Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: The new improved 8.1 oob thread

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> RE: The new improved 8.1 oob thread Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The new improved 8.1 oob thread - 3/11/2004 2:36:29 AM   
chief


Posts: 1660
Joined: 9/28/2000
From: Haines City FL, USA
Status: offline 		Ah you beat me to my edit....also read that during WWII that GIs in the heat of combat jacked in a live round by mistake.....ouch

_____________________________

"God Bless America and All the Young men and women who give their all to protect Her"....chief

(in reply to AmmoSgt)
Post #: 61
RE: The new improved 8.1 oob thread - 3/11/2004 2:39:42 AM   
Rune Iversen


Posts: 3630
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Copenhagen. Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AmmoSgt

quote:

ORIGINAL: chief

Ammo didn't the shooter/rifleman firing the rifle grenade use a blank as the igniter (for lack of a better name) ?

In WW2 yes in every case that i can think of .. however, Chief , weapons development never stops , and in an effort to make some rifle grenades GI Proof , they developed a Rifle grenade that uses regular bullets , seems maybe late 60's early 70's , and they called it progress , seems dangerious to me , it was a NATO thing , scary is all I can say , I'll stick to a M203 thanks.

The ENERGA system is what you´re thinking of.

_____________________________

Ignoring the wulfir
Fighting the EUnuchs from within

(in reply to AmmoSgt)
Post #: 62
RE: The new improved 8.1 oob thread - 3/11/2004 2:40:49 AM   
chief


Posts: 1660
Joined: 9/28/2000
From: Haines City FL, USA
Status: offline 		Ammo while I have you on line.....subject: MG accuracy....I was a top deck (50cal twin)gunner on P2Vs etc. and a qualification, with a load of 200 rds/weapon, at 400' was one (1) hit out of three passes by the towing A/C on a sleeve.....just for S & G.

_____________________________

"God Bless America and All the Young men and women who give their all to protect Her"....chief

(in reply to chief)
Post #: 63
RE: The new improved 8.1 oob thread - 3/11/2004 2:47:50 AM   
AmmoSgt

 

Posts: 1002
Joined: 10/21/2000
From: Redstone Arsenal Al
Status: offline 		I am sure it happened , but it was pretty rare , you load the blank before you mount the grenade. so it is not exactly a totally thoughtless action , kind hard to miss a couple pounds hanging off the end of the rifle. You can also see the grenade thru your sights instead of the target on most rifles. but yeah it happened , it will break the rifle , usually the op-rod on a semi auto and it might detonate the grenade but probably some distance away , the grenade filler material is not effected all that much by pure shock and a blackpowder fuse train will give you some delay , how much is the question , being stupid with explosives usually has consequences. On Bolt actions , you might get away with it , but I wouldn't want to use the rifle again without Ordnance inspecting it.

_____________________________

"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which

(in reply to chief)
Post #: 64
RE: The new improved 8.1 oob thread - 3/11/2004 2:52:10 AM   
AmmoSgt

 

Posts: 1002
Joined: 10/21/2000
From: Redstone Arsenal Al
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: chief

Ammo while I have you on line.....subject: MG accuracy....I was a top deck (50cal twin)gunner on P2Vs etc. and a qualification, with a load of 200 rds/weapon, at 400' was one (1) hit out of three passes by the towing A/C on a sleeve.....just for S & G.

Chief Go Blue Sharks I posted a link on another thread over on Depot I think, that on average in WW2 US Bombers shot down an enemy fighter every 12,000 something rounds fired , oddly enough US and German fighters had to fire just about as many to shoot down a plane as well.

_____________________________

"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which

(in reply to chief)
Post #: 65
RE: The new improved 8.1 oob thread - 3/11/2004 6:23:34 AM   
BryanMelvin

 

Posts: 1555
Joined: 7/28/2000
From: Colorado, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AmmoSgt

