British OOB7 corrections and suggestions

[Pibwl]

As a devil's advocate I must remark, that even if we find a precise speed on a ground level, the aircraft often attacked targets from a shallow dive, which was faster

Originally Posted by DRG

That said as a rule of thumb I would suggest that since generally only top speeds are given in sources ( unless they are really good sources.. ) and those top speeds are only achieved at altitudes much higher than ground attack operate that whatever the "top" speed is it should be one less in the game for ground attack

It seems reasonable. My educated guess is, that even modern WW2 fighters won't strafe ground targets with speeds above 400 km/h - even for a sake of precision of fire. But in such case, differences in speeds among aircraft won't be big in the game - 1 or 2 for old designs, 3 or 4 for newer ones...

On the other hand, lowering speed would mean, that aircraft will be more vulnerable. That raises a question, if vehicle AAMGs are rendered correctly in the game... I've mentioned it already, while writing on T-26 tanks, of which a minority was fitted with AAMGs. Is it a real situation, when an aircraft approaches with speed 3, and all the commanders of tanks, halftracks, and even some trucks notice it, open their hatches and start to fire from their AAMGs?...
My another educated guess is, that a dedicated small-calibre Flak was a most efficient mean against low-flying A/C, while vehicle-mounted pintle MGs (often with no special sights) acted purely as a mean of deterrence, with some chance of success.

Michal

[DRG]

If a speed is 6 or 7 it REALLY does not matter much in the game ( really, really ) so if I find a group of aircraft and they are all 7 and the theoretical ground attack speed is 6 I'm just going to leave them at 7 . What alarmed me when I ran the oobs through our database checker was the number of 8 and 9's ( and 10's ) I found ( and BTW.......jets are 9.......... that value is hardcoded and cannot be overwritten in sound field for aircraft ( aircraft are different that ground vehicles ).

Given there are almost 900 aircraft in the game that are just UC44 there is a good chance when I find a type that is within 1 of what I think they should be and they are all the same then that's what they are going to stay

If you REALLY want to test your "lowering speed would mean, that aircraft will be more vulnerable." you have all the tools in front of you to do that.....MOBHack to build test aircraft with speeds from 1 to 10 then a scenario editor to set up a flak alley to run them through the gauntlet and see if more 5's are shot down than 6's. My guess is you will have to run a lot of aircraft through to see any pattern

[DRG]

Originally Posted by PvtJoker

Oh, and the P-47M actually could do 756 km/h (470 mph) at 9,000 meters (30,000 ft)

OK, granted according to http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47.html it could get up to 473 mph---761 kph which would indeed be an 8 but we don't fight air battles at 38,000 feet in this game and the best that aircraft can do down on the deck is 367 mph ( 590 kph ) so it should be a 6 and NO I am not interested in the speed of a shallow dive with drag ( and gravity pull ) from the weight of weapons-----there comes a time ( should have been years ago ) when "enough is enough.", there is really only so much nitpicking I can stand

A "simple" rule of thumb that will apply in almost cases is the ground attack speed is one less than maximum speed and that is GOOD ENOUGH and if the maximum is used and it's 1 more than the sea level speed that is GOOD ENOUGH no matter how gratifying it is to dig out a book and say AH HA !!...... we're out by one. We give it 8 and it should be 4....... THAT is an issue not 8 should be 7

Don

[PvtJoker]

Originally Posted by DRG

A "simple" rule of thumb that will apply in almost cases is the ground attack speed is one less than maximum speed and that is GOOD ENOUGH and if the maximum is used and it's 1 more than the sea level speed that is GOOD ENOUGH no matter how gratifying it is to dig out a book and say AH HA !!...... we're out by one. We give it 8 and it should be 4....... THAT is an issue not 8 should be 7

Don

So, can we settle for a rule of thumb that you are interested only in aircraft speed errors that are at least +2 from the "correct" value? Because if we assume that speed at sea level is typically -1 from top speed at altitude like you suggest above, there are a lot of those errors still in the current OOB. When I went through the USMC aircraft, quite a few them had speeds +1 higher than they are supposed to have according to the Mobhack guide rule, and most of the real max. speeds were attained well above 10,000 feet.

