Jump to content


Photo

Newbie equipment Questions


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#21 Klebert Hall

Klebert Hall

    Private

  • Members
  • 41 posts

Posted 06 April 2007 - 06:10 AM

gregoryk wrote:

Greetings,Both the advantage and disadvantage of having a comprehensive Databook is that there is lots of information presented. Practically all of it can be accurate, but with myriad sources, gaps in information for equipment now sixty-plus years old, and that inescapably imperfect human factor, there can be just a few errors and they seem like a lot. Britannica Bob has done an absolutely fantastic job of putting together the Databook, pretty much on his own. Given the amount of info, I think it is amazing and a tribute to his efforts that there are not more questions.Cheers,Gregory

Absolutely. None of this is meant as criticism, at all. I've done a moderate amount of work in the gaming industry writing and editing/proofreading products for various companies. I know from personal experience that you can never catch all the errors. I find that once I've read something a few times (or worse, written it), I start seeing what I *know* is supposed to be there, instead of what is actually there. There's also never, ever enough time or people for proofing. Another factor is that word-processing, while making publishing much easier (indeed, making publishing possible at all for small industries like gaming), also makes it much easier to make mistakes. I once edited a product that wound up going to publication with two entire incorrect chapters from an earlier version of the file.I'm very favorably impressed with ODGW's work, and the quality of these products - I've found a very low error rate, and what errors I've found are generally inconsequential and easily corrected by the user. My efforts are merely in the pursuit of perfectionism, not meant as complaints.-Kle.

#22 Klebert Hall

Klebert Hall

    Private

  • Members
  • 41 posts

Posted 06 April 2007 - 08:52 AM

Missed something, yesterday.Addendum.United States:Pg. 17:Heavy Cruisers - were the US CAs all really that heavily armored? I know the Baltimores were incredibly tough, but my sources show the rest of them were roughly comparable to the IJN 8- and 10-gun CAs, and that the Pensacolas were actually more lightly armored than all but the early IJN 6-gun ships. I don't have Friedman, though - maybe you're using an armor value I don't have access to, like the CT or something?-Kle.

#23 Klebert Hall

Klebert Hall

    Private

  • Members
  • 41 posts

Posted 06 April 2007 - 02:11 PM

Belgium:Pg. 2:Sherman M4(76) & M4A2(76) - Shown with increased frontal armor over other Sherman variants. Did Belgian 'exile' units actually have national-specific equipment?T-13 (all models) - note 1 reads 'must lower side plate to fully rotate turret'. Is there a game effect, or is this just a historical note?Pg. 5:Equipment Table Help - note 3 reads '60 degree traverse', should this be 360 degree?Pg. 6:Infantry Plt. of Infantry BN 1939-1940, Scout Coy. HQ and Platoon, Rifle Plt. of Motorcycle Bn., and Cavalry Bn TO&Es all include Rifle/BAR squads or Recce Rifle/BAR squads. Shouldn't these be rifle/FN Modele 30 ?Anti-Tank section of AT Coy. of Inf Bn. 1939-1940 TO&E - note 1 not superscripted.Bulgaria:Pg. 4:Equipment Table Help - note 1 is incorrect Schuerzen note, and doesn't apply to reference. Note 2 also seems to be of German origin and is not referenced in the lists.Pg. 6:Armor Bn. 1944-1945 TO&E shows Lt vz35, but I can't find it in the equipment lists.Rifle platoon of Motor Rifle Bn. 1944-1945 TO&E shows rifle/LMH squad. Should be LMG?Canada:Pg. 2:Honey / Stuart, M3 - refers to note 19, but there is no note 19. Probably meant to be the 'Stuart fixed forward MGs' note.Pg. 3:Loyd 2pdr. SP ATG - no offensive stats. Also, should be 'Lloyd'?Sherman M3-4-3 Flame Gun - was the FT turreted in this version? US chart for same vehicle shows it in the hull position.Pg. 10:AT Troop of Support Units 1943-1944 TO&E shows 'Crusader Tower', but I don't find it in the equipment lists.Should notes 2 & 3 also be referenced from the AT Section, Motorized Infantry 1943-1944 TO&E?China:Pg. 5:Equipment Table Help - note 1 reads 'If fired at a moving target, maximum range is 6'. Should that be for the HEAT round only?Pg. 7:Bn. HQ of Communist Infantry Bn. 1937-1945, and Recce Plt. of Nationalist Armor Bn. 1944-1945 TO&Es show SMG squad or Recce SMG Squad. Not listed in equipment.That's it for now - more tonight or tomorrow. -Kle.