Posting again in the hope that the spirit of reconcilation is actually taking hold and that The Honchos at Matrix are sincere in their assurances of giving folks input a fair hearing.
I would like to mention US Rifle Grenades. Some US Infantry Units have a empty weapons slot , US Infantry carried and used rifle grenades as a standard issue infantry weapon. While all US Fragmentation type hand grenades either hand thrown or rifle launched using an adapter have about the same effectiveness as any other Rifle Grenade from any other country, the M9/M9A1 AT rifle grenade was an exception. it had the same warhead of the same design and size as the Bazooka warhead, with similiar penetration capablities. Another unique thing about US rifle Grenades was the US had the M7 Booster pellet , a small additional charge that was physically inserted in the muzzle end of the grenade launcher just prior to attaching the rifle grenade. it was about the size of a 45 cal pistol cartridge and added an addition 100-150 yards to the range of the grenade above and beyond the 150 yard basic range. US Rifle Grenades could be fired from all the US service rifles inculding the M1 carbine , and most squads had at least one rifle with a grenade launcher attached , since it did not effect the standard operation of the weapon. The attachable grenade launcher was calibrated out to 300 yards to accomidate the M7 booster , which was a common ammunition issue item that came with the rifle grenade ( either the handgrenade adapter or the M9 series AT rifle grenade. )
if you need to check references all the Info can be found online in the US Army Standard Ordnance catalog at the Carslie Army barracks Library web site in Vol III IIRC. if you need exact page numbers I will be happy to find them for you.
Not asking for any big change here , just an addition to those US infantry units with open slots ( maybe even the 4 man scout teams, although in the case of the 4 man scout teams a WP rifle grenade would be the most correct ) and a check on the Armor pen values of the US AT rifle Grenade to bring it more inline with the Bazooka Pen since the warheads are essentially the same. If you wanted to it would be simple enough to make a WP rifle Grenade , simple make a regular HE Rifle Grenade except make the weapon class naplam leaving the HE kill about the same but raising the warhead size to about 7 to allow for the increased suppression that WP causes. If you chose to create a WP rifle grenade for the 4 man scout team do NOT give the Scout team any AT grenades , because it can't use both , and they are not actually out there scouting to kill tanks anyway , but the WP would be handy to mark or screen a target or signal.
These work well in my private OOB , and they have tested without any problem , but other folks here that think it might be fun to have might want to test them ( use any weapons slot in the US OOB that is obviosly not being used by a US unit ), I think I used the mosin nagant rifle and just copied the rifle grenade to that slot and made the mentioned changes play with it a little and post your thoughts.
I hope we can all give each other the benifit of the doubt and start fresh and get back to trying to make a great game even better.


Ammo Sgt - yes this is a great idea and we are considering adding it in.

_____________________________

MarauderMel

http://www.wargamer.com/hosted/Steelpanthers/index.asp

(in reply to AmmoSgt)
Post #: 66
RE: The new improved 8.1 oob thread - 3/11/2004 6:41:23 AM   
AmmoSgt

 

Posts: 1002
Joined: 10/21/2000
From: Redstone Arsenal Al
Status: offline 		Thank You for responding and I hope you can work it in.

_____________________________

"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which

(in reply to BryanMelvin)
Post #: 67
RE: The new improved 8.1 oob thread - 3/11/2004 7:24:21 PM   
Kevin E. Duguay

 

Posts: 1044
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Goldsboro, North Carolina
Status: offline 		Ammo Sgt,
The U.S. produced 5 different rifle grenade launchers durring the war. They are as follows;
M1, Used on the M1903 Springfield, Pretty rare in December 1941 (3,520 produced ) but after that produced in great numbers with 322,892 being produced and with 39,793 M2's being converted to M1 standard.
Launched allowed normal use of rifle after grenade was launched.

M2, Used on M1917 Enfield was actually produced first for lend lease to England for Home Guard and related uses. Uesd for training in the U.S. but few if any used in combat by U.S. forces.

M7, Used on M1 Garand rifle. Delivery to U.S. Government started in February 1944, by August 1945 795,699 M7's were produced. This launcher was poblematic in that the rifle COULD NOT be fired in semi-automatic mode with the launcher attached. Something to do with the gas mechanism. So what happened in combat when it got hot and heavy you might ask? The rifle man fired off the Grenade at some target then removed the grenade launcher and often as not, threw it away. Thus the large production figures. Go figure!!

M7A1, Improved version of the M7. This version allowed the rifle to function normally with launcher attached. Was not ready before the war ended but became the standard rifle grenade launcher for U.S. forces post-war.

M8, This one fit the M1 Carbine. Because of the simpler gas mechenism on this rifle, the weapon could function normally with the launcher attached. There were problem though. The Carbine was never intended to fire a rifle grenade. Often when fired from firm ground the stock would crack or split. But even with these problems it was more popular with the troops than the M7.

