Matrix Games Forums

Val ..Resonable people can differ on opinions about how weapons are modeled , My experience on actually shooting Hand Held AT Weapons is admittedly rather limited, a couple of familiarzation shoots at an old M113 with M72 A1 LAWs , a single shot with a German PF44? at a old truck when I was supporting the 6th Panzer when I was with Corp Landjut and 3 rounds From a Canadian Carl Gustav 84mm down at Baden Os when I was working with the Pincess Pats and 441 Squadron.
What I think is critical though, is to have some hard Data that is comparable and to recognize existing game mechanics as they effect a weapon system, In order to have a basis for an opinion.
As with the Bazooka issue , I posted not only hard data with calculation to put it into a game perspective , but compared and contrasted relevant features of the weapon , such as sights , to give MY opinion based on Hard data of the relative accuracy one to the other , as well as hard data on test stand standard dispersions to be expected from the ammo , I also gave test data by the owning nation and others for the weapons on what they expected accuracy wise in the field ..Remember the Game adjusts for fatigue, suppresion, movement of the shooter, movement of the target, and other factors ..so by design ,in game terms, the weapon is graded in performance without those conciderations , and the game factors in those conciderations at the time of the shot .. IF you disagree based on either subjective data from experience , opinion based on reading and expectations about a weapon from History as you understand it , or on Hard data that you do not care to share about the overall accuracy and effective range of these weapons as group , that does not address the facts of the accuracy and range of the individual weapons within the group relative to each other . In MY OPINION based on the relative thin side armor of Panthers , the nature of Bazooka and other such weapons tactics of firing from ambush in concealed positions My expectations would be high probablity of a hit and low probablity of detection from a buttoned up tank. Frontally the Panthers rather bad quality armor would ,IN MY OPINION, make penetration possible , but not predictable. In My scenario the Bazooka guy shoots first, then runs ducks and dodges . But what is important and about the only thing data actually supports is a relative ranking between the various weapons in accuracy and range , and if you concider the realtive size weight and impact on mobilty it confers as well as size of the launch signature a realative chance of detection with the Panzershreck being more detectable than the bazooka and the bazooka capable of carrying more ammo , firing quicker . So long as that relationship in capability is maintained I do not have a quarrel with the specific values assigned . Itwas only when the Panzershreck aquired the range and mobility and concealability of the M9 Bazooka that I raised the issue.
I don't believe in Balance .. war is never Balanced. I think the point system in this game does a good job when applied fairly (ie a millimeter of armor of the same quality and a millimeter of Pentration is equal for all nations, variations in armor quaility are known and quantifiable to a large degree and quality issues and armor panels outside of the 6 panel model are well handled by existing game mechanics same cost per unit for the same ammo .. get the basics right across the board with reliable data and the rest follows .. what would make a Good Game .. simple, a game that allows a player to accurately model the National tactics of the nations in the game , doesn't force them too , but doesn't deny them the ability should they want to, and then gives them accurately model equipment to execute the tactics, and them a game engine that can produce Historical results at least some of the time.

Voriax: Absoultely concidered wether or not the ammunition might be different , which is why I do NOT mention the Russian 76.2mm AT Gun which is documented to have been rechambered to shoot german made ammuntion , this is not the case with the Czech guns ( please post if you have hard data otherwise , I can not find any info that such was done) The Germans Had the Czech weapons and ammo plants , therefore all data , so that is not a factor, and one of the stated reason for going into Czechslovakia was for the weapons and ammo plants because they were in the 37mm-47mm ( and other Weapons) were conciderd superior to the German 37mm and need for future campaigns .. thats why they didn't change the guns on the Pz 35 and Pz38. On a side note it is just as likely that the Germans would copy forgien ammunition and weapons in detail, as they did with the Russian 120mm mortar, as rechamber to german ammo as in the 76.2mm ATG , or leave the same as in the case of the Czech weapons.. I assume nothing without data to support the assumption, I look for data to form opinions .. what data do you have on this point ? Since the German Version of the 47mm L43 out pentrates the German 50mm L42 by 10 ( 87 for the earlier 47mm and only 77 for the later German 50mmL 42 given the Germans heavier bullet and similar velocity ) while the Czech gun in Czech service is a 70 which seems to better fit with known data in comparison the German 50mm L42.

Orzel we are not talking about small tweeks of 1 to 5 points in most cases we are talking radical changes from 20-50% ( with the exception of the T-34 M43 issue a 4 point increase) As to the Tiger Kiddie issue, it is not gone ,and it is not secret. Simply put Tiger Kiddies are those who excuse inaccuracies in non german OOB's and make no call for correction when the problem is found , but react quickly when a misstatement about a peice of German Equipment is posted Please see http://www.matrixgames.com/default.asp? ... number%3D1 as an example of this , please note how folks posted in protest of my deliberate misstatement of fact ( ie Muzzel loading ) and yet still managed to defend inaccuracy's in rate of fire that was in the German favor 2 per turn as opposed to perhaps 1 shot per 3-5 turns despite detailed info and time tables and a primer on How you load a Sturmtiger , and please concider how the StrumTiger is still modeled despite this being a known mismodeling since Version 3.0