#24 Klebert Hall

Klebert Hall

    Private

  • Members
  • 41 posts

Posted 07 April 2007 - 06:10 PM

Ah, the home stretch!Croatia:Pg. 2:PzKpfw III L-M has note 1(M) - note 1 is the obsolete 'Schuerzen', but what is (M)?PkKpfw III N has vestigial 'Schuerzen' note.Renault FT-17 BS - 75mm L17 has AP OV 6, but this gun is usually AP OV 5. Is this correct?Free France:Pg. 2:Fusil modele 1931 heavy weapon stand shows note 1, cullin hedgerow device.Pg. 3:PzKpfw V G, Panther shows vestigial 'note 11' - IR night-fighting equipment, IIRC.Several Shermans and a Stuart have left over note 5 and/or note 10 from the US section. Pg. 8:Rifle Platoon and Intel Platoon of Infantry Bn. 1944-1945 TO&E show 'BAR stand'. This is not shown on the charts, should it be 'rifle/BAR squad'?Page 9:AT Platoon of Tank Destroyer Bn. 1944-1945 TO&E shows 'Carbine Squad w/bazooka', but Carbine squad is not on the charts.Pg. 10:Gun Platoon of Support Coy. of Armored Infantry Bn. 1944-1945 TO&E - M7 Priest 'note 1' not superscripted.Greece:Pg. 2:The two Carro Veloces are shown as captured Italian equipment, but the M 13-40 and L 3-35 are not. Is this correct?Pg. 6:Mortar Section of Rifle Coy. of Mountain Infantry Bn. 1938-1941 TO&E - 'note 1' not superscripted.Holland:Pg. 2-3:Should the Marmon Harrington tanks actually be 'Marmon-Herrington' tanks?Pg. 3:Marmon Harrington MTLS 1GI4 only shows ROF 2 with the twin 37mm autocannon, the same as the single mount on the tank above. Is this correct? I have no idea, it just seems slow.Sherman M4(76) and M4A2(76) have the same odd increased front armor as the Belgian ones.Pg. 4:Morris LRC Mk. 1 Scout - shouldn't the Boys ATR main weapon have MX:15, not MX:12 as shown?Pg. 8:Equipment Table Help - I think notes A & B are reversed. They show the Hawker Hurricane as a Seaplane, and the PBY-3 Catalina (for example) as having a wing load available in 1941.A bunch of aircraft have K or L loadouts, but the Ordnance Chart only goes to I.Pg. 9:Infantry Bn. 1939-1940 TO&E shows Rifle Squad w/ATR, but there is no ATR entry in the equipment chart.Hungary:Pg. 2:PzKpfw IV H & J have the vestigial 'Schuerzen' note.India:Pg. 3:Lee / Grant II Doesn't show the 75mm M3 gun in the Main Weapon box, but the stats are shown in the Combat Stats and Offensive Stats boxes. I don't know which is correct, but they can't both be.Churchill Crocodile shows 'note 6', but no note 6 in this section.Bren Carrier w/2" mortar - should this have MX:10?Pg. 4:Staghound Mk. 1 - other 37mm armed Staghoundshave gun stabilization. Is this version's lack correct?Churchill AVRE Mortar - should this vehicle show MX:5?Pg. 6:Equipment Table Help, note 1 'weapon is hull mounted' is not referenced from the equipment charts.Pg. 8:Ghurka Bn. TO&E - Ghurkas not shown in the troop tables in this section. Do they differ in any way other than all being Veteran or Elite?The Ghurka Coy. HQ shows 2 'Ghurka Squads' - should they be rifle squads, or something else?New Zealand:Pg. 1:These guys were really still using the Krag? Was it really as good a rifle as the SMLE?Pg. 3:Should the Bren mortar carriers have MX:10 and MX:32, respectively?Pg. 4:Unstabilized Staghound?Pg. 7:Bristol Beaufort Mk. 1 spelling typo.Norway:Pg. 4:Short Sunderlands show note D, should this be note A ?Romania:Pg. 4:Field Gun, 76.2mm M 00.02 P shows APCR, but no AP OV. Is this correct?Pg. 8:Rifle Coy. HQ of Infantry Bn, 1942-1945 TO&E shows Rifle Squad w/PZB 39. This is not on the equipment charts, what is it?Slovakia:Pg. 5:Aircraft at the top of the page has no name.AT Section of Motor Infantry Bn. 1940-1941 TO&E shows 37mm PAK 35, but this gun is not in the equipment lists.South Africa:Pg. 3:Should the Bren mortar carriers show MX:10 & MX:32, respectively?PG. 6:Note 3 'Stuart fixed forward MGs' is missing from the Equipment Table Help section but shows in the charts.Pg. 7:Bristol Beaufort spelling typo.Pg. 8:Armored Car Coy. M1942-M1943 TO&E shows a 'Recce Mk. 1' armored car, but this is not shown in the equipment tables. What is it?Thailand:Pg. 2: Infantry Upgrades header typesetting typo.Vichy France:Pg. 2: Self-Propelled Guns/Howitzers - neither of these vehicles show an AP OV, though the 75mm L17 usually does. Is this due to lack of proper ammo or DF sights, or is this a different short 75?Pg. 4:ATG, 6 pdr. Is this the British gun, and if so, why is the AP OV 8 instead of the usual 10?Pg. 6:TO&E Notes say 'All armored cars in the Recce Bn. may be replaced with Laffly-White AMCs. I can't find this vehicle in the equipment tables; should it be the Laffly AMD50 AM?Yugoslavia:Pg. 3:Renault FT-17 BS - 75mm L17 has AP OV 6, but it is usually 5. Is this correct?Well, that's all I can find!Thanks for your patience.-Kle.

#25 Bob Benge

Bob Benge

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 1,189 posts
  • LocationLas Cruces, NM

Posted 08 April 2007 - 12:51 PM

That's it? LOL! :laugh: I have copied all of these to a Word document and will go over the list and let you know what I come up with.As to Gregory's comments, I was not the only one working on this. I did start with Jon's extensive list and corrected, upgraded and added to it. Jon deserves a lot of credit too.Kle. I greatly appreciate your thoroughness and wished you could have reviewed this prior to the re-release. Here are a couple of responses to your posts:

General:Why aren't there any availability dates for the various infantry stand types, was it a space issue? It's fairly easy to figure out in a non-specific way, but I can imagine some new-to-the-period gamers getting confused.

The dates were left off since the infantry stand types are actually semi-generic and not totally based on the actually listed weapon. The stands would be available for the entire war for all countries.

Pg. 4:PzKpfw V D Panther - has 'note 10', early Panther breakdown. Shouldn't this note be for the Panther A, and the D gets 'note 11', IR equipment ?

This should have been the IR Equipment note.

Elefant / Ferdinand - should this have 'note 10', early Panther breakdown?

Yes actually it should. The special rule is actually called "PzKpfw VA (Panther A) and Elephant High Breakdown".I'll go over all the rest as I get time. Just glancing over your posts leads me to believe that you have found many an oops that I have missed or caused over the past year or two. Thanks again for your input! ;)

#26 Klebert Hall

Klebert Hall

    Private

  • Members
  • 41 posts

Posted 09 April 2007 - 01:42 PM

bbenge wrote:

General:Why aren't there any availability dates for the various infantry stand types, was it a space issue? It's fairly easy to figure out in a non-specific way, but I can imagine some new-to-the-period gamers getting confused.