There were also many types of grenades and grenade holders for these launchers. Smoke, WP, signal, and of course the M9A1 AT grenade.
They used a grenade holder to make the fragmentation grenade. This holder let the rifle man place TWO standard pineapple grenades in piggy back style to be fired by the launcher. This set up was quit effective offten because of the elevation required to fire the weapon resulting in an AIRBURST. In Bruce N. Canfields book, U.S. Infantry Weapons of World War II, where I found most of this information, there is even a picture of an infantry man with on of the holders with a 60mm mortar round attached and fitted om his rifle! Now thats a grenade!!
I agree about the range being about 5 hexes.
Pen Values that I have for the AT grenade are 75mm to 100mm so that is still up for debate. Either way this weapon should be a part of the U.S. OOB IMHO.

_____________________________

KED

(in reply to AmmoSgt)
Post #: 68
RE: The new improved 8.1 oob thread - 3/11/2004 11:57:30 PM   
Steve Wilcox

 

Posts: 103
Joined: 8/17/2001
From: Victoria, BC, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AmmoSgt

quote:

ORIGINAL: chief

Ammo while I have you on line.....subject: MG accuracy....I was a top deck (50cal twin)gunner on P2Vs etc. and a qualification, with a load of 200 rds/weapon, at 400' was one (1) hit out of three passes by the towing A/C on a sleeve.....just for S & G.

Chief Go Blue Sharks I posted a link on another thread over on Depot I think, that on average in WW2 US Bombers shot down an enemy fighter every 12,000 something rounds fired , oddly enough US and German fighters had to fire just about as many to shoot down a plane as well.


Hi AmmoSgt, the info given on the link looks to be mostly from Dirty Little Secrets of World War II by James F. Dunnigan and Albert A. Nofi. The site's author says: "Please note that statistics will vary from source to source. These are mostly taken from the books on my "recommended reading" page and are accurate to the best of my knowledge." Dirty Little Secrets of World War II is on that list.

The website guy says:

8th Air Force:
fired 76.9 million rounds of .50 caliber
fired .7 million rounds of .30 caliber
downed 6090 enemy aircraft
had an average of 1 enemy plane shot down for each 12,700 rounds fired (1/12,700)

15th Air Force:
fired 30 million rounds of .50 caliber
downed 2110 enemy aircraft
had an average of 1/14,200

The Germans' average was 1/12,000

Dirty Little Secrets of World War II (page 188-189) says:

"During the air campaign against Germany the final (and for much of the war the only) line of defense of heavy bombers against interceptors was their own machine guns (and, to a lesser extent, those of nearby fighter escorts). In the course of operations against targets in Europe the Eighth Air Force (bombers and fighter escorts), which flew out of Great Britain, expended 76.9 million rounds of .50-caliber machine-gun ammunition plus nearly 0.7 million rounds of .30-caliber ammo, to account for 6,098 enemy aircraft, a ratio of about 12,700 rounds per kill. The Fifteenth Air Force, flying from Italy, expended about 30 million rounds of .50-caliber ammunition, downing 2,110 enemy aircraft, or about one for every 14,200 rounds fired. This may seem like a tremendous waste of ammunition, but the German antiaircraft gunners opposing the bombers were getting only about one kill for every 12,000 rounds fired, and that quite often with the vaunted 88mm antiaircraft gun."

So the German figure of 12,000 rounds appears to refer to antiaircraft fire, not MG/cannon rounds expended by fighters, and the website guy didn't notice when he made his page. Hope this helps.

(in reply to AmmoSgt)
Post #: 69
RE: The new improved 8.1 oob thread - 3/12/2004 12:53:52 AM   
AmmoSgt

 

Posts: 1002
Joined: 10/21/2000
From: Redstone Arsenal Al
Status: offline 		Steve sounds about right for me .
I think the ratio for killing a ground troop was about 50,000 rounds per man or therebouts , maybe you sources have data on this as well .. would go a long way to helping understand how MG's should be behaving in a general way in the game , also if you have handy some info on ratio's of cause of combat casulties between arty/ bombs/ mortars/small arms/ mines ect .
I know in Offical Unit After Action reports for the US Army they have an Ammunition expenditure section , but I have only found one online unit History that included that much detail , I'll try and find that link again and repost it , I think it got hit in the crash.

