Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank W.

i think the german OOB is quite full to add much more units.

Then it is possible to export some of the esoteric units to other OOBs

Got StuG?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Belisarius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank W.

i think the german OOB is quite full to add much more units.

Then it is possible to export some of the esoteric units to other OOBs

You mean more than there already is?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Belisarius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank W.

i think the german OOB is quite full to add much more units.

Then it is possible to export some of the esoteric units to other OOBs

You mean more than there already is?

Yep, if need be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

Getting back to one of the OOBs I worked on, the USMC: there was an issue with the Raider/Para units getting M1 Garands before they were offically issued beginning in January 1943 . I went back and made some corrections.
Most of the 1942 units are now equipped with 03 Springfields or Johnson Rifles, but I left in three units which do indeed have Garands, starting in November 1942. The reason for this has been documented, and is part of Raider legend.
Mid October-November was when the Army arrived at Guadalcanal, and they had crates full of the new Garands. Well, in some cases, these weapons arrived before the troops did, and the Raiders took it upon themselves to "liberate" them. Others traded Japanese war souvenirs to the newcomers for their rifles.
Bill Wilder wrote a great article on the history of the Garand, and he mentions these incidents. So, in a few instances, I believed it would still be historically accurate to leave these few units in.
Is there any objection to that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Why do T-34's starting 43 have better fire control? As I understand it the Soviet Optics and such were horrible. Yet in the 43 model of the T-34 suddenly the tank has as good a fire control as German tanks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Why do T-34's starting 43 have better fire control? As I understand it the Soviet Optics and such were horrible. Yet in the 43 model of the T-34 suddenly the tank has as good a fire control as German tanks.

Commander Klank

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Klank

Becouse around 43 Soviet optics and guns did improve somewhat. this must be a reflection of that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Klank

Becouse around 43 Soviet optics and guns did improve somewhat. this must be a reflection of that.

Ammo did improve slightly in '43, but not optics and guns. Since the 2-hatch cupola was a minor improvement, it just and just could justify some tweaking, but not such dramatic improvements as presented in the latest OOB.

quote:

ORIGINAL: harlekwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Klank

Becouse around 43 Soviet optics and guns did improve somewhat. this must be a reflection of that.

Ammo did improve slightly in '43, but not optics and guns. Since the 2-hatch cupola was a minor improvement, it just and just could justify some tweaking, but not such dramatic improvements as presented in the latest OOB.

The alteration to values was done to get a desired result in playtesting IMHO and not based in any quanifiable result of alterations in design that can be based on citeable data.

quote:

ORIGINAL: harlekwin

I am betting the alterations were done to reflect a percieved improvement in the system's lethality which was in fact a human element not a technical one and should better be reflected in morale/exp ratings.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen


There are contradicting sources as regards this question, but the earliest sources I have seen has the first of the rechambered guns shipped to the east in late january/early february with more to follow.

With the introduction of the Marder series of SPATGs the profiferation of this gun of course rose.

But let me reiterate. Why is these guns available upon capture for the germans, while captured german armor in the russian OOB is much later despite evidence to the contrary.

But perhaps you can explain to me why this gun, available from 7/41 has the better german ammuntion (AP Pen 133) available upon capture (The eqivalent soviet gun is AP Pen 84)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

But perhaps you can explain to me why this gun, available from 7/41 has the better german ammuntion (AP Pen 133) available upon capture (The eqivalent soviet gun is AP Pen 84)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevin E. Duguay

From a ASL addict,

The date for the 76.2mm Pak36r's availability is July 1941 but is rated as quite rare until January 1942 when it becomes more available.
In the ASL game notes on this weapon it states that the German modified guns were not available until January 1942 and that the earlier dates reflect use without these modifications. In other words, Russian guns and Russian ammunition.

In German Artillery of World War Two by I. V. Hogg, he states that vast numbers of Soviet guns and ammunition was captured in the early weeks of the Russian Campaign, and prominent among the booty was the 76.2mm 1936. He says that these weapons were immediatly assimilated into German use under their Fremdengerat name FK 296(r). The Germans saw the potential of this weapon to be a potent AT weapon and thats when the changes were ordered. Now Hogg says that the only changes were reaming-out the chamber to fit a PAK 40 cartridge,moving the elevating handwheel to the left side to allow one man laying,(NO wise cracks please!!)and finnaly to add a muzzle brake. Then it was re-named 7.62cm PAK 36(r).
IMHO, the German modifier gun should become available in January 1942. The Russian gun as captured from July 1941.

Mounted on Marder, availability dates start at May 1942.

In the Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two by Chamberlain, Doyle etc. Production date for the LaS 762 is April 1942.

Marder III Started production on the same date April 1942.