The dates were left off since the infantry stand types are actually semi-generic and not totally based on the actually listed weapon. The stands would be available for the entire war for all countries.

I was mostly wondering about the German and Soviet assault rifle stands - if they aren't actually weapon-specific than it isn't really a concern.

I'll go over all the rest as I get time. Just glancing over your posts leads me to believe that you have found many an oops that I have missed or caused over the past year or two. Thanks again for your input! ;)

Happy to be of help. I only got the WW2 itch recently, and I hadn't heard of MP until early February. I haven't played microarmor in probably 20 years...-Kle.

#27 Bob Benge

Bob Benge

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 1,189 posts
  • LocationLas Cruces, NM

Posted 10 April 2007 - 08:26 AM

[quote]General:Why aren't there any availability dates for the various infantry stand types, was it a space issue? It's fairly easy to figure out in a non-specific way, but I can imagine some new-to-the-period gamers getting confused.I was mostly wondering about the German and Soviet assault rifle stands - if they aren't actually weapon-specific than it isn't really a concern.[/quote]Ah! you have a valid point for these weapons. These should actually have a date German would be L44 if I remember correctly and I am not sure off the top of my head about the Russian AR but I can go back and check my data. I will go back and dates for these weapons.I have finished the Equipment Table notes you posted. I have yet to do Infantry Table, Aircraft Table, Naval Table, Amphib Table and TOE notes. There are only a couple of notes for most all of these except the TOE notes so it won't take much to finish up.Here are some comments to your posts. The CORRECTED. indicates that these errors have been corrected in my Excel Tables and Word Converted files.[quote]Okay, I think that's it for the pushme-pullyou armored cars.[/quote]Okay these have all been updated. CORRECTED.[quote]Finland:Pg. 2 / pg. 9:PzKpfw IVJ has 'note 1', which reads 'gun mounted in right secondary turret, in place of MG'... Looks like the note number is a cut/paste error from the German charts, where it refers to the incorrect 'scheurzen' note.[/quote]This note was actually removed from all of the tables since the info was redundant when MP Core Rules Chapter 9 page 9.4 explains the dual armor values. CORRECTED.[quote]Which Finnish vehicle *should* have a substituted gun in a secondary turret, one of the T-28 models? What gun?[/quote]This note, Note 1, was meant for the T-26 Model 1933 as info to where the main gun was actually mounted. CORRECTED.[quote]T-28 model 1933 has 'note 2', which reads 'Finnish conversion mounting Russian 47mm gun to Vickers tank'. I'm guessing this note belongs with the Vickers 6-ton Type E 3, or at least some Vickers or other. Shouldn't it also be a 'Russian 45mm gun'?[/quote]Yes, see previous comment. Note 2 belongs to the Vickers 6-ton Type E 3 and is meant as an info note to explain the Russian 45mmL46 gun that is listed as its main gun. CORRECTED.[quote]Pg. 7:ATG Pak 35/36, 3.7cm lists 'note 7'. There is no note 7 in the Finland section, I expect this is the German section note 7. Perhaps 'note 7 Ge.' or something?[/quote]This note, Note 4, was clarified and added to account for the max range of 6 vs. moving targets as was in the German notes.[quote]Germany:Pg. 4:PzKpfw V D Panther - has 'note 10', early Panther breakdown. Shouldn't this note be for the Panther A, and the D gets 'note 11', IR equipment ?[/quote]This note is suppose to be and was changed to the IR Equipment Note 11. CORRECTED.[quote]PzKpfw KV-2®Model 1941 - Has 'note 5', equipped with IR equipment, see IR special rules. The IR rules don't seem to mention any KV-1s, does this thing really have it? [/quote]Nope the KV-2 didn't have IR equipment. Note 5 on this entry was an oops that was carried over from the Soviet Table and renumbered from Note 3 referring to APHE round not available till 1943 and in very limited quantity. . The note was removed. CORRECTED.Also note that Note 5 was redundant to note 11 and was removed and the Note numbers were updated to reflect the change.[quote]Elefant / Ferdinand - should this have 'note 10', early Panther breakdown?[/quote]Yes it should. The actual special rule is called PANTHER / ELEPHANTHIGH BREAKDOWN as noted in the WWII Data Book page 53.3. I corrected the wording on this note to reflect the rule more accurately. CORRECTED.[quote]Pg. 5:Pak97/98 BtPz T-26® - Main gun listed as 75mm L 17 (F), the French short 75. Is this the correct gun, a retrofit to captured T-26s? If it is the right gun, why is it's AP OV 11? In French service, it only gets 5.[/quote]Yes, this is a T-26 chassis mounting the French 75mmL17. The AP was wrong and changed to 5. CORRECTED.[quote]Pg. 9:Ladungsleger 1B - has 'note 19', no note 19 listed.[/quote]This is supposed to have Note 18 according to my tables. CORRECTED.[quote]Pg.16:'Note 18' seems to be two notes run together... Perhaps the second part is the missing 'note 19'?[/quote]That's odd. This must have happened during Jon's conversion as my Excel table and Word converted file don't have this issue.[quote]Italy:Pg. 3:Carro Veloce L3-38 / CV-38 - should probably have a note 'MX:10' for it's Solothurn ATR main weapon.[/quote]Yes it should. CORRECTED.[quote]PzKpfw III N & IV H - have vestigial 'note 1', probably left over from cut/paste from German section. It certainly isn't the Italian 'note 1', vehicle main gun is fixed to chassis.[/quote]Note removed for reasons cited earlier in Finnish table notes. CORRECTED.[quote]Japan:Pg. 3:TE-KE M, Type 97 - my research seems to indicate that this should have the MG in the turret, as a main gun.[/quote]A consistency issue on my part. It should have the MG listed as a main weapon. CORRECTED.[quote]Type 93 Lt. Tank - this one seems to have had a MG in the turret, and another one in the hull.