_____________________________

"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which

(in reply to Steve Wilcox)
Post #: 70
RE: The new improved 8.1 oob thread - 3/12/2004 1:15:06 AM   
AmmoSgt

 

Posts: 1002
Joined: 10/21/2000
From: Redstone Arsenal Al
Status: offline 		Steve I found the link .. pretty detailed ammo expenditure reports and some good info on incoming fire .. http://skyways.lib.ks.us/museums/kng/635TDB.html

_____________________________

"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which

(in reply to AmmoSgt)
Post #: 71
RE: The new improved 8.1 oob thread - 3/12/2004 1:56:29 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline 		RE: Rifle Grenade Launchers. The only reference I could find for USMC use of RGLs is in the "D" series TOE. This specifies that a rifle regiment had 97 M1 RGLs for use with the '03 Springfield. The interesting thing is that in successive TOEs (Series E through G), there is no mention of the RGLs for the M1 Rifle or Carbine. Either the info is incomplete, or the Marines phased these out after 1942.
Can anyone provide more info on this?

_____________________________


(in reply to AmmoSgt)
Post #: 72
RE: The new improved 8.1 oob thread - 3/12/2004 3:43:23 AM   
Kevin E. Duguay

 

Posts: 1044
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Goldsboro, North Carolina
Status: offline 		Erwin,
In the book that my information came from there is a combat report from the USMC on the effectiveness of the M9A1 Rifle Grenade dated 1943. So I would guess that the info you have carried through out the war. IMHO the Marines were issued M1903 rifles and retained them in service longer than the Army. To them the M7 launcher for the Garand and the M8 launcher for the Carbine may have seemed unnessisary, they already had a single shot rifle that still worked normally with the launcher attached (M1903) and they did'nt have to worry about cracked stocks(M1 Carbine). Because something is not mentioned it does not mean it was'nt there.

Oh, the report, same as most other munitions in the Pacific, when they sat around to long many malfunctioned. Samething happened to almost every type of ammo.

Hope this helps

_____________________________

KED

(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 73
RE: The new improved 8.1 oob thread - 3/12/2004 4:15:48 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline 		Thanks for the info, Kevin. I do know that the '03 Springfield was replaced by the M1 Garand in all USMC rifle units beginning in 1943, but this was not completed till late in the year. In was also during '43 that bazookas became part of the official TOE. The actual issue of these weapons was also a drawn-out process. As a matter of fact, the 2nd Marine Division at Tarawa (November 43) had no bazookas at all.

Alright, I consulted Gordon Rottmann's "USMC OOB in WWII", and here it is: the 1942 nine-man "D" squad had a grenadier armed with the M1903-M1 RGL. The 1944 "F" fire-team had three Garand M1s with the M7 RGL and one BAR, for a total of 9 RGLs in the squad. Now, how do I translate this into ammo loadouts for the Rifle Grenades?

< Message edited by KG Erwin -- 3/11/2004 10:23:27 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Kevin E. Duguay)
Post #: 74
RE: The new improved 8.1 oob thread - 3/12/2004 7:15:46 AM   
Kevin E. Duguay

 

Posts: 1044
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Goldsboro, North Carolina
Status: offline 		Erwin,

Owch! Give em more ammo! Oh BTW the M1903 Springfield with the M1 launcher served in both the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps until the end of the war. I'll also bet that many Marines held on to their Springfields because the M1 Garand could not be fired with the launcher in place.

With the Springfield it was simple, top off the mag with the launcher blank, fit grenade, then after fireing grenade, charge the bolt loading a ball round into the chamber and fire at the encroching enemy.

The Garand was very different. With loader attached top off clip with launcher blank, fit grenade then after fireing grenade, charge bolt loading ball round into chamber and fire at the encroching enemy but if you pull the trigger again, nothing. The bolt would have to be charged until the clip was expended, or as what usually happener the soldier in question took the launcher off, discarded it and happily fired his M1 in semi- auto mode.

The M7 launcher was designed to bleed off gasses to keep the rifle from expoding when fireing Grenades. This interfeared with the gass operating system of the rifle. So when launcher was attached and the weapon was fired the bolt did not cycle.

Also it was harder to top off the Garand with a new Blank round. If you have one just try it. Pop off a few rounds then try to open the bolt and hold it open while trying to keep the clip in the weapon(spring loaded), its a pain in the butt. With the Springfield you just open the bolt, press one in, and away you go. Thats why the Spingfield was retained as a rifle grenade launcher platform. It worked good!