Voriax US 37mm was Pen 71 in version 4.5 and is now 77 for regular AP .. I am assuming this and other SMALL adjustments were from the improved AP Pen formulas resulting from the research from whats his names book .. and I would not be complaining, and be making the same assumptions about the Pak 35/ 36 37mm if the changes I see were in the 10 percent range and inline with other 37mm increases , but not the 50% that the German gun got .. as to hard data to compare them .. as we well know different countries have different criteria on what constitutes penetration, different qualities of plate armor, at different angles and different ranges making comparison difficult using that criteria .. HOWEVER Nation do have a very standarized measurement of velocity and shell weight, which can make a very easy relative head to head comparison between similar caliber guns . The US 37mm is a 1.92 lb shell going at 2900 ft per sec and the German shell is a 1.5 pound shell going at 2625 ft per second .. thats about 30% heavier going about 10 percent faster resulting in about 1.43 times the potential energy at any given range for the US shell over the German shell and given what is factually known about ballistics a potentially better Ballistic Effiecncy giving better retention of energy over range by the US shell . The Czech 37mm L48 also demonstrates similar superority of the German 37mm L45 pak 35/36 but not as great as the US 37mm .
So again I would point out That i can provide hard data that is in fact directly compaerable one gun to the other as a basis for my "opinion" and while I appreciate your attempt to at least provide data , it is not in any useable form and no comparison data similarly structured is available to compare the US Gun with .. However if you look at my Data of 1.43 greater energy, then the US gun would be closer to 55 IF the German gun was at 39 , with the German gun at 64 as it is now the US Gun would be at 92 or out penetrating a US 75 M3 at 91 . so that seems a bit off , don't you agree ? I propose that the Pen for the German Pak 35/36 should be, given the other increases due to the pen recalculation, and to put the German gun back between the Czech guns used on the Pz 35 and Pz 38 where barrel lenght, velocity, and shell weight would have a reasonable person reasonably expect it to be, given the known performance of other similar caliber weapons would be about around Pen 50 . a Pen of 50 would support the trend in increase seen in other 37mm AP ammo due to the recalculation and in a logical progression with other Pen values for such guns as French L18 (Pen 27) , Czech L 40 ( pen 40), German Pak 35/36 L45 ( pen 50) , Czech L 48(pen 56) and US M6 L55 at Pen 77 (given the US heavier shell weight ) .

My data is from the US ordnance manuals and German Forces books on the Carsile barracks website I have posted before.

This is not about a petetion or a vote , this is not kindergarden and we are not voting on the sex of Kittens , we have data , and we have formulas .. and fudging the results to slant the game is not good policy IMHO . If you have data and care at all about this game you will look at the bigger picture and quit working for the short term shortsided gain in a battle by altering the end data .

I too find the M9 to be an icredibly accrurate weapon

I played WildBills The victors campaign

And all my rifle squads were armed with M9's

And the end of the campaign I had Rifle teams with 35-45 kills

75% of them T-34's, ISU-152's and JS-2's

I understand what your saying Ammo...really I do. However, I think that skewed data exsists today and will still be there tomorrow and all the tomorrows after that...whether we like it or not.

Now I agree that the badly missed material should be corrected...the SturmTiger data should indeed reflect the fact that it was a monsterous beast with a very slow rate of fire...I have no issue with that.

However, simply installing ballistics data does not mean that gameplay will be more historical...if it were that simple I think it would have been done from the get go. Now, I am not in the position to say whether it was a matter of programming or other unknown variables...since I wasn't on the design team I can't say for sure...but I have problems buying that things were simply skewed so as to favor a nation due to personal bias or outside input.

If you have messed with OoB's and TOE's before you will know that adjusting one thing can have unseen and un-intened effects on other aspects of gameplay...even if it was adjusted to match "hard data". It is a computer program...a simulation with faults...and therefore unlikely to behave 100% to real world expectations.

So unless one of the actual game programers decides to chime in with the exact how's and why's...we can debate all day which ballistics data is correct and what is right and what isn't with every piece of equipment...and I doubt it would cure the mechanical ills of the game completely.

Fallschirm and what experience levels were your troops at at the end of the campaign .. and what was the average number of Kills with highs and lows please and what was the overall percentage of soft targets to hard targets ? How many scout cars and SU-76's in the mix ? , were you getting alot of hits running across fields or from the AI running tanks unsupported by infantry into dug in/ unspotted Infantry ? one after the other without modifying thier appraoch due to the tank in front of them geting blown up ?
Wild Bill definately improves the performance of the AI , I can't argue he doesn't, But you gotta figure that the AI such as it is , is got to take some credit for your bazookas being so effective .. as well as the Game Mechanics themselves running units up into the superhuman category.
Lot of factors could result in a couple of units having high kill numbers .. don't you think it would be fair and reasonable to base any concusions on a complete set of data , the number of kills by Bazooka by all Bazooka units , seperated out from kills from rifles and BARs and grenades. You have to expect some distortions in any anti tank weapons when you have games structured with far more tanks per frontage mile than is typical in actual wartime in every game and a lower density of Infantry than would be typical in an actual battle .
Folks you simply cannot totally distort basic unit type density and abolish any concept of depth of battlefield as is the usual choice in this game and draw any conclusions from such sparse data as a
"And the end of the campaign I had Rifle teams with 35-45 kills

75% of them T-34's, ISU-152's and JS-2's"
Unless you will accept anything that will support a preformed conclusion while ignoring all other data .
I am posting Data .. and conclusions based on the data I post and explaining why I have formed my conclusions from the data I have posted .. If you don't like my conclusions or feel they are wrong .. how about posting your own data or show where my reasoning is faulty ?
this " you feel " stuff does not add to a reasoned discusion of facts .

Hi, Prehaps we just need a few more OOB commitees.