[/quote]A consistency issue on my part. It should have the MG listed as a main weapon. CORRECTED.[quote]Type 94 Lt. Tank - AFAICT, this should have the MG in the turret, as a main gun. Some data imply this is the same thing as the type 94 tankette.[/quote]A consistency issue on my part. It should have the MG listed as a main weapon. It may be a type 94 tankette, but there is nothing definative to indicate this so for the sake of completness I added it/kept it in. CORRECTED.[quote]I have no really definitive source for these three vehicles, but their current entries with no main gun, and no weapons at all for the Type 93, don't seem right.[/quote]A consistency issue on my part.[quote]Pg. 8:Railcar, Infantry - the second MG entry in the main weapon cell is missing the decimal point.[/quote]Okay. CORRECTED.[quote]Poland:Pg. 2:7TPdw-1 Tank - Main weapon reads 'Twin PMG': Typo, or does PMG mean something?[/quote]PMG = Polston Machine Gun. This should have been changed to 2x7.92mm. CORRECTED.[quote]7TPjw & 7TPjw Improved - 37mm L21 & L45 have the same AP OV. The 37mm L21 likely ought to have AP OV 3, as the other Polish vehicles with L21s get that.[/quote]You are right. CORRECTED.[quote]Renault R-39 - Has AP OV 3, probably ought to be 4, like the R-39 in the France section.[/quote]You are right. CORRECTED.[quote]Pg. 3:Taczanka ( B ) - Main weapon listed as 7.92mm, but HMG shown in Other column. Should one be different, or is it an especially impressive 7.92mm MG?[/quote]An HMG does not have to be of a large calibre to be considered as an HMG. The HMG designation is country defined. In this case, the Poles used the Hotchkiss recalibred to 7.92mm as their HMG. So yes, this is correct as listed.[quote]Soviet Union:Pg. 4:T-34 Model 1943 - main weapon listed as 76mm L42, like Mod. '42 & '41, but has 9 AP OV as opposed to 8 AP OV for earlier models. Is this the result of improved ammunition, or something else? The T-34/'43 'Dozer on pg. 7 has the same odd stats.[/quote]You are right, the AP is wrong. CORRECTED.[quote]SU-76M - Main weapon listed as 76mm L51 with AP OV 8, but SU-76i, with a 76mm L42 has AP OV 9. Does the shorter gun really perform better?[/quote]Yes it does. See the website Guns vs. Armor http://gva.freeweb.hu/ for info.[quote]Pg. 6:The SU-6 AA & ZIS -6 w/76mm AA (both 76mm L55) have AP OV 10 and APCR:10 - shouldn't the APCR be better? The towed 76mm L55 AA gun on pg. 10 shows AP OV 10 and APCR:11, perhaps this is correct?[/quote]You are right, the APCR value is wrong. CORRECTED.[quote]United Kingdom:Pg. 11:Towed Anti-Aircraft Guns - twin, triple & quad 20mm Oerlikon all have ROF 4. Is this correct?[/quote]Yes. You'll notice that the OM1 values are different. We topped out the ROF to keep the dice rolling down and increased the OM values to compensate for high ROF.[quote]Equipment Table Help, note 10 - reads in part 'All 3 MGs may be used for Cover Fire'. What is Cover Fire?[/quote]Cover Fire was a rule where suppressive fire could be laid down on a target to force the target down (Suppress/Pin) and was used in the Version 1.0 of the Core Rules. It was removed when we changed the infantry stand size from 1/2 squad to full squad stands. The rule will be used for Meine Truppen, which will use data from the Data Book, hence the reason I did not remove it from the book.[quote]United States:Pg. 3:Lee, M3A3-M3A5 - What is the functional difference between this and earlier models of the Lee? It's BPV is three points higher, and it has the M6 37mm gun, but all the stats seem to be the same.[/quote]Movement Speed is different.[quote]M2A4 Light Tank - Has note 4: 'HMGs in side-by-side turrets, which allows 270 degree traverse.'. Tank is not equipped with ST HMGs, however.[/quote]Note is an error and was removed. CORRECTED.[quote]Pg. 4:Satan, M3A1 - Is this the same vehicle as the British one of the same name/mission? The stats are significantly different. Plus, if it's based upon the Stuart, what made it so slow?[/quote]This is an M3A1 Stuart with the Satan Flame gun mounted. The movement speed was an error. CORRECTED.[quote]Pg. 6:Stuart T8 Recon Vehicle - The Combat Stats block lists ROF 1. Shouldn't it be blank?[/quote]Yes it should. CORRECTED.[quote]LVT (3) w/T89 Launcher (10 rounds) - No Offensive Stats listed for 183mm rocket.[/quote]You're right. CORRECTED.[quote]LVT (A) (1) - This thing had gun stabilisation? If so, wicked cool![/quote]Yes it did. It used the Stuart Turret which had stabilization.[quote]LVT (A) (4) w/T45 Launcher - 183mm rocket Combat Stats block, OM2 needs minus sign.[/quote]Hmmm. another Jon conversion error. My files have it correct.[quote]Australia:Pg. 3:Lee / Grant IV & V - Were these things really that fast? Holy Moly, that's as fast as a Stuart. This question also applies to the UK versions, though I didn't notice it then.[/quote]Yes they are. I had to reconfirm this too. A major engine upgrade seems to be the reason.[quote]Pg. 3/4:None of the Australian APCs (Bren Carrier, M3, M3A1, and M5 halftracks) have a personnel rating. Is this correct? Possibly some wierd doctrine thing?[/quote]No it isn't correct. CORRECTED.[quote]Pg. 4:Staghound Mk. 1 AC - 37mm M6 gun has AP OV 8. Is this correct? It's usually 4.[/quote]No it isn't correct. CORRECTED.[quote]Belgium:Pg. 2:Sherman M4(76) & M4A2(76) - Shown with increased frontal armor over other Sherman variants. Did Belgian 'exile' units actually have national-specific equipment?[/quote]Nope that's wrong. it should have been a 9 like the rest. CORRECTED.[quote]T-13 (all models) - note 1 reads 'must lower side plate to fully rotate turret'. Is there a game effect, or is this just a historical note?[/quote]A historical note. If a gamer wants to add an affect they may do so.[quote]Pg. 5:Equipment Table Help - note 3 reads '60 degree traverse', should this be 360 degree?[/quote]Another Jon conversion error. My data is correct.