The problem with the M7 grenade launcher was not fixed until after the war ended. This came in the form of the M7A1 Launcher. This became standare issue Post-War and the M1's were retired. Now the Garand rifle could be fired immediately after launching a grenade. But the problem of topping off the partially expended clip was still there. If you wanted to fire a second grenade right away.... well see procedure above!

Edit: The M8 launcher for the Carbine also worked good. It also alowed the Carbine to be fired immediately after the launching of a grenade. It was also easier to top off with another blank round. Pull bolt back to clear chamber and hold to the rear. Put blank in chamber opening, then with thumb press down lightly on rounds still in the mag till bult starts to move forward over mag. Get thumb out of the way, push bolt forward and fit grenade. Fire! Or you could just drop the mag, load the blank into the mag, incert back into weapon, charge bolt(or fire weapon in the general direction of the enemy), fit grenade. Fire!

Boy, now was'nt that fun!!!

< Message edited by Kevin E. Duguay -- 3/13/2004 12:30:17 AM >

_____________________________

KED

(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 75
RE: The new improved 8.1 oob thread - 3/12/2004 8:40:00 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline 		More on rifle grenades: I saw this quote from a US Army historian on a webpage I found. He states "Do you know why the WW II 12-man Infantry squad retained one M1903 bolt action rifle along with the ten M1 Garands and one BAR? No, it was not a "sniper" weapon. For that there was an M1903A4(with scope). The M1903 was needed as a squad rifle grenade launcher (not the French-made VB, but the conventional rifle grenade with blank cartridge as we know it today). The M1 Garand did not have its grenade launcher developed until later in the war, at which point the M1903 was no longer needed."

_____________________________


(in reply to Kevin E. Duguay)
Post #: 76
MG42 in 8.1!!! - 3/12/2004 9:09:04 AM   
Wuotan


Posts: 172
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		I don´t want to grouch, but... i would love to hear a REAL MG42 in SPWAW8.1!!!
The current one is for sure an MG-3, hmm? I have a damn good .AVI-Video
(if i find it in my mess), authentic WW2-Tank-destroying where they fight
iwan with it. As you know,there is no single shot, just buuuuzzzzzzzzz... "amazing". Perhaps not so easy to find, so, if you would like it, i could search for it and mail that part to any adress
(hope i can find it/the quality SHOULD be O.K!). In my opinion it would be a very little, but tasty tid-bit.

Greetings!

_____________________________

Wenn Du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in Dich hinein.

F. Nietzsche

(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 77
RE: The new improved 8.1 oob thread - 3/12/2004 1:44:03 PM   
Steve Wilcox

 

Posts: 103
Joined: 8/17/2001
From: Victoria, BC, Canada
Status: offline 		Hey AmmoSgt, thanks for the link on the 635th TD Bn. Really nice detail, especially stuff like: "Enemy fire from house and water tower used for observation point. M-8 behind 1/4 ton fired 70 rounds of .50 caliber into house and 2 rounds of 37mm Canister and 2 rounds of HE at tower, neutralized both strong points." Wish everyone had detailed records like that.

Re: Casualties by weapon type and rounds expended per troop kill, I swear I've seen stats like that before, but I can't remember where. Argh!I'll keep looking though.

The only vague but possibly helpful thing I could find offhand was in Dirty Little Secrets of World War II again, where they refer to surveys of US troops that had fought in North Africa who were asked what they felt were the most dangerous weapons, and although a survey is of course different from actual statistics, the authors say that "the GIs had the percentages right." (shrug)

It's a bit confusing because while on one hand the authors say that 'the average infantryman had a restricted, and somewhat inaccurate, view of what was trying to kill him'', on the other hand they say that "the GIs had the percentages right." But here's what the book says (page 57-58):

"When asked what the "most feared" weapon was, 48 percent of the troops surveyed said it was the German "88mm artillery gun." When asked what the "most dangerous" weapon was, 62 percent of the GIs named the "88." The Germans very rarely used their 88mm gun as artillery; it was primarily for antiaircraft and antitank work. In these roles, the "88" had aquired a fearsome reputation, and these U.S. troops assumed that any time they were hit by German shell fire, it had to be the dreaded "88." But the GIs had the percentages right. Artillery was the major cause of casualties among the infantry. The next most dangerous thing mentioned was mortars (17%), followed by the deadly German light machine guns (6%). Interestingly, none of the troops feared rifle fire, or considered it "dangerous." This was also quite accurate. The most dangerous weapons were actually artillery (including mortars) and these accounted for over two thirds of all casualties."