The German OOB commitee
The Russian OOB commitee
The USA OOB Commitee
blah blah blah as many times as need to have all the required OOB commitee's

Before you play online or PBEM you ask "What game version" "What OOB?"

Actually Orzel I spent about 4 months on the Tiger OOB team tracking down specifically errors in identical weapons and correcting the various nomenclature differences the same weapons had in different OOB's so that they could be auto sorted and compared on the spread sheet from Hell , that resulted in hundreds of these types of errors being found and corrected , very few were as bad as the current discrepencies being discussed .. the Tiger Team was disbanded over disputes about deliberately dumbing down some artilery and because of the formuals we used being publically posted ( per the Teams wishes for a transparent process) for all to see how we were getting our numbers and that fact that the US 50 cal kept coming up as more powerful than the MG 42 and this upset the Tiger Kitties and caused so much impolite input from folks who "Felt" and had "always heard" that the MG 42 was more powerful ect .
I ran that OOB review/ update as open threads and public open on the forum discusions of every factor , we were concidering , as well as having open schedualed chat room session for folks to voice their concerns .. Folks wanting stuff that data could not support and objecting to changes to data did support caused such a flame war daily that the whole thing was scraped the team dismissed and you will never ever see OOB changes discussed in public on the forums before release again as a matter of Matrix policy .. the level of complaint mail about using actual data and the same equations for all nations equipment really created a hassel for matrix staff .. It is all back their somewhere in the Archives it was a couple of years ago. Some problems got straightened out , but alot didn't mainly in the areas like the Strumtiger, since then some of the AP Pen value discrepemcies have reappeared and have gotten much worse .. so I know a good deal of this is directly related to pressure from folks that want German units pumped up so they can achieve mythical "Historical" results without bothering to learn tactics .. Facts like the Germans lost more men in taking half France in 6 weeks than the US lost on the Ground from Normandy to Berlin are not know or appreciated by Tiger Kiddies that want a "Historical/ Mythical" Outcome . Real facts ae not taught by this game , real relationships between weapons systems are not represented , most of the Players only know what they know from games that are skewed to "market well" like this game is becoming . Heck Most folks think the US used Shermans to fight German tanks as a matter of chosen tactics.. That wasn't the US, that was the Brits.. US had different Tactics. Did US Shermans fight German Tanks , yes occasionally , but far more typically US Armor was the Only Armor on the Battlefield . Totally different concept of use of Armor and quanity and how to deal with enemy armor . US as a General Rule had Infantry supported by Armor, Germany seldom did , they concentrated armor and gave the infantry AT Guns . You have to understand , Historical would mean the US Lost a Total of 300,000 men in all theaters in WW2 , about what Germany lost at Kursk , and that inculdes the Pacific , In the ETO the US lost more Men from Air crews getting shot down than they did on the ground . We had a good number of folks wounded , but we also had penicllian , and our wounded had 5 times the survival rate , healed up 3 times faster from light wounds and The US Experience pool was not attrited the way the Germans were because veterans returned to thier units and experience was preserved and rotated back to the states to train more troops , You will not see a Panzer Lehr Type unit in the US , creating that unit castrated the German Armor core , but is that reflected in experience ratings ? , We had actual reserves to rotate units out on a more frequent basis and much better supply more ammo , more of everything and our tactics which are forbidden in this game , both as a matter of game mechanics and by conventions such as 10% arty points and equal cost arty skew stuff so much that any attempt to use game experiences to decide how to balance weapons is meaningless.
Data get data creat the game mechanics so that actual tactiics and densities are possible and then THEN see how you "feel" about how a individual weapon performs.

Mogami to a certain extent I agree , every nation should had dedicated defenders and hard criteria for data should be posted , same criteria for every nation before a change is allowed , Teams from one OOB should be allowed to challenge and require other OOB teams to defend their data. Then IMPARTIAL folks should compile the OOBs and PUBLICALLY post conflicts for serious discusion of the data used to achieve a value and to aligne that value with values in other OOB's . This behind the scenes fudging is not solving anything.

Hello,

At the beginning I started that thread to expose elements about the French equipment, just to discuss equipment datas and certainly not to start a debate on "are Germans or US over/under rated" and things like that. I just try to bring in elements to improve the accuracy of the game and the fact that the French OB has remained mostly unchanged is I guess because nobody cared or nobody had the info or time to take them into account. As I said I already sent .pdf files (59 pages about OB + a whole database about French small arms, artillery, aviation points, details on a heavy tank battalion, involvment of French in WW2 from 1939-1945 ...) to the team, exposing a real French OB in term of unit organization and also pointing several mistakes like a false gun on tank X, false rifle, laking a LMG, wrong air ordnance for the very few planes that are represented etc. and providing good photos/texts for the encyclopedia ...
If you are interested perhaps just in order to learn more, I can send you the files if your mailbox can receive files with a size of about 4MB. The whole units organization in SPWAW has often little to do with the real ones.

I am not coming here saying huu that's false ... I was really busy and made deep researches in many books to provide good TOEs and organization datas that and until yet I missed the strange penetration values of some French guns. I came accross historical documents about several guns and I understood why several guns seemed really useless in the game comparing to real battle reports.
I don't think fixing penetration values will create unintended problems in the gameplay, many others datas have already been fixed. When reading historical accounts you can see that Somua S35s engaged and slaughtered Panzers at 800 meters ... impossible to do in the game because you cannot hit something with them ... because thay are considered loosers, but that would imply to modify other parameters.
I am just concerned by correcting the data like the penetration values not the game mechanisms ... that can just be positive I guess ... other penetration values had been modified in the past insn't it ? And a max penetration of 57mm for the French 47mm SA35 L34 is not a good value IMHO (but I don't know how the 57mm value has been obtained), the max penetration being closer to 82mm for a L34 gun firing an AP shell (obus de rupture) Mle1935 at 700 m/s. At 0° and 1000m it still penetrated 60mm ...and 40mm at 30° at 400m.

