Matrix Games Forums

I found an estab that basically won't move. It can travel a kilometer, or so, before the fuel counter goes to 0. The unit has two vehicles (Quads), and two towed AA guns, so I'm not sure what is going on:

It seems that unit and it's corresponding troop are very slow moving foot class units. Either the Quads should be removed from the estab or it should be made to be a motorized unit.

If a unit has a vehicle that runs out of gas the whole unit comes to a stop. No one noticed this before the last patch because the old fuel consumption code was allocating fuel based on time traveled, not distance. So these little units probably got stuffed with tons of litres of fuel allowing them to go for 12 hours just like any other vehicle.

ORIGINAL: simovitch

It seems that unit and it's corresponding troop are very slow moving foot class units. Either the Quads should be removed from the estab or it should be made to be a motorized unit.

If a unit has a vehicle that runs out of gas the whole unit comes to a stop. No one noticed this before the last patch because the old fuel consumption code was allocating fuel based on time traveled, not distance. So these little units probably got stuffed with tons of litres of fuel allowing them to go for 12 hours just like any other vehicle.

I tried all three levels of the non-static Bofors unit type, section, troop and battery, and they all exhibit the same behavior.

25-pounder units, which also use the Quad as their prime-mover, simply leave them in the dust.

Could the units be coded wrong under the hood?

Could they be coded as a heavier weapon class than they should be?

My workaround "section" is a Bofors "portee" btty set to 17% strength. It's ugly and the unit strength symbol is wrong, but it'll work.

No, it's a problem with the estab data. They were given a movement rate of 1 where normal motorized units have a rate of 30.

Think of it as the Quads in this unit are running on only 1 cylinder - they will clunk along and run out of gas at around the same time as the towed 25 pdrs, but will have only travelled 1-2 Km.

ORIGINAL: simovitch

No, it's a problem with the estab data. They were given a movement rate of 1 where normal motorized units have a rate of 30.

Can we add this to our list, then? [;)]

Just keep listing them in this thread and we may release an update after BFTB get's out. I'm willing to make fixes and minor additions but I'm not going to be creating new vehicles and forces for COTA (unless Dave gives the nod.) So I doubt the French units requested by Goodguy will be added until a France '40 expansion pack is planned.

ORIGINAL: simovitch

Just keep listing them in this thread and we may release an update after BFTB get's out. I'm willing to make fixes and minor additions but I'm not going to be creating new vehicles and forces for COTA (unless Dave gives the nod.) So I doubt the French units requested by Goodguy will be added until a France '40 expansion pack is planned.

Good enough, and thanks. [:)]

Found a real problem with the "Dreaded 88:"

8.8cm Flak 36

When you look up the weapons parameter, it looks like this:



The unit has no weapons data at all below 3000m. [X(]

Please help!

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

Found a real problem with the "Dreaded 88:"

8.8cm Flak 36

When you look up the weapons parameter, it looks like this:



The unit has no weapons data at all below 3000m. [X(]

Please help!

A little more on the issue surrounding this weapon type:

8.8cm Flak 36

It's cited in the Estabs tables as equipping the following units:

1m-hr-Mot Hvy Flak Bty-8.8cm
1m-hr-Mot Hvy Flak Bty-8.8cm-DF only
1m-ss-Mot Hvy Flak Bty-8.8cm
1m-ss-Mot Hvy Flak Bty-8.8cm-DF only
1m-lw-Mot Hvy Flak Bty-8.8cm
1m-lw-Mot Hvy Flak Bty-8.8cm DAK
4m-lw.fkd-LW Static Hvy Flak Bty-88mm

In terms of data, the weapons type appears to be devoted soley to anti-aircraft fire.

It has no targeting data below 3000m, and no "penetration" values are cited.

That's because you are viewing the Anti-Aircraft properties. Click on the FireType and select Anti-Armour. I realise that the FireType item is not obviously a button/list. We've addressed that in BFTB.

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

For posterity (yet again), let me briefly detail a seemingly occult feature of the "Estab Weapon" box above.

If you left click on the space to the right of "Fire Type," a pop-up will appear which allows you to choose from the following values:

anti-aircraft
anti-armour
anti-personnel
bombard

This may well be detailed in the copious documentation that comes with the game. If that's the case, I ask our readers' forgiveness.

As always, Dave, thanks for the clarification. [:)]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

I found an estab that basically won't move. It can travel a kilometer, or so, before the fuel counter goes to 0. The unit has two vehicles (Quads), and two towed AA guns, so I'm not sure what is going on:

Here's another unit that doesn't want to move:

1m-au.cf-LAA Bty-40mm

I suspect that this is somehow related to the instance that I cite above.

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

It appears that the Panzer III Ausf. G has been left out of the CotA estabs.

Production of the type was about twice that of the more heavily armoured Panzer III Ausf. H in 1940-41.

As far as unit composition, records indicate a roughly a fifty-fifty ratio between the two models in North Africa

I've read everything that I can find in regard to the type of gun mounted on Pz III in North Africa. It truly does appear that NO examples of such vehicles armed with the KwK 36 were shipped to the Afrika Korps. The best fix might just be to put a IIIf-DAK version in the estabs that has the KwK 38 instead. Of course, you could always include the IIIg as a part of a light panzer company. Please, please, please!

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
It truly does appear that NO examples of such vehicles armed with the KwK 36 were shipped to the Afrika Korps. The best fix might just be to put a IIIf-DAK version in the estabs that has the KwK 38 instead. Of course, you could always include the IIIg as a part of a light panzer company. Please, please, please!