I know this isn't telling you anything you don't already know about artillery's effectiveness, but I included the paragraph in case it is of any interest.

(in reply to AmmoSgt)
Post #: 78
MG42 sound, YaG-6, Sturmtiger - 3/12/2004 10:44:59 PM   
mine_field


Posts: 95
Joined: 3/10/2004
From: North Carolina, USA
Status: offline 		Hello all,
I am pretty new. I don't know much about development or who to see about what issues. I'm not even sure this is the right place, but OOB and TOE seem to deal with how the equipment is modeled in game.

I have a post out there regarding primary weapon causing suppression and resulting in less casualties (link). It regards changing the order of weapons for the infantry. I'm assuming this is possible, although you guys might know better with your knowledge of how things can be changed (like adding the rifle-grenade for troops).

In regards to the MG42 sound, I think he has a valid point. The way it was described to me was like the sound of cloth ripping. There was no distinguishable individual bullet sounds. The ROF was so high the sound itself sent fear into its enemies.

I am cross posting regarding the Russian YaG-6 truck (link).
It is my belief that the carry ability of the truck is wrong (listed as 230 iirc). I just did a battle in 8.01 in which I loaded a PzKpfw-IIIh into the YaG-6 heavy truck. Note that the PzKpfw-IIIh is a 21/22 ton tank. I have details regarding the truck in the following excerpt from that post:

Source for following info:
Oldtimer gallery. Trucks. YaG-6 (link)

It was a 4x2 5-ton truck. It had a 73 hp engine, 6 cylinder. It was 6.5 m long, 2.5 m wide.
The platform for carrying is 3.78 m long by 2.33m wide.
It had a dry twin plate clutch with a ZiS-5 4 speed gearbox.
Suspension was with 2 longitudinal semielliptical springs in the front and the same in the back with extra springs there.
----------------------------------------

In regards to the Sturmtiger tank, I think that something needs to be changed. I have heard from other sources, but I am quoting from this source, Sturmmorser Tiger SP Guns(link).
There were only 10 of these ever sent into battle. It seems odd to allow these into PBEM games and such. Even so, "It took about 10 minutes to load the 761 lb. shell. There was a crane that was used to help load the rounds into the vehicle." Since the manual (v5.0) states that each turn represents several minutes, I would think the Sturmtiger's ROF should be 0.2-0.3. Even then, with the crane (not clear if this is built onto the tank or is separate) this means the tank can't reload without having crew outside the tank. So this puts the Sturmtiger at a severe disadvantage in close quarters. Perhaps this should be coded more as a SP Arty piece (or taken out altogether) rather than as an assault gun with ROF of 2.

According to word of mouth, the thing was only used against emplacements anyways, considering its main armament, the 38 cm RW61, was an aborted naval gun.

Thanks for your time.

< Message edited by mine_field -- 3/12/2004 3:55:08 PM >

(in reply to Steve Wilcox)
Post #: 79
RE: MG42 sound, YaG-6, Sturmtiger - 3/12/2004 10:51:08 PM   
VikingNo2


Posts: 2918
Joined: 1/26/2002
From: NC
Status: offline 		I agree on the rarity of the StrumTiger. However the crane was used to reload the Stumtiger after it expended its ammo load out that was already onboard. It was not used to reload every shot.

(in reply to mine_field)
Post #: 80
RE: MG42 sound, YaG-6, Sturmtiger - 3/12/2004 10:54:55 PM   
mine_field


Posts: 95
Joined: 3/10/2004
From: North Carolina, USA
Status: offline 		Viking, you are right. I just re-read my own source and it explicitly says loading the rounds into the tank, and not into the gun.

(in reply to VikingNo2)
Post #: 81
RE: MG42 sound, YaG-6, Sturmtiger - 3/12/2004 10:57:01 PM   
mine_field


Posts: 95
Joined: 3/10/2004
From: North Carolina, USA
Status: offline 		Just a thought, changing the SturmTiger's cost to something ridiculously high would prevent it from being used in PBEM but would still allow it to be used in scenarios where its role would be accurate.

(in reply to mine_field)
Post #: 82
RE: MG42 sound, YaG-6, Sturmtiger - 3/12/2004 10:58:20 PM   
VikingNo2


Posts: 2918
Joined: 1/26/2002
From: NC
Status: offline 		Hopefully they OOB team will fix the Yag. Have you ever ttied H2H, several what is several german rare weapons where moved to another OOB. So you can't even buy a Stumtiger unless you buy from another country.