Since nobody cares about that and if you want to talk about bazookas, the problems are caused by the FC values of squads that automatically apply for a bazooka carried in the squad. A bazooka in single Inf-AT has FC 0 or 1, rangers/airborne can have up to 5, giving them much (25%) more hit chance with the same weapon (elite status and experience not even counted) ... that's probably why the range of the bazookas in squads have already been reduced, because the squads scored too many hits at longer ranges. And that correction is a good thing IMO. And if I remember correctly (no data under the eyes right know) the bazookas had a practical range of about 150m (3 hexs) on a moving target and 400m (8 hexs) on a standing target for a penetration of about 100mm is that correct ?

Best regards,

David

One good English language source for French 1939-1940 OB I know is :

http://www.militarypress.co.uk/

- Sharp, Lee. The French Army, 1939-1940, volume 1. Milton Keynes, UK: The Military Press, 2002.

The first volume covered the top-level organizations of the French Army: the military districts, the High Command, army groups, armies, and corps.

- Sharp, Lee. The French Army, 1939-1940, volume 2. Milton Keynes, UK: Military Press, 2002.

The second volume moves to the next level, with the entire book devoted to French divisions.
Motorised infantry
Infantry
Mountain infantry
Light mountain
North African infantry
Colonial infantry
Light infantry
Light infantry, type Overseas
Foreign infantry
Cavalry
Light cavalry
Light mechanised
Reserve armoured

Unlike many books of this nature, however, Sharp does not simply limit himself to describing the various types of divisions with a single representative example of each. Instead, he devotes an entire page of data to each individual division. That means, for example, that each of three cavalry divisions gets its own page, each of seven motorized infantry divisions gets its own page, each of forty-six "ordinary" infantry divisions gets its own page, and so on.
For each type of division, introductory pages explain the purpose and general organization, provide tables with dates of mobilization, numbers of men (officers, NCOs, and non-coms), horses, wagons, motor vehicles, bicycles, etc, and offer any pertinent notes. Following the introductory material, each unit of that type is presented on its own page.
The layout for each divisional page is the same. The top of a page is occupied by an organigram showing the unit's structure down to regiment, battalion, company, and sometimes platoon level. For each division, the component formations reflect their actual numeric designations, so that 2nd Infantry's organigram shows the 33rd, 73rd, and 127th Infantry Regiments, the 11th Cavalry battalion, 10/34th Antitank battery, etc. In addition, all the components are reiterated in a text listing with the complete name in French, such as 33rd Regiment d'Infantrie, 11th Groupe de Reconnaissance, and 10/34th Batterie Divisionnaire Antichars. The next item, "Changes in Composition," details all the comings, goings, reorganizations, and redesignations of subordinate units. The fourth part of each divisional page is a listing of the names and ranks of "Principal Officers" for the divisions with dates served. Finally, Sharp gives a complete listing of higher headquarters to which the division was assigned from September 1939 through the end of hostilities.
As with the first volume, most of this material seems to come from the Les Grandes Unites Francaises series published by the French Army. (A complete bibliographic essay is promised for the final volume.) In volume two of LGUF, for example, the entry for 2nd Division D'Infanterie amounts to about twelve pages and includes everything shown above plus the kind of day-by-day history that Sharp seems to be saving for later volumes in his series: "A description of military operations from May 10th 1940 to June 25th 1940 will...be down to regimental/battalion level with in some cases a day-by-day commentary."
The author rounds out this book with a short introduction to French divisions, a key to the organigram symbols, notes on unit numbering and nomenclature, a combination glossary and list of abbreviations, a one-page Introduction, and a list of errata for volume one. That's it. Nothing too fancy, nothing too sexy. Just a hundred and fifty pages of pure OB/TOE material for the French Army (and its Polish and Czech units) for 1939 and 1940.
For those with no interest in these matters, this might not be an incredibly fascinating book. For anyone looking for detailed information about French unit organizations up to the armistice, this is far and away the best source ever produced in the English language. Like the first volume, the second volume of The French Army should be in the hands of every serious World War II historian and enthusiast.

- Sharp, Lee. The French Army, 1939-1940, volume 3. Milton Keynes, UK: Military Press, 2002.

The third volume deals with organization and Order of Battle of Fortress Troops, Maginot Line formations, Region/Corps, Section/Fortress Divisions. Also the Infantry formations and units, their organisation and details of equipment.

- volumes 4, 5, 6 and 7 in preparation.

