenario, would have more ammunition available than the same unit in an advance or assault, that relies on what it's crew (and friends!) can carry?

Still have mortars in defend situations running out of ammo after turn 4 - can't be right?

Yes, it would be reasonable for a scenario designer to raise the ammo load in delay/defend scenarios.

When playing a random battle against AI or human player,instead, this is where ammo dumps/ammo carriers come in play, to simulate what you're saying.

what can't be done, is to introduce another unit for each type of mortar, in each oob, with an higher ammo load; there wouldn't be space enough, and the solutions I proposed above would be enough anyway, imo.

[hogg]

ORIGINAL: Resisti


what can't be done, is to introduce another unit for each type of mortar, in each oob, with an higher ammo load; there wouldn't be space enough, and the solutions I proposed above would be enough anyway, imo.

Roger that - it would make the oob's about 600 meg?

lol

[:D]

[Goblin]

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

The ROF adjustment for off-board arty is still in the testing phase--this was primarily to improve the 75s, which too often were out of contact and had plenty of ammo left at the completion of a campaign scenario. Now, my preliminary tests indicate that for the 105s and 155s, holding a battery or two in reserve for late-game situations becomes more important.
As has been mentioned elsewhere, it's always a good idea to turn off one gun for each off-board battery anyway. This actually is a de rigeur tactic, as a malfunction does not disable an entire battery. Ammo conservation should play a part on the scale of these battles anyway. You gotta remember that your battalion is borrowing regimental and divisional assets--to assume a never-ending ammo supply (unless you turn reduced ammo "off" in your preferences) is just unrealistic.
I see no need to increase ammo loads, as this defeats the purpose of the ROF adjustments. I believe that the current ammo loads are more than adequate. On the "Historical Arty Delay" thread, I gave the proposed adjusted ROF chart. You guys can do your own tests, and let us know what you think. We need to discuss this more. IMHO, I think it's a good idea.

If the guns fire faster, the ammo is gone WAY faster. Now you are saying that we have to play your way to conserve ammo. I don't like to turn tubes off. I also do not believe ammo conservation should be a part of some of my battles. You guys should not force your style of play on us because you like it more. We don't have that option.

When my force is attacking, I don't ecpect to run out of ammo in a couple turns. You state that my force is 'borrowing regimental and divisional assets'. I say to you that it isn't. my force is doing what I want it to. To me, I am the tip of the spear, and they are not telling me, "Well, sorry, here's ten rounds, I suggest you turn a couple of the guns off." Don't take our options away from us based on how you guys like to play it. Playing with unlimited ammo also affects APCR/bazooka/PF's etc, and just isn't an option. I don't think having arty run out in three or four turns should be either.

Goblin

[hogg]

Time for a noob question!

[>:]

How do you turn artillery tubes off, in the game?

In sp III, I could see how you do it for onboard artillery - just redline tubes in the unit list. But in spwaw, each artillery icon is usually one gun!

As far as accessing oba, I am totally lost, can't figure it out at all!


Yours,

Thickly,

Hogg.

[8|]

[Goblin]

You goto the artillery plotting screen, and there are buttons to view each units stats. Click on one of the green gun names, and it will turn red. It is now 'off'.

What I don't understand is speeding up artillery firing rates, and then telling us to turn off guns to conserve ammo. Why have a 'battery' if you cannot use all the guns because you will run out of ammo instantly? Since the option for reduced ammo is in the game already, why not bump the ammo supply up some, let us decide if we want the entire battery to fire, and let the guys who don't want alot of ammo play with reduced ammo ON?

A battery is multiple guns for a reason.

Goblin

[hogg]

Thanks for the info, Goblin, I appreciate it!

[&o]


Turning to the topic in general - I suspect the fear of those on high is really that artillery will become so powerful, and influential, that it overshadows everything else - a sentiment I would support.

How to do it?


Ammo loads.

I am sorry. I really, really am. But I just can't see artillery units running out of shells, especially either side in advance or assault games. See my comments earlier about on board mortars, but, basically, off-board artillery is behind the lines, in prepared positions, with a whole tail-load of logistics driving shells up to the prepared positions.

Imagine the scene - Montgomery talking to staff officer, prior to an assault in the desert - "Tanks - check - infantry - check - salt tablets - check - large air filters for the engines - check - artillery ammo - oops, bugger, we forgot to bring enough!". Hmmmmm.

I can see, after periods of prolonged firing (and I mean prolonged!), units starting to get short, but if that where the case, surely the batteries would reduce the number of shells fired per fire mission, to conserve ammo and keep going?

Please could someone who knows what they are talking about clarify this?


Artillery Availability

Now this, to me, is the real argument!

Tommy Atkins, advancing on the battlefield, sees target of opportunity. Works out co-ordinates, finds a radio that works, passes fire mission request up the line to the artillery co-ordinator, message passed to battery, battery works out which direction and distance to fire in, guns laid, ammo loaded, lanyards pulled, shells leave barrel, fly some distance, and land in rough area of intended target.

All of this takes time.

And, depending on the nationality and era, the time will vary considerably from one army to the next.

But, what do we in spwaw do? Artillery flung about the map at a moments notice, hitting moving targets with ease.

And the introduction of forward observers has made it worse! Now, with there access time reduced to less than a turn, hide a forward observer somewhere safe, and you can drop (admittedly unobserved) artillery roughly where you want it, supressing the enemy, at the end of your curren turn!


To me, the answer to all this is simple - allow off board artillery virtually unlimited ammo, but considerably extend the amount of time it takes to call it in - again dependant on nationality.

Get the call in time up to two turns, and you start to have to think about where you want it, and plan ahead. No more sniping at fleeting targets with 150mm howitzers!


Sorry to ramble on! [>:]


Cheers,

Hogg.

[Kevin E. Duguay]

I worked with PZ Leo to correct the artillery in HIS Mod of SPWaW. Some things he accepted some he did not. If anyone looks up anything about larger guns in the 150 to 203mm range you will find that many of these guns have a ROF of only 1 or 2 RPM. That give's a whole battery only 8 to 16 shots per turn, depending on the gun. With the correct splash effect this ROF is correct.

[Kevin E. Duguay]

I,m Going to bring up the issue about the 60mm M19 mortar again. I found a book by I.V. Hogg says exactly what I said. The M19 was issued as was. No base, No aiming devices, Jap Knee Mortar type of weapon. Latter in the War a base plate and sights were made for the weapon. As originally produced the mortar was rejected by the US Army. But it did enter service in spec. ops.. Paras etc. Both theaters of operation. With base plate and sights the weapon was found to be heavier than the original 60mm Mortar and production was stoped. Some of these weapons made it into the Vietnam War. However most were scraped before this time. SF modern 60mm are a more robust type of this same type. I.E. It can be used with or with out the base plate.

[Major Destruction]

To those who would like to have a large supply or longer bombardment period, why not simply buy more batteries?

But to those who would like to keep this in the tactical realm of company/battalion sized battles, how many batteries of 4.5's would Tommy Atkins be able to call on to cover the front of his company?

I know that some would argue that at times, the Allies could count on artillery from every available tube within range. So be it. But then why is it that in most PBEM battles players tend to opt for a limit to the batteries purchased?

To reduce the ammo loadouts, or increase the costs or increase the ROF or some combination of all these factors would eliminate the need to limit purchase quantities of artillery. Players would then opt to buy more batteries which in turn could be used to produce a greater saturation bombardment of a targeted area.

Would this be of any value to thosee who play PBEM? or to those who play vs AI in Campaigns?