[quote]Bulgaria:Pg. 4:Equipment Table Help - note 1 is incorrect Schuerzen note, and doesn't apply to reference. Note 2 also seems to be of German origin and is not referenced in the lists.[/quote]Note removed as noted earlier. CORRECTED.[quote]Canada:Pg. 2:Honey / Stuart, M3 - refers to note 19, but there is no note 19. Probably meant to be the 'Stuart fixed forward MGs' note.[/quote]Yes it was. CORRECTED.[quote]Pg. 3:Loyd 2pdr. SP ATG - no offensive stats. Also, should be 'Lloyd'?[/quote]Added the stats. Nope Loyd as I have found on the internet and in my books. CORRECTED.[quote]Sherman M3-4-3 Flame Gun - was the FT turreted in this version? US chart for same vehicle shows it in the hull position.[/quote]I put thte FL in the Hull Secondary weapons slot as it was supposed to be. CORRECTED.[quote]China:Pg. 5:Equipment Table Help - note 1 reads 'If fired at a moving target, maximum range is 6'. Should that be for the HEAT round only?[/quote]Yes. I have updated the Note to reflect this. CORRECTED.[quote]Croatia:Pg. 2:PzKpfw III L-M has note 1(M) - note 1 is the obsolete 'Schuerzen', but what is (M)?PkKpfw III N has vestigial 'Schuerzen' note.[/quote]Note removed as mentioned earlier. M was an oops. CORRECTED.[quote]Renault FT-17 BS - 75mm L17 has AP OV 6, but this gun is usually AP OV 5. Is this correct?[/quote]No, you're correct it is an error. CORRECTED.[quote]Free France:Pg. 2:Fusil modele 1931 heavy weapon stand shows note 1, cullin hedgerow device.[/quote]Note needs to be removed.[quote]Pg. 3:PzKpfw V G, Panther shows vestigial 'note 11' - IR night-fighting equipment, IIRC.[/quote]Note removed. CORRECTED.[quote]Several Shermans and a Stuart have left over note 5 and/or note 10 from the US section. [/quote]Updated the note for the Cullin device. Added note for Wet Stowage. Also corrected this for all countries using the Shermans with these notes. CORRECTED.[quote]Greece:Pg. 2:The two Carro Veloces are shown as captured Italian equipment, but the M 13-40 and L 3-35 are not. Is this correct?[/quote]Yes.[quote]Holland:Pg. 2-3:Should the Marmon Harrington tanks actually be 'Marmon-Herrington' tanks?[/quote]The spelling is correct to my info.[quote]Pg. 3:Marmon Harrington MTLS 1GI4 only shows ROF 2 with the twin 37mm autocannon, the same as the single mount on the tank above. Is this correct? I have no idea, it just seems slow.[/quote]Should have been ROF of 4. CORRECTED.[quote]Sherman M4(76) and M4A2(76) have the same odd increased front armor as the Belgian ones.[/quote]And it is wrong here too. CORRECTED.[quote]Hungary:Pg. 2:PzKpfw IV H & J have the vestigial 'Schuerzen' note.[/quote]Note removed as mentioned earlier. CORRECTED.[quote]India:Pg. 3:Lee / Grant II Doesn't show the 75mm M3 gun in the Main Weapon box, but the stats are shown in the Combat Stats and Offensive Stats boxes. I don't know which is correct, but they can't both be.[/quote]Another Jon conversion error. it should be the 75mm M3 It is correct in my data.[quote]Churchill Crocodile shows 'note 6', but no note 6 in this section.[/quote]Should be Note 1. CORRECTED.[quote]Bren Carrier w/2" mortar - should this have MX:10?[/quote]Yes it should. I also noticed that all other coutries using this vehicle did not reflect this, so I corrected them all. CORRECTED.[quote]Pg. 4:Staghound Mk. 1 - other 37mm armed Staghoundshave gun stabilization. Is this version's lack correct?[/quote]Actually the Staghound is NOT stabilized. So this was corrected in all countries were error existed. CORRECTED.[quote]Churchill AVRE Mortar - should this vehicle show MX:5?[/quote]Actually MX:4 is correct. CORRECTED.[quote]Pg. 6:Equipment Table Help, note 1 'weapon is hull mounted' is not referenced from the equipment charts.[/quote]This Note is for the Churchill Crocodile as mentioned earlier. CORRECTED.[quote]New Zealand:Pg. 1:These guys were really still using the Krag? Was it really as good a rifle as the SMLE?[/quote]The significance of this is that the Kiwis started the war with them then switched to the Enfield SMLE. As far as the stats go for MP there is no difference. For future Meine Truppen there will be some minor difference.[quote]Pg. 3:Should the Bren mortar carriers have MX:10 and MX:32, respectively?[/quote]Yes, while the 3" Bren Mortar Carrier will be the Mark 2 MX:56 variety of the 3" mortar. This was corrected for all appropriate countries. CORRECTED.[quote]Pg. 4:Unstabilized Staghound?[/quote]It should be unstabilized. As mentioned earlier the stabilized entries were corrected. CORRECTED.[quote]Romania:Pg. 4:Field Gun, 76.2mm M 00.02 P shows APCR, but no AP OV. Is this correct?[/quote]Yes it is.[quote]South Africa:Pg. 3:Should the Bren mortar carriers show MX:10 & MX:32, respectively?[/quote]Yes, while the 3" Bren Mortar Carrier will be the Mark 2 MX:56 variety of the 3" mortar. This was corrected for all appropriate countries. CORRECTED.[quote]PG. 6:Note 3 'Stuart fixed forward MGs' is missing from the Equipment Table Help section but shows in the charts.[/quote]Added the Note. CORRECTED.[quote]Vichy France:Pg. 2: Self-Propelled Guns/Howitzers - neither of these vehicles show an AP OV, though the 75mm L17 usually does. Is this due to lack of proper ammo or DF sights, or is this a different short 75?[/quote]Added the AP value. CORRECTED.[quote]Pg. 4:ATG, 6 pdr. Is this the British gun, and if so, why is the AP OV 8 instead of the usual 10?[/quote]It's an oops. Should be 10. CORRECTED.[quote]Yugoslavia:Pg. 3:Renault FT-17 BS - 75mm L17 has AP OV 6, but it is usually 5. Is this correct?[/quote]No it isn't. should be 5. CORRECTED.[quote]Happy to be of help. I only got the WW2 itch recently, and I hadn't heard of MP until early February. I haven't played microarmor in probably 20 years...[/quote]I'll post the rest of the answers as I finish them. :)Thanks again! If you can make it to Historicon in Lancaster PA, stop by and see us. You can play some good game with us!You did such a great job on this would you mind looking at the Free Update Countries that are in the Free download section also? :whistle:

#28 Klebert Hall

Klebert Hall

    Private

  • Members
  • 41 posts

Posted 10 April 2007 - 01:50 PM

bbenge wrote:[quote][quote]United States:Pg. 3:Lee, M3A3-M3A5 - What is the functional difference between this and earlier models of the Lee? It's BPV is three points higher, and it has the M6 37mm gun, but all the stats seem to be the same.[/quote]Movement Speed is different.[/quote]In the hardcopy and the PDF from the website, the M3, M3A1-A2, and M3A3-A5 all have 3cc pips and 5 road pips.[quote][quote]Australia:Pg. 3:Lee / Grant IV & V - Were these things really that fast? Holy Moly, that's as fast as a Stuart. This question also applies to the UK versions, though I didn't notice it then.[/quote]Yes they are. I had to reconfirm this too. A major engine upgrade seems to be the reason.[/quote]That's pretty cool. I've always thought the M3 medium was an underrated tank, this version is even more so, with that kind of mobility.[quote][quote]New Zealand:Pg. 1:These guys were really still using the Krag? Was it really as good a rifle as the SMLE?[/quote]The significance of this is that the Kiwis started the war with them then switched to the Enfield SMLE. As far as the stats go for MP there is no difference. For future Meine Truppen there will be some minor difference.[/quote]Neat - I had no idea the Krag survived so long in service.[quote][quote]Happy to be of help. I only got the WW2 itch recently, and I hadn't heard of MP until early February. I haven't played microarmor in probably 20 years...[/quote]I'll post the rest of the answers as I finish them. :)Thanks again! If you can make it to Historicon in Lancaster PA, stop by and see us. You can play some good game with us!You did such a great job on this would you mind looking at the Free Update Countries that are in the Free download section also? :whistle:[/quote][/quote]I'd like to go to Historicon, and I've been looking into it. I expect that I won't be able to afford it especially since it's so close to GenCon, where I'm minion-ing for some friends. One of these days, though - Lancaster's an easy drive.Hmm... Free downloads; I'll check it out.-Kle.

#29 Klebert Hall

Klebert Hall

    Private

  • Members
  • 41 posts

Posted 10 April 2007 - 01:59 PM

bbenge wrote:

You did such a great job on this would you mind looking at the Free Update Countries that are in the Free download section also?

Can you tell me exactly where to look? I found the PDFs of all the individual countries from the Data Book (and the other DB material), but the Bonus Countries section is showing 0 files/ 0 folders...-Kle.

#30 Bob Benge

Bob Benge

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 1,189 posts
  • LocationLas Cruces, NM

Posted 11 April 2007 - 05:21 AM

Well, I guess I will have to get them finished then. In the haste to get the WW2 Data Book done the Update countries were not completed so I will post you when these become available. :)

#31 Bob Benge

Bob Benge

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 1,189 posts
  • LocationLas Cruces, NM