Regards,

David

David I think my email can handle 4 meg. And I for one would apreciate it. I sure don't mean to look like I am hijacking your thread , but it is hard to discuss French penetration issues without bring in the Germans, Poles and Czechs to compare and contrast the weapons velocities in game values, ect , because it is the relative interaction as well as the absolute value assigned that reveals what is right and what is wrong with a specific unit in the game. I'll be the first to admit I don't know that much about French OOB's and I would be happy to learn more.
A knowledge on what a unit actually did on the battlefield is crucial to understanding the proper values assigned as much as the hard specs of armor thickness or gun penetration values .. alot of factors, like the quality of tank gun sights , turret rotation speed, cross country ability, breakdown rates , are hard to quantify without placing them in perspective to other tanks of their day and age, due to the limited span of possible vaules to assign to features like this , but these elements ARE in the game . Creating viable scenarios with proper force composition is necesary to test the game engine's implementation of values asigned and understanding of the effects of moral and experience on hard data points such as gun accuracy.
You need both good specification data and good understanding of softer data such as state of training, doctrinal use, Morale, ect to get a reasonably accurate modeling.
My Suggestion is to bring up any performance descrepancies, so we can look at what might be causing them , either in relationship as to how opposing units are modeled or how improper specs have been asigned. We may argue over relative importance of features and data points in the OOB or what those values may be , based on what data for a given unit , but every Nation in the game needs a strong advocate , familiar with a Nation's History and an accurate understanding on the Battles they fought and the equipment they used.
I for one welcome your efforts and I hope you bring any issues you find to folks attention.
Bazookas may not seem germain to the 1940 period for the French , but they were a key French weapon in 1944 ( and much of the Bazookas development is based on French research ) . So maybe they are not so totally off topic .

AmmoSgt wrote:Fallschirm and what experience levels were your troops at at the end of the campaign .. and what was the average number of Kills with highs and lows please and what was the overall percentage of soft targets to hard targets ? How many scout cars and SU-76's in the mix ? , were you getting alot of hits running across fields or from the AI running tanks unsupported by infantry into dug in/ unspotted Infantry ? one after the other without modifying thier appraoch due to the tank in front of them geting blown up ?
Wild Bill definately improves the performance of the AI , I can't argue he doesn't, But you gotta figure that the AI such as it is , is got to take some credit for your bazookas being so effective .. as well as the Game Mechanics themselves running units up into the superhuman category.
Lot of factors could result in a couple of units having high kill numbers .. don't you think it would be fair and reasonable to base any concusions on a complete set of data , the number of kills by Bazooka by all Bazooka units , seperated out from kills from rifles and BARs and grenades. You have to expect some distortions in any anti tank weapons when you have games structured with far more tanks per frontage mile than is typical in actual wartime in every game and a lower density of Infantry than would be typical in an actual battle .
Folks you simply cannot totally distort basic unit type density and abolish any concept of depth of battlefield as is the usual choice in this game and draw any conclusions from such sparse data as a
"And the end of the campaign I had Rifle teams with 35-45 kills

75% of them T-34's, ISU-152's and JS-2's"
Unless you will accept anything that will support a preformed conclusion while ignoring all other data .
I am posting Data .. and conclusions based on the data I post and explaining why I have formed my conclusions from the data I have posted .. If you don't like my conclusions or feel they are wrong .. how about posting your own data or show where my reasoning is faulty ?
this " you feel " stuff does not add to a reasoned discusion of facts .

Im not near as well versed as you in actual data on real world weapons so I cannont post such thing

But to answer some of your questions

Im not so much concerced about PEN strentgh...as I am accuracy
Exp by the end was in the 100-110 range...but exp can only go so far

with 80 exp squads....i could nail T-34/85's at 200 metres with about a 50% hit chance on my FIRST shot

I just find that accuracy to be a bit on the high side...I was selling my tanks for extra m-9 teams
In one amazing battle...a team had 9 rockets....and got 5 t-34's 2 ISU's and a JS II....thats going above and beyond congressional medal of honor type performance right their
No tank got close than 2 hexs from the team...a tank would roll into range...and id blast them into the great potato field in the sky

I didnt waste my precious rockets on cars and light armor...so I would say only 10% of the above mentioned 75% were cars and armor under t-34 class

Infantry was non-present...but I dont think it would of mattered alot....i was getting first and second shot kills in large numbers

I thought at first the PEN might be too high...but then I realized ( I hope this is right) HEAT doesnt take slope into account
But I dont have real world data about PEN...so Im not going to make a judgement

But common sense tells me these things are too accurate...I felt like I was using priminative TOW missled

AmmoSgt wrote: Bazookas may not seem germain to the 1940 period for the French , but they were a key French weapon in 1944 ( and much of the Bazookas development is based on French research ).

Of course Bazookas have been used by the French
I am very interested in information regarding the French Brandt HEAT AT rifle grenade developments (this weapon being the source of the US M9 rifle grenade
and thereafter the Bazooka warhead). If you have any info about it I would be glad to know.

About other Brandt developpments :

- Brandt 120 mm mortar Mle 1935 :
This heavy mortar had been adopted by the French Army and a squad of 2 mortars should have been issued in each regiment in 1940 but not all had been delivered before the armistice. This mortar was also manufactured in Russia under the name "120mm Polkovoy Minomyot Obr.1938g". The Russians used it extensively (that's why it is often thought that this mortar is a russian conception) and it has later been copied by the germans for their "120 mm Granatewerfer 1942". But the mortar is not in the French OB of SPWAW.

- Brandt 25 mm AT shell and taper-bore AT guns developped for the French army :
The 25x194R shell used in the 25 mm Puteaux Mle 37 APX and 25 mm Hotchkiss Mle 34 AT guns was taken as the basis for the taper-bore experiments conducted in 1940 by the Danish Larsen company for the French Army, utilizing also the first trials of Gerlich. Larsen developped a 29/20 mm AT guns that should have replaced all the French 25 mm AT guns. The 29/20 mm shell is manufactured by the French company Manhurin. These studies were then followed up by the Germans to create different Gerlich type taper-bore AT guns : 2.8 cm sPzB 41, 4.2 cm lePak 41 and 7,5 cm Pak 41. They worked very well, but suffered from a shortage of the tungsten needed in the projectile.