(in reply to mine_field)
Post #: 83
RE: MG42 sound, YaG-6, Sturmtiger - 3/12/2004 11:03:07 PM   
mine_field


Posts: 95
Joined: 3/10/2004
From: North Carolina, USA
Status: offline 		No, I am very new. Is H2H a mod or something? Is it preferred for human vs. human? Where can I get it?
If it's just in another country, can't they still buy it? Are there any restrictions / penalities for buying from other countries in PBEM?

(in reply to VikingNo2)
Post #: 84
RE: MG42 in 8.1!!! - 3/12/2004 11:07:43 PM   
Alby


Posts: 4855
Joined: 4/29/2000
From: Greenwood, Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Wuotan

I don´t want to grouch, but... i would love to hear a REAL MG42 in SPWAW8.1!!!
The current one is for sure an MG-3, hmm? I have a damn good .AVI-Video
(if i find it in my mess), authentic WW2-Tank-destroying where they fight
iwan with it. As you know,there is no single shot, just buuuuzzzzzzzzz... "amazing". Perhaps not so easy to find, so, if you would like it, i could search for it and mail that part to any adress
(hope i can find it/the quality SHOULD be O.K!). In my opinion it would be a very little, but tasty tid-bit.

Greetings!


The one used in H2H is pretty good!!

_____________________________



(in reply to Wuotan)
Post #: 85
RE: MG42 sound, YaG-6, Sturmtiger - 3/12/2004 11:20:08 PM   
Alby


Posts: 4855
Joined: 4/29/2000
From: Greenwood, Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mine_field

No, I am very new. Is H2H a mod or something? Is it preferred for human vs. human? Where can I get it?
If it's just in another country, can't they still buy it? Are there any restrictions / penalities for buying from other countries in PBEM?


http://www.theblitz.org/member_sites/panzer_leo_spw@w/spwaw_h2h_modrework.php


_____________________________



(in reply to mine_field)
Post #: 86
RE: MG42 sound, YaG-6, Sturmtiger - 3/12/2004 11:32:49 PM   
VikingNo2


Posts: 2918
Joined: 1/26/2002
From: NC
Status: offline 		H2H is free, however I recomend intalling it seperatly and keeping whatever version you are playing with as a seperate install.

In PBEM games normally the parties involved will discuss the terms of the game. Fir example some players like to play the British with Canadian troops mixed in. Or play the Italians with some germans mixed in. There are know penalties as far as I know. But this is something that should be agreed on before the game. You can do it against the AI as well

(in reply to Alby)
Post #: 87
RE: MG42 sound, YaG-6, Sturmtiger - 3/12/2004 11:42:02 PM   
mine_field


Posts: 95
Joined: 3/10/2004
From: North Carolina, USA
Status: offline 		Alby,
Thanks for the link.

Viking,
I see about buying and such. I understand about setting terms. I just know that I would be mad to find my opponent using 4-5 SturmTigers against me and then he would have the valid argument that they are in the game and are in the German OOB. I guess I am trying more or less to prevent uncommon units being used improperly because of their stats.

(in reply to VikingNo2)
Post #: 88
RE: MG42 sound, YaG-6, Sturmtiger - 3/12/2004 11:54:45 PM   
VikingNo2


Posts: 2918
Joined: 1/26/2002
From: NC
Status: offline 		Yes you could try to say no StumTiger's. Its just a game negotiation

(in reply to mine_field)
Post #: 89
RE: MG42 sound, YaG-6, Sturmtiger - 3/13/2004 12:28:28 AM   
AmmoSgt

 

Posts: 1002
Joined: 10/21/2000
From: Redstone Arsenal Al
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: VikingNo2

I agree on the rarity of the StrumTiger. However the crane was used to reload the Stumtiger after it expended its ammo load out that was already onboard. It was not used to reload every shot.

Actually you are both a bit off on the crane , you needed a crane to get the 660 lb shells INTO the tank and you had an overhead chain hoist INSIDE the tank to manuver the 660 lb rounds onto the loading tray . or one US Marine neck size 30 inches hat size 5

mine field the problem with switching around the weapons for infantry is that the slot 1 weapon is multiplied by the number of men in the squad the other slots are fired as single weapons.

_____________________________

"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which

(in reply to VikingNo2)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> RE: The new improved 8.1 oob thread Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.453