Posted 11 April 2007 - 06:04 AM

Okay the next round of edits is done. This round of corrections included the Aircraft, Naval and Amphibious chapter notes Kle. provided. Again, CORRECTED after the note means that my tables and coverted docs were corrected to reflect the change.[quote]France:Pg. 10: 'Note D. Autogyro'. I can't find any French autogyros in the Data Book.[/quote]You are correct. Note removed. CORRECTED[quote]Poland (and others)Pg. 6:Hawker Hurricane Mk IID/IV-1 - did this version really have 2 40mm cannon? If so, wow![/quote]Verified this again and it sure does. according to Janes WW2 Aircraft Book.[quote]Pg. 7:Aircraft note B. Seaplane - Doesn't show up on chart; should there be any seaplanes?[/quote]There sure isn't. Removed the note. CORRECTED[quote]Australia:Pg. 8:Medium Bombers, last row, 'Vickers' - Vickers what?[/quote]This is another Jon Conversion error as all of my data has the correct info. The aircraft should be the Vickers Wellington Mk III/VIII/X/XIII.[quote]Pg. 9:Equipment Table Help - No aircraft listed as 'C', glider tug. No aircraft listed as 'B', seaplane. All aircraft 'A', ASW, are also seaplanes, to the best of my knowledge.[/quote]Put Note C on the C-47 since it is a Glider Tug. Updated the seaplanes with ASW Note as they all did perform the duty. CORRECTED[quote]Pg. 10:Australia and Canberra had 8 8" guns.[/quote]Hmm... The Janes WW2 Ships book has it with 6 x 8" guns. I double checked with a couple other sources and you are right. Janes has a typo. :blush: Made the correction. CORRECTED[quote]Addendum.United States:Pg. 17:Heavy Cruisers - were the US CAs all really that heavily armored? I know the Baltimores were incredibly tough, but my sources show the rest of them were roughly comparable to the IJN 8- and 10-gun CAs, and that the Pensacolas were actually more lightly armored than all but the early IJN 6-gun ships. I don't have Friedman, though - maybe you're using an armor value I don't have access to, like the CT or something?[/quote]Actually a couple of the Heavy Crusier DV values were off (Whichita, Portland and Pensacola if I remeber correctly). I corrected these. The rest are as advertised according to the Janes book I have. CORRECTED[quote]Holland:Pg. 8:Equipment Table Help - I think notes A & B are reversed. They show the Hawker Hurricane as a Seaplane, and the PBY-3 Catalina (for example) as having a wing load available in 1941.[/quote]My tables and docs has these notes correct. Must be another of those Jon Conversion errors.[quote]A bunch of aircraft have K or L loadouts, but the Ordnance Chart only goes to I.[/quote]These entries should be H and I instead of K and L. CORRECTED[quote]IndiaPg. 7:South AfricaPg. 7:Bristol Beaufort Mk. 1 spelling typo.[/quote]Yes indeed, I dropped the a in Beaufort. CORRECTED[quote]Norway:Pg. 4:Short Sunderlands show note D, should this be note A ?[/quote]Yes. CORRECTED[quote]Slovakia:Pg. 5:Aircraft at the top of the page has no name.[/quote]I don't have this entry in my tables or docs. It appears to be a bogus entry that occured during Jon's conversion.That's it for this edition. This should leave the Infantry Table, Troop Type Table and TOE edits to go over. :side:

#32 Klebert Hall

Klebert Hall

    Private

  • Members
  • 41 posts

Posted 11 April 2007 - 10:01 AM

bbenge wrote:

Well, I guess I will have to get them finished then. In the haste to get the WW2 Data Book done the Update countries were not completed so I will post you when these become available. :)

Sorry, thought I was being dense - I didn't mean to sound like I was nagging.Whenever they're ready, I'll be glad to take a look.-Kle.

#33 Klebert Hall

Klebert Hall

    Private

  • Members
  • 41 posts

Posted 11 April 2007 - 11:43 AM

bbenge wrote:

Pg. 10:Australia and Canberra had 8 8" guns.

Hmm... The Janes WW2 Ships book has it with 6 x 8" guns. I double checked with a couple other sources and you are right. Janes has a typo. :blush: Made the correction. CORRECTEDActually a couple of the Heavy Crusier DV values were off (Whichita, Portland and Pensacola if I remeber correctly). I corrected these. The rest are as advertised according to the Janes book I have. CORRECTED

I have nothing but respect for the Jane's organisation, but if these are either the originals or the reprints from the wartime JFS, they're much more error-prone than the modern equivalents.The reach of both telecommunications and the Jane's organisation were both much more limited back then. The world's navies were also enormously secretive compared to the standards of today, and Jane's did a commendable job, considering.-Kle.

#34 Bob Benge

Bob Benge

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 1,189 posts
  • LocationLas Cruces, NM

Posted 11 April 2007 - 05:46 PM

In the hardcopy and the PDF from the website, the M3, M3A1-A2, and M3A3-A5 all have 3cc pips and 5 road pips.

The M3A3-M3A5 in my Docs has a speed of CC4 R 6. Another Conversion error...The PDF is what was used for the print copy so that would explain why they are the same. I believe in the rush to get everything done by Cold Wars we had some QC issues with some of the formatting. We are looking into getting them corrected and you have helped identify much of these problems. Thanks! :)

I'd like to go to Historicon, and I've been looking into it. I expect that I won't be able to afford it especially since it's so close to GenCon, where I'm minion-ing for some friends. One of these days, though - Lancaster's an easy drive.

Well, we are at Cold Wars, Historicon and Fall-In so I am sure we'll catch you at one of them. :)

#35 Bob Benge

Bob Benge

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 1,189 posts
  • LocationLas Cruces, NM

Posted 12 April 2007 - 06:40 AM

Okay here is the last round of edits I will address for now. The TO&E edits will be compiled into a list and addressed later after I get caught up with my work on the WW1 Data Book. From my scan of the TO&E errors they probably are all errors that should be corrected as Kle reports. I would like to thank Kle for his work in this area for us! Great job! :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: Okay, on to the last of the Table edits: Infantry Table and Troop Type Tables...

General:Why aren't there any availability dates for the various infantry stand types, was it a space issue? It's fairly easy to figure out in a non-specific way, but I can imagine some new-to-the-period gamers getting confused.

I had addressed this earlier, but wanted to mention that I did add notes to the German and Russian Infantry Tables that defined the availability dates for the Assault Rifles for each country. The German FG 42 is 1942, the German MP44 and its additional entries with LMGs is 1944. The Russian Federov Automat is 1940. CORRECTEDAgain, the reason for the removal of the date column was due to the generalization of the stats, but to keep the flavor of the game, the names of the predominant weapon type at the start of the war were used. As Kle pointed out, the New Zealand army has the Krag-Jorgenson rifle listed yet they did use the Enfield SMLE. I used the Krag because it was the first available rifle the Kiwi army at the outbreak of the war. The stats we use now only differentiate with gun calibre and ROF where applicable. So the Krag and the SMLE will have the same base stats. Meine Truppen, when released, will have a more in depth firearms table that takes into account many other weapons statistics and will have a more detailed weapons list and their appropriate availability dates.

Australia:Pg. 1:Troop Type Cross Reference Table, last row; Infantry/Cavalry - should that be Infantry/Armor? Cav seems covered by the 1st row.

Yep you are correct. CORRECTED

Free France:Pg. 2:Fusil modele 1931 heavy weapon stand shows note 1, cullin hedgerow device.

Not sure why it was there!?! Note removed. CORRECTED

Thailand:Pg. 2: Infantry Upgrades header typesetting typo.