- New generation shells :
The studies led by Brandt in 1938/1940 aimed to increase the initial velocity of the shells (without increasing of the chamber pressure) and also more generally to increase the AT power of the shells. The French company developped a serie of sub-calibrated shells for the 25, 37, 75, 155 and 203 mm calibers (the two last ones for the French navy). The other nations did not developp similar or equivalent systems before 1941/1942. The most outstanding realization of this serie is probably the 75/57 mm shell with a muzzle velocity of 900 m/s and a penetration of 90 mm armor at 1000 m at an impact angle of 35° ... The 75 mm Mle 1897 guns could have engaged and destroyed German Panzer IVs at 2500 m with it ! But with the standard 1910M "breaking" shell (obus de rupture) the panzers were generally engaged/destroyed at 800 m.
Except the sub-calibrated shells, Brandt also developped a 75 mm HEAT shell at this time, using the patent of the swiss Mohaupt. The tests took place in Bourges in 1940 and the results were that impressive that they were put in the secret immediately in order not to be used by the Germans.
Before that, the war ministry allowed Brandt to give the exploitation licenses to the USA and the United Kingdom. The sub-calibrated shells are used in the UK to developp the APDS shells (armoured piercing discarted sabot) issued from 1942/1943. The first AT guns using them were the 6 Pdr and 17 Pdr AT guns.


About the Somua S-35 The APX-4CE turret could rotate 360° in 30 seconds, and the gun elevation could go from -18° to +18°.
I think also that the max. armor is 56mm and not 73mm like in the game but I am not sure if in the game the armor is directly correlated to armor thickness or if it take into account the type (cast, rolled) and the angle of the armor.

Regards,

David

Fallschirmjager wrote:Im not near as well versed as you in actual data on real world weapons so I cannont post such thing

But to answer some of your questions

Im not so much concerced about PEN strentgh...as I am accuracy
Exp by the end was in the 100-110 range...but exp can only go so far

with 80 exp squads....i could nail T-34/85's at 200 metres with about a 50% hit chance on my FIRST shot

I just find that accuracy to be a bit on the high side...I was selling my tanks for extra m-9 teams
In one amazing battle...a team had 9 rockets....and got 5 t-34's 2 ISU's and a JS II....thats going above and beyond congressional medal of honor type performance right their
No tank got close than 2 hexs from the team...a tank would roll into range...and id blast them into the great potato field in the sky

I didnt waste my precious rockets on cars and light armor...so I would say only 10% of the above mentioned 75% were cars and armor under t-34 class

Infantry was non-present...but I dont think it would of mattered alot....i was getting first and second shot kills in large numbers

I thought at first the PEN might be too high...but then I realized ( I hope this is right) HEAT doesnt take slope into account
But I dont have real world data about PEN...so Im not going to make a judgement

But common sense tells me these things are too accurate...I felt like I was using priminative TOW missled

OK think about this for a minute .. you say that you were selling tanks to buy bazookas , a M4E8 HVSS is base price 148 and a M9 bazooka is 20 points M4E8 HVSS Carries 50 rounds of AP and APCR , 7 bazookas have 56 rounds of Heat, both have HE .. the Tank is more accurate, longer Ranged and more Mobile and has much better protection, yet you found the bazooka more useful, more accurate and deadly enough. Why ? , here's why .. no enemy infantry.. the bazookas were for all intents invisible to buttoned up tanks .. a US Tank could be seen and therefore countered .. just 1 point of suppression halves, roughly speaking, the accuracy on a tank , and the Russian Guns certainly could kill the tank. Had Infantry been Present , and had they been even 2 hexes in front of the tanks .. how quick do you think bazooka teams would have been spotted suppressed or killed , How many second accurate shots do you think you would have gotten , heck , how many second shots do spotted bazooka teams get within 2 hexes of enemy infantry ? Not many In my experience .
High Experience unsuppressed unspotted Bazooka teams , not threatened by Infantry or Artillery are going to get hits at 200 yards and less .. the minute they get that first hit .. the enemy in the area , especially an all tank force , is going to get some suppresion , making it both harder to find and to hit the bazooka teams. It wasn't thier accuracy , they are less accurate than a Tank , it wasn't thier pen , Bazookas do not penetrate as well as Tank AP or APCR , Heat does take into account slope and HEAT has a higher in game chance of failing to explode than Tank Fired AP ( which doesn't even have to check for explosion , because it is solid shot ) , it doesn't take into account range, but at max range 7 nothing takes into account range, What made them so darn ood in this game is that they were invisible and they were only invisible because there was no enemy infantry. If you were using US Infantry w/ Bazookas instead of just bazooka teams , Tanks would have been even cheaper to buy, on a number of AT ammo shots basis , but the infantry would still be invisible, so better for this situation than tanks. This is why, in this case, the bazooka appeared so darn accurate and lethal. Tanks have a higher acuracy rating and better pen , and just as many shots for the dollar , but in this case were spotted easier and therefore died or missed because they has some suppresion on them. Bazookas die easier and are suppressed quicker , but ONLY if you have something to spot them and shoot at them. So don't go blaming this situation compleatly on the Bazooka's accuracy rating.