[DRG]

As I said, I've already put investigating these on my to do list so I am well aware that there are " a lot of those errors still in the current OOB's"........ that was the whole point of post #9...........Yes ??

My intent is to review them all and I was going to post the list but I was informed .................The text that you have entered is too long (634069 characters). Please shorten it to 25000 characters long.

[Pibwl]

A last couple of easy-to-fix suggestions, mostly picture-related:

268 4.5in Howitzer - proper icon is 2115 - current has way too long barrel. Same for 582 Colonial 4.5" H

482 LMG Team - photo shows Bren - it could be replaced with Lewis (eg. 27096 - I've found no better). Same for 631 Home Guard MG

139, 477, 478, 538 Rifle Section - a photo shows single Bren, better suited to LMG section, than Rifle Section - better picture is 12507 or 12516 in case of later ones

171 Churchill I CS - its designation was II CS in fact.

501 Lt Cruiser - correct picture is 511 (now it's destroyer size)

581 Colonial 18 Pdr - proper icon is 2113, as unit 127

583 Colonial 6in FH - proper icon seems 2116, as unit 257

584 Bren AAMG - picture 16020 is not Bren AAMG, rather some ZB. Same for unit 633. I'm attaching a proposal.

587 Colonial Scouts - picture shows Bren section. 12848 seems better, as unit 589.

663 Churchill Ics2 - I've found no info on existence of variant with two howitzers...

Pictures show among others correct Insect class gunboat (with two funnels abreast), Buffalo with Polsten gun, etc.

Michal

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Pibwl

A last couple of easy-to-fix suggestions,l

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by Pibwl

A last couple of easy-to-fix suggestions, mostly picture-related:

268 4.5in Howitzer - proper icon is 2115 - current has way too long barrel. Same for 582 Colonial 4.5" H

482 LMG Team - photo shows Bren - it could be replaced with Lewis (eg. 27096 - I've found no better). Same for 631 Home Guard MG

139, 477, 478, 538 Rifle Section - a photo shows single Bren, better suited to LMG section, than Rifle Section - better picture is 12507 or 12516 in case of later ones

171 Churchill I CS - its designation was II CS in fact.

501 Lt Cruiser - correct picture is 511 (now it's destroyer size)

581 Colonial 18 Pdr - proper icon is 2113, as unit 127

583 Colonial 6in FH - proper icon seems 2116, as unit 257

584 Bren AAMG - picture 16020 is not Bren AAMG, rather some ZB. Same for unit 633. I'm attaching a proposal.

587 Colonial Scouts - picture shows Bren section. 12848 seems better, as unit 589.

663 Churchill Ics2 - I've found no info on existence of variant with two howitzers...

Pictures show among others correct Insect class gunboat (with two funnels abreast), Buffalo with Polsten gun, etc.

Michal

From the war diary of the North Irish Horse:

http://www.northirishhorse.net/articles/1-3.html where they state that IIcs was for the later rework of these tanks where the 2nd 3inch in the hull was replaced with a BESA when the supply of 3in howitzers was getting short.

paragraph 2 onwards + photo

A modelling site with the version (with its panzer 3 cupola)
http://panzerserra.blogspot.co.uk/20...orked-and.html

A diorama of the same regiment's churchill with 2x3in:
http://www.militarymodelling.com/new...-in-italy/7059

I cant find any info on anyone else that the North Irish Horse having the "double-banger" version. They already have mixed Churchill and Sherman squadrons in the OOB - they had an eclectic mix of AFV!

[DRG]

.and now I have a photo of it....... but without the mine damage

[Pibwl]

Thanks for the info.

Originally Posted by DRG

As for the British OOB that is... I promised to finish the Soviets (but not very thoroughly)