Another of those mysterious Jon formatting errors. All of my Docs look fine.A side note also. While going over Kle's edits I found that the Sherman tanks, for all countries other than the US, lacked the appropriate Wet Ammo Storage Note. So I fixed them all as follows:Any British/ British Commonwealth Sherman with the 76mm gun (Sherman IIIA and Sherman VA if I remember correctly) and any of the US Shermans serving with Belgium, Free France and any others I may have missed, will have the Wet Stowage Note.

Absolutely. None of this is meant as criticism, at all. I've done a moderate amount of work in the gaming industry writing and editing/proofreading products for various companies. I know from personal experience that you can never catch all the errors. I find that once I've read something a few times (or worse, written it), I start seeing what I *know* is supposed to be there, instead of what is actually there. There's also never, ever enough time or people for proofing. Another factor is that word-processing, while making publishing much easier (indeed, making publishing possible at all for small industries like gaming), also makes it much easier to make mistakes. I once edited a product that wound up going to publication with two entire incorrect chapters from an earlier version of the file.

I never take possible errata as criticism. It allows me to verify that the data I used was correct, explain my logical (I hope anyway) reasoning for my choice and possibly clear up some misconceptions that tend to gravitate around some WW2 equipment. I try to use as many sources as possible and I weigh the data and their sources to come up with a consensus for the stats. Having run into situations where many sources gave the exact same info and finding out that these sources were all based on the same source makes one realize that digging can be a mixed blessing and that the results should be weighed appropriately. Ah, ZEN researching... :laugh:

I'm very favorably impressed with ODGW's work, and the quality of these products - I've found a very low error rate, and what errors I've found are generally inconsequential and easily corrected by the user. My efforts are merely in the pursuit of perfectionism, not meant as complaints.-Kle.

Thank you for the kind words! :blush:The WW2 Data Book has evolved dramatically since Jon's original work started in 1996 and I have and had a lot of fun filling it out and updating it over the years. I have found that I like doing the research but hate being unable to find information I need to complete a project. I view the book as a collaborative effort since Jon provided the basis for me to start and yourself, Gregory, Trotsky, Sacha and the host of others listed on the credits page as integral parts of getting this book done with the most accurate data available to us. During this project and the other Data Books I have done, I have learned a lot about research, publication formatting using Adobe Acrobat and MS Word and printing. An enlightening experience indeed! I would like to thank Jon for this experience. Thanks Jon! ;)Now I want a raise! :laugh:

#36 Harlan Garrett

Harlan Garrett

    Private

  • Members
  • 48 posts

Posted 11 May 2007 - 06:04 PM

I noticed on the British charts that the Cromwell seems undergunned. The 75mm gun listed on the Cromwell is the same as in the Churchill. The 75mm on the Cromwell was different from Churchill. The performance of the 75mm is on par with the 6-pounder except it did not have a HVAP/APDS round. The 95mm howitzer version had a HEAT round available that could pentrate 110mm of armor. You can refer to Ospery Book - New Vanguard 104 Cromwell Cruiser Tank 194250. ThanksHarlan

#37 Bob Benge

Bob Benge

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 1,189 posts
  • LocationLas Cruces, NM

Posted 17 May 2007 - 12:58 PM

Hey Harlan,Sorry I missed this post! For some reason it didn't show up on my "New" list. Anyway, let me get to your questions.

I noticed on the British charts that the Cromwell seems undergunned. The 75mm gun listed on the Cromwell is the same as in the Churchill. The 75mm on the Cromwell was different from Churchill. The performance of the 75mm is on par with the 6-pounder except it did not have a HVAP/APDS round. The 95mm howitzer version had a HEAT round available that could penetrate 110mm of armor. You can refer to Osprey Book - New Vanguard 104 Cromwell Cruiser Tank 194250.

Okay, I looked at the file to get my bearings. The Cromwell IV, V and VIII had the 75mmL38 gun which is the same gun as the Churchill VI, VII and X. These I confirmed with my multiple sources (Guns vs. Armor website and US and British Tanks in WW2 by Chamberlain to name the outstanding ones that I remember) as an AP of 8 (Actual penetration is 68mm @ 30 degrees at a range of 500yds). After a go around with data on the 6-pounder the AP of 10 (Actual penetration of 81mm @ 30 degrees at a range of 500yds) is also correct as per the same sources with these numbers. The 95mm howitzer does have a HEAT round listed (under the Offensive Stats section HT OV column) with a 13 AP rating. The 75mmL38 gun is on par with the US 75mmM3 gun which was a general purpose gun with low velocity but with an adequate, for the time it was released anyway, AP round and a good HE round. This made the gun a capable all purpose gun but definitely not a true tank hunting gun. "Want to kill an Elephant, get an Elephant gun!" :laugh:Here is an FYI for you on how the numbers are derived. The published AP numbers are the actual penetration number multiplied by a slope modifier, to account for the sloping in the stats when listed, then round .5 and higher up then divide by 10 to get our final value.I hope this gives some light to your questions. :)

#38 Harlan Garrett

Harlan Garrett

    Private

  • Members
  • 48 posts

Posted 30 May 2007 - 10:05 PM

Bob,Yeap, you are right. The Churchill (later Mks) had the same gun as the later Cromwell. That is what you get when you go by your memory rather than a good book. :woohoo: Thank you for the AP number explaination.

#39 Harlan Garrett

Harlan Garrett

    Private

  • Members
  • 48 posts

Posted 30 May 2007 - 10:13 PM

Is the T41E1 Scout Vehicle (M18) the same as the M-39 AUV (Armored Utility Vehicle)?

#40 Bob Benge

Bob Benge

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 1,189 posts
  • LocationLas Cruces, NM

Posted 31 May 2007 - 05:04 AM

Yes it is Harlan. :) I had to look it up again, but here is the site I found it on:http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/tank-destroyers/m18.asp




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users