David well OK Yes Brandt did make the Shaped Charge pratical from a fired weapons , Monroe invented the concept , and made a usable staionary blasting charge shaped charge and it got named after him , and the Bazooka itself goes back to the 1860's , yes 1860's , Tube fired rocket propelled Harpoons were used in whaling .. But for practical cannon fired HEAT ammo Brandt is the MAN .
OK lets look at the S-35 game gives it a rate of fire of only 4 and a Targeting value of 0 The lower the targeting value the more accuracy is effected by any movement of the firing vehicle in the turn it fires . Normally fast vehicles get higher targeting numbers and vehicles with fast turret turn rates get higher targeting values , the reasoning is, the faster the vehicle , less of the turn is used moveing the same distance than a slower vehicle , and less of the turn is used turning the turret to get on target. But a 1 man turret lowers both Targeting rating and rate of fire. A PzII of the same year has a Targeting rating of 1 and a PzIII has a rating of 3 , both are rated as going a little faster than a Souma PzII is a 26 and a PzIII is a 24. Is the Souma a 1 man turret ? If I remember correctly it was , but i am not sure. a 30 second 360 is pretty fast and probably even with a 1 man turret warrants a slighly higher targeting rating , but the turret turn rate for the PzII would have to be known to really know if the Souma is being under rated , the rate of fire of 4 is awfully low for a 47mm type gun , but perhaps if the Souma is a one man turret , that could explain it , if the Souma is a two man turret , that is definately too low IMHO . Armor does take into account type , cast, face hardened , rolled , homogenious , but as a seperate factor . slope does matter , but again as a seperate factor .
So you would want to check thickness and slope on the Souma , if it to thick , don't be afraid to say so , but also look at other tanks from other armies in the same Class as the Souma and how many men are crewing in the turret to check the other factors .. to see if it is being rated correctly in Fire control , how well it can hit a moving target .. and targeting how accurately it can fire while having moved in that turn ( different from moving and firing at the same time) , and rate of fire ..understand Max rate of fire is 9 for tanks , so rate of fire is not a direct shot for shot counting thing , but a scale from 1 to 9 relative to other tanks and losing "points' for 1 man turrets and seperately loaded ammo , small cramped turret , Tank Commander, loader , gunner, radio operator, and machinegunner all being the same guy ect . Speed in the game is also not exactly a 1 for 1 proposition and subject to some sort of scaleing so compare rated speeds from other tanks in other armies to see how the Souma and other French tanks compare on a Kilometer per hour basis and then see how the game movement rating compares . have fun . post if you have questions.
Glad somebody else knows about Stokes and Brandt.

Hi,

Just to complete about the HEAT rifle grenade developped by Brandt (I never said they invented the HEAT concept) :
At the end of 1939 Brandt developped a 50mm HEAT rifle grenade. It had a range of about 100m and an armor penetration of 40mm. It entered in production during May 1940 and was successfully tested at the Satory test range on 10th June 1940 but they could not be issued to the combat units before the armistice.
The patents were sent to the USA in June/July 1940 and were used first to developp the M9 AT rifle grenade and second the HEAT rocket of the Bazookas.
The Brandt HEAT rifle grenade was also secretely produced in France at 300000 pieces in the free area and issued to Vichy forces. Several partisans groups used them in 1944.


SOMUA S-35
The vehicle was designed and manufactured by the Société d'Outillage Mecanique et d'Usinage d'Artillerie (SOMUA) and comes from a requirement from the French High Command in 1931. It was a tank for the cavalry, fast, well-armed and well-protected. It was the world first tank made of cast parts instead of bolted plates. In Service with the French army in 1936 and by May-June of 1940, the French army had about 385 in service against the Germans in frontline units. Due to the French tactics at the time it was not used to its best effect. Many "experts" regarded the SOMUA S-35, in 1940, as the "best medium tank" in the world (more or less right). Equipped with excellent cast and sloped armor, the tank was considered hard to kill by German anti-tank squads equipped with the 37mm AT gun. One other advantage was that it was able to turn faster than most other tanks because for that not only one track was slowed down but the opposite track was also accelerated. Its only but serious failing was the mono-seated turret but actually the SOMUA S-35's APX4CE turret is sometimes described as a "one-and-a-half-man turret", as the enlarged turret ring, compared with the APX1 found on the B1bis, allowed the radio operator to provide assistance to the commander/gunner/reloader. This tank was the core of the tanks battalions of the DLM (Division Légère Mécanique = light mechanical divisions), what the French made the closest to the German panzerdivisions. The Somua carried 118 rounds for the gun (28 HE and 90 AP) and 2250 cartridges (15x150 rounds drum magazines for the 7.5mm MAC31). In 1940 a diesel engine version is produced and called S-40. A few S-35s were used by the Free French forces in Tunisia against the Afrika Korps in 1943.
Germans used about 297 Somua S-35s under the name Panzerkampfwagen 35S 739(f). It was mainly used in anti-partisans warfare but was also issued for example to Panzer Abteilung 211 in Finland in 1941.They could also by find as Fahrschulpanzer Somua 35S(f) and as protection in armored trains.

weight : 19.5t
crew : 3 men (Commander, driver, radio operator)
maximum armor : 56mm
maximum speed : 45 km/h (V8 engine 190 hp) - the German PzII A/B/C and PzIIIE were slightly slower AFAIK (max 40 km/h)
autonomy : 257 km
armament : a 47mm SA35 L34 gun (RoF = 15 rpm) and a coaxial 7.5mm MAC1931 in the turret (RoF = 750 rpm, 10° left and right)
turret rotation (electric) : 360° in 30 seconds