It would make sence that these vehicles got into the field quickly because the chassis used were either already built or on the production line.

Hope this helps to settle this little dispute.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

Getting back to one of the OOBs I worked on, the USMC: there was an issue with the Raider/Para units getting M1 Garands before they were offically issued beginning in January 1943 . I went back and made some corrections.
Most of the 1942 units are now equipped with 03 Springfields or Johnson Rifles, but I left in three units which do indeed have Garands, starting in November 1942. The reason for this has been documented, and is part of Raider legend.
Mid October-November was when the Army arrived at Guadalcanal, and they had crates full of the new Garands. Well, in some cases, these weapons arrived before the troops did, and the Raiders took it upon themselves to "liberate" them. Others traded Japanese war souvenirs to the newcomers for their rifles.
Bill Wilder wrote a great article on the history of the Garand, and he mentions these incidents. So, in a few instances, I believed it would still be historically accurate to leave these few units in.
Is there any objection to that?

Well, it´s a good start, but we are still not closer to solving the basic issues, namely how high the proliferation of M1 rifles were in the Raider units.
One solution could be to change the encyclopedia text so that players could be made aware that the unit is unique.
Another to remove the Garand armed units from the USMC OOB and put them into one of the scenario designer OOBs, since they are a historic anomaly and therefore not widely available.
The third and last option would be to set their rarity rating as high in order that it be impossible to buy many of them (if playing with that option "ON").

But this still doesn´t address the basic question of units using no TO&E gear. How is this regulated by the OOB team? Is it only the USMC that get´s non TO&E gear? Furthermore this discussion leads us into the availability of captured gear, the question of which hasn´t been satisfactorily answered yet.

Semper Fi!

Jeremy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Overlord

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

Getting back to one of the OOBs I worked on, the USMC: there was an issue with the Raider/Para units getting M1 Garands before they were offically issued beginning in January 1943 . I went back and made some corrections.
Most of the 1942 units are now equipped with 03 Springfields or Johnson Rifles, but I left in three units which do indeed have Garands, starting in November 1942. The reason for this has been documented, and is part of Raider legend.
Mid October-November was when the Army arrived at Guadalcanal, and they had crates full of the new Garands. Well, in some cases, these weapons arrived before the troops did, and the Raiders took it upon themselves to "liberate" them. Others traded Japanese war souvenirs to the newcomers for their rifles.
Bill Wilder wrote a great article on the history of the Garand, and he mentions these incidents. So, in a few instances, I believed it would still be historically accurate to leave these few units in.
Is there any objection to that?

Well, it´s a good start, but we are still not closer to solving the basic issues, namely how high the proliferation of M1 rifles were in the Raider units.
One solution could be to change the encyclopedia text so that players could be made aware that the unit is unique.
Another to remove the Garand armed units from the USMC OOB and put them into one of the scenario designer OOBs, since they are a historic anomaly and therefore not widely available.
The third and last option would be to set their rarity rating as high in order that it be impossible to buy many of them (if playing with that option "ON").

But this still doesn´t address the basic question of units using no TO&E gear. How is this regulated by the OOB team? Is it only the USMC that get´s non TO&E gear? Furthermore this discussion leads us into the availability of captured gear, the question of which hasn´t been satisfactorily answered yet.

Here is some info on who had M1's......Raider weapons
the 2nd Raiders had them most likely around Fed of '42.

Some relevant passages..
"The raiders also had carte blanche to obtain any equipment they deemed necessary, whether or not it was standard issue anywhere else in the Corps"
also..
"Carlson also implemented an important change to the raider organization promulgated from Washington. Instead of a unitary eight-man squad, he created a 10-man unit composed of a squad leader and three fire teams of three men each. Each fire team boasted a Thompson submachine gun, a Browning automatic rifle (BAR), and one of the new Garand M-1 semiautomatic rifles. "

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

OK, Overlord. Thanks for the info. So, I need to revert the 2nd "Carlson" Raider Bn Sqds to having the M1s, as they did originally, but keep the 1st "Edson" Raider Bn units as I changed them. Consider it done.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skotty702

Is the aircraft gun issue still an issue?
P-39: 10 37mm guns
P-38J: 15 20mm guns
P-51B: 10 .50cal guns
P-51D: 10 .50cal guns
F-80: 10 .50cal guns
P-51H: 10 .50cal guns
P-38F: 15 20mm guns
P-38L: 15 20mm guns
B-25H: TEN 75mm cannons!!!!!!!!!!!

This is just the US OOB. I know there are more OOB's that have funky
gun counts. Is this an error or part of the aircraft "improvement" idea.

Thanks
Scott

I think those are the rounds of ammo available pr. weapon guv´.