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

I guess the term "KwK 36" in the estabs refers to the 37mm gun, which was designated "3,7cm KwK 35/36 L/46.5" or "KwK L/46.5", probably just dubbed "3,7cm KwK".
From August 1940 until 1942 all 3,7 cm Ausf. E, F and G had been rearmed with the "5cm KwK L/42" gun, or - if you will, with the KwK "38" L/42 - the short barreled 50mm gun.

Officially, and at least initially, all PzIIIs (prior to version H) sent to North Africa were designated Ausführung "G (TP)", TP=Tropen ("tropical"), as they were supposed to be equipped with air/dust filters designed for the desert environment.
The equipment did not reach the first tank contingent in time though, so they had to start their march to the East without those filters, causing a significant number of breakdowns even before having met the enemy.

PzIIIs with the long barreled gun (5cm KwK L/60) were dubbed "Mark III Special" by the Brits. In early engagements in North Africa, tanks with the short 50mm L/42 gun performed okay against most British tanks, they just couldn't crack Matildas in a frontal attack, and not above a range of 300 meters, so they used to flank them and get close. In general, the long barreled version provided for more accuracy and enhanced range.

According to what I've read so far, it's hard to verify what versions had been shipped to North Africa, as after continious upgrading / rearming (to meet the G, H or - later on - J standard), the vehicle pool was rather a wild mix that had been upped to at least G and later on H-level (both with the short 50mm gun). Panzer IIIs with the 37mm gun were considered to be underarmed, even for the African theater. In 1941, the vast majority over there was equipped with the 50mm short version, with the rest being equipped with the 50mm long version.

Very few 37mm Pz III may have served as command tanks, or in rear guard duty. Special command tanks (Panzerbefehlswagen) based on Ausf. D, E, H (with fake guns some with working guns) had been produced, so I don't see why they should have used 37mm PzIIIs there, especially since they didn't have the more powerful radio equipment that came along with the command tanks.

Also, the Germans were really good at retrieving damaged/knocked out tanks in North Africa though, so it didn't make sense to employ underarmed 37mm PzIIIs, as they could only fight Crusader tanks (AFAIK). At around the battle of Sollum, the Germans recovered 7 of 9 abandoned/knocked out Matildas and incorporated them into their ranks. The Germans retrieved around 7 out of 10 knocked out German tanks for the most part of the campaign, IIRC.

Parts of the Panzer III Ausf. J production were sent to Russia and North Africa in late 1941/early 1942, to replace the losses on these theaters (appr. 1,400 Pz III in 1941, according to Jentz.... with the losses in Africa being a minor factor, compared to the massive losses in Russia).

Hi GG,

The weapons are denoted in the game as KwK 36 and KwK 38, so I thought that I should post in PG language. [:)]

Jentz states the following on page 29 of Tank Combat in North Africa: "Only Pz.Kpfw.III Ausf.F, G and H with 5 cm Kw.K L/42 guns were shipped to Libya in March and April of 1941." In specification, those that were assigned to Panzer-Regiment 5 were overwhelmingly of the "G" standard. Conversely, Jentz states on page 38 of his volume that "about" fifty-one of the Pz.Kpfw.III assigned to Panzer-Regiment 8 were the "H" model.

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

Hi GG,

The weapons are denoted in the game as KwK 36 and KwK 38, so I thought that I should post in PG language. [:)]

Hey PoE [:)],

yeah I know. Anyway, that's what I'm saying, 37mm PzIIIs didn't carry out the job down there. I wouldn't deny the possibility that a few may have been used as command vehicles, or rear guards though, but not at the frontline, as mentioned above.

When building the Beda Fomm scenario, it became pretty obvious that the Italian OOB is really intended for use in Europe, rather than Africa. The Army, Corps and even Division base estabs are largely supplied by horse-drawn wagons. Additionally, there are important units that need motor-transport, such as the 105mm cannons (that are one of the RE's better weapons). At the management's request, I can be more specific. [:)]

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

Posted this to the main forum; shoulda' put it here:

ORIGINAL:  Prince of Eckmühl

FOR LATER, in the same scenario, B and C squadrons of 5RTR are (I believe) mistakenly noted as regimental HQ rather than squadrons:

I know it isn't one of COTA's core units, but the JgPz V has only 80mm frontal armour. This should be 80@55, 60@55 or 100mm Saukopfblend, compared to PzV 80@55, 60@55 and 110@11 or 100mm rounded.

The PzV has 140mm frontal armour, JgPzV only 80mm. The range and speed of the PzJg look lower than they should be too.

ORIGINAL: Lieste

I know it isn't one of COTA's core units, but the JgPz V has only 80mm frontal armour. This should be 80@55, 60@55 or 100mm Saukopfblend, compared to PzV 80@55, 60@55 and 110@11 or 100mm rounded.

The PzV has 140mm frontal armour, JgPzV only 80mm. The range and speed of the PzJg look lower than they should be too.

I may as well start preparing myself for addressing these now that we decided to expose everything in our estab views....

armor thickness will be shown as a vertical plate equivalent, with a deflection factor multiplier, and then averaged out based roughly on % exposure area. So the value you see will rarely match any value you read out of a source, published or otherwise. Penetration values for guns were usually tested against a 30d plate, so these all had to be converted to vertical plate equivalent as well to get apples and apples. Even so one source rarely agrees with the other.... Then there are the different ammo types, and armor plate types, etc. etc... Ranges are "effective" ranges based on several sources.

Although we tried to be as scientific as possible, there will always be someone who think it should be one way or the other.[;)]

I did a rework many of the COTA vehicles before release, because many were not converted yet to verticle equivelent when I came on board. It was such a dreadful and laborious task that I didn't mess with many of the non-COTA vehicles. Needless to say if something does look out of whack we do appreciate the report from a second set of eyes.