Detailed armor :

Turret front : 56mm/0°
Gun mantlet : 56mm/round
Turret sides : 46mm/22.5°
Turret rear : 46mm/22.5°
Turret roof : 30mm/72.5° and 90°

Superstructure front : 36mm/22°
Superstructure sides : 35mm/22°
Superstructure rear : 25mm/30°
Superstructure top : 20mm/82° and 90°

Hull front : 36mm/round
Hull sides : 10 + 25 = 35 mm/0°
Hull rear : 35mm/0° and 25mm/30°
Hull top : 20mm/90°

AmmoSgt:

The Czech 37mm L48 also demonstrates similar superority of the German 37mm L45 pak 35/36 but not as great as the US 37mm .
So again I would point out That i can provide hard data that is in fact directly compaerable one gun to the other as a basis for my "opinion" and while I appreciate

Excuse me if that quote may make no sense cut off like that, but I used it as an example. I've always suspected this before but now I'm definite about it. You wrote the post containing those words and surprisingly had some paragraphs. What's the problem? Simple. You're not hitting your enter key at the end of a paragraph enough times.

Look at where you typed 'as the US 37mm .' What that's caused by is you hitting the enter key only once, thinking that's going to end that paragraph and then you just start the next sentence. You have to phtsically see a SPACE between the previous line and the last one to effect a paragraph.

Here's a botched paragraph with hitting the enter key only once:
XXXXXXXXX

(The same data with hitting the enter key twice): Here's a botched paragraph with hitting the enter key only once:

XXXXXXXXX

See? XXXXXXXXX is now a new paragraph.

David Lehmann: I haven't read all your posts, not all of anyone elses, but do know this one thing. The S-35 probably falls into the FT armor category of the OOB adjuster accounting for both turret armor and the gun mantlet, so that it certainly wouldn't be just 53mm. IOW, they don't have a seperate mantlet rating, so they try to figure how much the mantlet covers the FT overlap that onto the 53mm. If the mantlet seemed to only affect 20% of the FT, then you would give it between a 63-64mm rating for example.

AmmoSgt
You obviously feel strongly about this and have spent much time on it already, so why not provide alternative oobs for at least the major nations that match the data you have found?

Tweak the oobs, post them on the forum and lets see the impact. I would be very interested to see the difference your oobs would make with more "realistic" settings.

If things are as bad as you say, then lets see your cure!

Ammo,

You bring up a good point, about "balance". I guess I'm looking more at the game aspect when I say that one country's weapons system is unbalancing, your statement remains true, namely that war wasn't balanced. I guess what I'm more for is accuracy, in retrospect. And I think this type of debate fosters that (assuming those in the know, or the final "more correct" answer is heeded and implimented). If it has failed to in the past, I'd like to say that I appreciate your continued effort to bring it up to more historically accurate standards.

I have to ask, since you've fired the LAW, can you think of actually trying to hit something with that if your life depended on it? Geesh! What a sorry weapon! IMO the only thing it's useful for is taking out bunkers when your grenade arm's sore . I swear, I think I'd rather throw a grapefruit at the enemy. It'd have the same trajectory and range, and might destract them whereas the LAW is more than likely only going to **** them off .

Anyway, back to the point at hand. I appreciate your efforts to lobby for updates. I for one would love to see the implementation of WP for the US.

If you have the time (and my perception may be skewed) try a few M9 shots vs the best Panthers money can buy. Try frontal shots. I swear, it seems to me that the angle doesn't matter all that much. They'll punch through the front almost as easy as the sides. That's what spooks me so, and prompts my cries of "too powerful, nurf that baby".

Anyway, glad you took the time to respond. Like I said, if you get a petetion drive cranked up, let me know. I genuinely see merrit in much of your proposals.

Ammo, I'm happy that you finally found the Carlisle archives..
I admit I goaded you a bit with the US 37mm gun...I have no problems with that weapon and did know its actual performance. So the Germans kept manufacturing the same ammunition for the czech guns..that is interesting to know. Although I've seen PzGr40 pen figures for them, this suggests that Germans weren't satisfied with just the Czech ammunition.

I actually considered ignoring this whole thread, but couldn't...too stupid perhaps.
Anyways, the German 37mm Gun got a huge penetration increase. You see this and scream 'it is because Tiger kitties'. You obviously did not consider that the original value *may* have been an error. An error that was corrected in later OOB version.

Here: http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/germany/guns.html we have a nice table of penetration values. The difference between German and Czech guns seems to be few mm, PaK 36 value for 90deg at 500m seems to be 48mm, the 30deg value (apparently from horizontal) is 29-36, same distance. Apparently the sources disagreed here.
http://www.panzerlexikon.de/ gives similar results, 457m (apparently an allied test, considering an obscure meter value), 90deg, 48mm for 37mm KWK L/45, same values for PaK36

Here: http://www.miniatures.de/html/int/shells-german.html they give 65mm for German 37mm's, 58 for L40 Skoda and 69mm for the L47. But what is interesting that these numbers are for PzGr 39, a German round. Figures for Czech APHE ammo are 45 and 50mm, respectively. These are of course shorter range..apparently point blank.

There are a lot of sites with similar numbers, though in some cases one must wonder if the plate angles are 30deg from horizontal or from vertical.

But in any case, for a person whos been playing past couple months almost exclusively with US and Soviet troops it is clear to me that an _error_ was fixed and the current 37mm PaK value is *closer* to real values than the one in 4,5 OOB was.

Voriax