Suggestions for Updated WW2 Data Book
Posted 13 March 2009 - 10:25 PM
Posted 14 March 2009 - 11:43 AM
Posted 14 March 2009 - 01:06 PM
Fair enough. That's the best way to handle them. Just was not aware they were already included. Helps me when basing any new infantry units.
On the SMG issue. SMGs are already included in the calculations for the rifle squads.
Interesting! So I guess I will have to go off and do some more digging into infantry squad-level TOEs! So much to learn ...
As for the nations that have SMG squads, they had a TOE that we found that included an SMG squad when we created the squads, so that is why they are included in countries other than Russia.
This is much as I thought. My suggestion is to add, somewhere, some indication of caliber (but hopefully without adding the burden of a whole new column). I have already been in some discussions with gamers who asserted that I, or they, should be using one line-item from the list vs. another, based on assumptions about HMG meaning it was a .50cal vs. a .30cal etc. I know that some nations called .30cal weapons HMGs because they were heavy in weight. But some gamers can't accept that without some debate, and friction can arise when they don't know the modello or Mk number of their opponent's kit, but see them using a line marked "HMG" for a .30cal weapon. All I am suggesting is adding ".50cal" or "7.62mm" or whatever in the descriptions of HMGs somewhere, to clarify matters and prevent arguments.-Mark 1
Your are correct to a degree, except that some called different caliber MGs different things. It is purely dependant by country is some respects. ... So the designations used are by the country or in some cases best available info. The designations have no influence on the stats of the guns though so changing them will not effect our numbers.
Posted 14 March 2009 - 02:08 PM
Posted 15 March 2009 - 03:19 PM
Posted 16 March 2009 - 02:43 AM
Posted 16 March 2009 - 08:44 AM
If by this you mean I should use the generic bolt-action rifle table for US M1903s or P17s, I can accept that as perfectly reasonable.
A note on the Small Arms: the small arms table lists for squads is semi generic.
Yep. Gregory has approached me about possibly being a playtestor.CG Erickson (one of my gaming buds) and I played out an infantry-dominated game with MP prior to the move to squad-based infantry rules. In truth the rules played out quite well as they were. It was a fascinating action.But alas, I am a strong believer in squad-based infantry rules for my micro-scale wargaming. I really like combined arms gaming, and in many decades of experience I have concluded that fire-team based infantry rules make it impossible for me to mix tanks and infantry on board in company-sized units. I think infantry-only (or with very few vehicles in support) fire-team basing can be loads of fun. But I hold steadfast to my goal of battalion-sized combined arms wargames. That's MP, not MT, in my book. ;)
Meine Truppen is our fire team equivelant and 1"=25yd optional addition to Mein Panzer that will be out eventually.
No warnings necessary. I will never object if you stick to your guns. (Pardon the pun.) But I beg you to give me some of the data you use to make your conclusion if you decide my suggestions are wrong. I will always welcome new sources to expand my own knowledge of history. For me the gaming, and the discussion of the gaming, is not so much a competition as it is an excersize to gain understanding and insight. I often win (on the insight) even when I lose (in the game).
I will warn that much of the AP ratings have been fleshed out ad naseum as I have and others have gone over this aspect many, many times before.
My copy was given to me by Stephen Lorenze (author of the PanzerWar rules). Nice guy. I would be quite pleased to loan it to you for any reasonable timeframe if you'd like. I should be generous with the book, as it came to me as a gift from a fellow gamer through his generosity and enthusiasm to share sources of historical analysis. But I'm a bit too greedy to actually give it away! :woohoo:
I wish I did have Bird & Livingston's WW2 Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery, 2nd Ed. While it may be a bit controversial it does have some info that no one else has. I had been looking for the book for the past couple of years when I was working on the WW2 Secret Weapons book.
Will do. But ...
I had sent a request to the Aberdeen Proving Grounds Tank Museum trying to find the penetration info on the US 105mm gun that was going to be used in the Super Heavy T-95 GMC and they recommended that book for the info. Sooooo, if you have a chance, would you mind sending me the data on the US 105mm when you get a chance?
I also want to complete my review (and offer my suggestions) for the Romanian list before your review cycle is complete. So this will be my first priority for new posting. Please watch for another bit of blather...-Mark 1
I will be looking over this great info over the course of the week.
Posted 16 March 2009 - 03:18 PM
Posted 16 March 2009 - 04:29 PM
Posted 30 March 2009 - 07:53 AM
Posted 30 March 2009 - 07:58 AM
Posted 12 May 2011 - 07:34 PM
United StatesSome suggestions that come to mind when reviewing the US list:
- 75mm Tank Gun M2: I dare say this gun appears in the wrong places on the list. Particularly ... it DOES appear on the earlier model M4 Mediums (M4, M4A1, M4A2) when it should not. The M2 gun was installed on M4s during development. It can be seen, with its muzzle-weight, on pictures of the T6 prototype vehicle. It also appears to have been used in the first few production vehicles. The 2nd M4 production tank, an M4A1 that was shipped to the British and now resides at Bovington, appears to have the M2 gun (although the muzzle weight has been removed). But this tank also has direct visions slots in the glacis and twin fixed hull MGs fired by the driver, clear indicators that it was not the same M4A1 Sherman that actually rolled into action with US and British armies. I am quite confident that the vast majority of Shermans that fought overseas, whether M4, M4A1, M4A2, M4A3, or M4A4 (or their British equivelants) were equipped with the 75mm Tank Gun M3.
The 75mm M2/M3. I have added an entry for the M4-M4A1 Sherman that has the M3 75mm. The current entry now has the annotation of Early Prod. as the early M4/M4A1 did have the M2 gun for a short time. I verified this with British and American Tanks of WW2 by Chamberlain and Ellis.
I have returned to this discussion because I have just happened upon the details of this issue.
I am not suggesting any further changes to the data book. It now lists the M3 gun for the M4 tank, and that’s fine. But I thought I might offer a record here in the forum of the more detailed information on the original question, just for the sake of completeness.
My source, in this case, was Rich Anderson, a noted author on military history. He and I had some discussion about this over on TankNet a few years before I raised it in this forum. At that time (2007) Rich was working as a researcher for the Dupuy Institute, and was (and still is) a very solid source for detailed information from the U.S. Government archives.
Rich was able to give me the hull numbers of every Sherman to be equipped with the M2 gun. It's a pretty short list -- there were only 3! Here are the details:
- T6: the M4 prototype, carried the M2 75mm gun. It never left the States. I have seen pictures of this tank, as referenced in my original post on this subject.
- M4A1 BRN T25189: the first M4A1 production tank, was shipped to Egypt as a training aide in August of 1942, prior to the shipment of 318 production M4A1s (all equipped with the M3 gun) in September. I have never seen pictures of this tank. No idea what finally became of it, but there appears to be no record (in the U.S. archives) of it having seen combat.
- M4A1 BRN T25190: the second M4A1 production tank. Christened “Michael”, it was sent to Britain as a Lend-Lease showpiece, evidently before T24189 was shipped to Egypt. It is still retained at Bovington. I have seen pictures of this tank, as I mentioned above.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users