RE:Weapon Size 222
Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2003 6:56 am
Thanks, Ruxius. Considering that definition, then my earlier assertion about the satchel charge was wrong. Size 222 is correct for it. Oops--I'll have to change my personal OOBs again. 
Here's a good resource about Char-B1 bis:Originally posted by Bernie
Also, all the resources I've seen indicate that both tanks only had a single MG, not the two the OOB shows for the Char B1 bis.
Originally posted by Voriax
Here's a good resource about Char-B1 bis:
http://www.kithobbyist.com/AFVInteriors ... harb1.html
Two mg's, AP round for the 75mm and yes, a 37mm for the B1 model.
Voriax
Note that 74 rounds was the maximum loadout for this tank and that gun, thus, if 74 rounds of HE are carried then there are no AP rounds carried. This coincides with information I've collected from other sites as well. Furthermore, one still has to question the accuracy of the gun, given that there was no traverse. For an anti-troop role, firing HE, that would not be much of a drawback, but for anti-tank work I doubt it would be very accurate, for certain nowhere near as accurate as it is portrayed in our OOB's. There is also a problem with the rarity setting in the OOB (IMHO). Since only 35 B1's were built the rarity should be increased in the OOBThis is the view looking forward in the hull through the open engine compartment hatch in the firewall to the breech of the 75mm howitzer mounted in the front glacis. The forward hull gun is the 75mm SA 35 with short barrel (only 17.1cal) which was installed in a mount that provided an elevation of +25 to -15 degrees. The howitzer was fixed in traverse, being aimed solely by the driver, in elevation by a hand wheel, and in traverse by turning the entire tank. Another unusual feature of the Char B1 bis was the use of the previously mentioned air compressor to blow fumes out the howitzer barrel after firing the gun and before opening the breech (an early fume extractor). The breech was of the horizontal sliding block type (shown open in this photo) and 74 rounds of 75mm HE ammo was generally carried in storage bins/racks along the vehicle sides.
Originally posted by Voriax
Bernie, you forgot one word'generally'
For me that means some tanks might have AP ammo. Although as the AP penetration of that 75mm gun is about the same as the 47mm, why carry any? Perhaps a small amount if there's ever need to engage two armoured targets simultaneously.
As for the accuracy..I like to think that weapon accuracy is a test bed accuracy...what a fixed gun can achieve with standard ammo. Aiming point stays the same and we'll observe the pattern of hits..how tight a grouping that combo can achieve.
That article says that the aiming method was surprisingly accurate due to the advanced steering mechanism that allowed very small movements. But still, this should be taken into account in the fire control and targetting values. If these are crappy then it doesn't matter how good a gun you have, if your only sighting aids are a bead on top of the barrel and mk1 eyeball.
These two cannon tanks are a bit of a problem as clearly there should be two different FC and Trg ratings but there's no way to put them in...
Just my opinions...
Voriax
Originally posted by BryanMelvin
The Char B and Char B bis have been fixed![]()
Removing AP ammo from Char B helps solve the problem.
Many thanks for your imput on these tanks![]()
Originally posted by BruceAZ
Hi Bryan:
This may not be repairable or be too big a task and others may disagree but I have come across many instances in historical books that mention the "assimilation of platoon heavy weapons” into the squads during WW2. In other words, in a typical American and English/Canadian infantry company, most Company and Battalion Commanders integrated or assigned the heavy weapons such as MG’s or Bazooka Teams, for example, from the Weapons Platoon/Company into the line squads when advancing and kept them in the organic formation for special assignments or special defensive situations. However, keeping them in their organic unit was rare.
I think this was standard doctrine for most US formations and I believe this was accepted as a standard U.S. Marine tactic after August 1942. I would bet this is still the typical tactic by most ground commanders today as it makes good sense from a logistics and C&C sense. I know it was accepted practice in late-WW2, Korean War, and Vietnam War periods for a typical Marine BLT.
It was very common to see a squad with its “assigned” MG or Bazooka team. According to what I have read, the reason was more for “support” (logistics) because many teams could not realistically haul enough ammo with a 3-4 man MG team and routinely assigned the extra ammo loads to infantry man in the attached squad. Common sense.
Instead of a typical platoon of 3 squads with 3 MG and 3 Bazooka teams, you would see 3 REINFORCED squads with an assigned MG and bazooka team in each. This gives the basic squad more firepower but slows the squad down due to the extra loads. With the number of weapons slots, this may not be practical. However, is it possible to have the squad “carry” (as in assign) the teams?
Food for thought.
Bruce “Recon” Hodgman
Semper Fi
Originally posted by KG Erwin
Bryan, is there any possibility you could publish a word or pdf document to show all of the changes for the final official OOBs? My personal OOBs have some changes which are not officially sanctioned, such as my German-language OOB 70. Given that, I don't necessarily want to overwrite that particular OOB, if your final version doesn't offer significant value changes. BTW, I want to offer my thanks to you for undertaking this task, especially for shoring up the gaps in the lesser-known and-used minor power OOBs.
Originally posted by VikingNo2
I know its a little late to be bringing up changes, but I feel that the spotting meter I think its a # or something like that should be taken out of the game or changed quite a bit, if a units passes all the checks and spots a unit then great it spots the unit. Unless you really believe that a Truck Driver sitting in a truck , that is running, can really spot a Elite recon squad at 500 meters ! Or ( insert laughter here ) hear them, my fault sence them.
It just makes no sence that units just feel other units. I know you hear reports of such and yes it does happen ( with battle hardeded highly experienced troop ) but the game, does not potray it well; at best it should be a 30%-40% chance ( For elite troops ). And for units that are avarage, or have low experience, even lower, they should regularly be getting false positives as well, for example I have heard this option takes into account hearing someone but not seeing them, this is also one of the biggest reason for false positives. 1 ( the pig in the bush, or the dog or the civilian ect.... ) 2 ( just plain old inexperience and fear)
It should be less accurate and units with little combat experience should be getting a large amount of false positives. I know most like this option, but if it wrong it is wrong.