Questions for Volcano Man

[milan]

I'm about to start MP game of full S'42 scenario, VM alternative. I noticed some strange things:

1. Russian Guards have lower soft attack/ assault values than regular infantry. Why?

2. PzIII(kz) - at this time there were 2 types of PzIII kurtz in German army. PzIII with short 50mm gun and PzIII with short 75mm gun. I don't know data for other divisions but I'm sure that 6. Panzer had no 50mm short guns in its arsenal. It was fresh division with new equipment just arrived from France and production of PzIII with short 50mm gun ended 5 months before Uranus. Also Ospey book about 6. Panzer confirm this.
So PzIII(kz) should be modeled like PzIIIN, not PzIIIH.

3. Where are my AT guns in infantry units? Every German regiment had 13. company with 12 AT guns. Also Every German company had AT section (with 3 AT rifles). In regular games designer incorporated regimental guns in infantry. So I would like German infantry to get some AT ability or place regimental AT companies on map.

4. I believe Russian infantry regiment also had some AT guns but I'm not sure about this.

Thanks,

milicko

[Volcano Man]

[milan]

1. OK, thanks for explanation.

2. No, No, No - designer correctly modeled PzIII kurtz in original OOB with 8/1 hard attack and 14/2 soft attack - values like PzIV kurtz (8/1, 14/2), or PzIIIN in romanian division (8/1, 14/2) - this leads to conclusion they have equal guns and matches my sources for 6.Pz div. In reality PzIIIN had equal gun to Early PzIV (versions A-F). So PzIII(kz) stand for Panzer III with kurtz (short) 75mm gun, not for Panzer III with kurtz 50mm gun.

It is your OOB that models PzIV(kz) with (4/1, 20/2) and PzIII(kz) with 7/1, 9/2. Also you model PzIIIN (in romanian army) as (15/1, 20/2). And all these vehicles have equal guns!

I can provide references if you like...

3. & 4. I don't believe that 1/0 and 2/0 infantry hard attack values incorporate valuable AT guns at regimental level.
I checked for russians and they also one battery of 45mm guns and one battery of 76mm guns at regimental level.

milicko

[Volcano Man]

Ok, I see what you mean about the PzIII(kz), they should all be the same rating as the PzIIIN in the Romanian army.

As for 3. & 4. why cant you see it? We are talking about a battalion sized infantry unit that has a company sized 37mm AT gun unit (in the case of the Germans) attached to it? The dilution of guns per men would do nothing more than give it a low range 0 hard attack. If you do not like the ratings then open up the OOB in the editor and give it whatever ratings you want.

[Volcano Man]

[Ricky B]

Just to add a little, or maybe clarify something. I believe one part of what Milicko is saying is that the ratings for the Rumanian Pz III N is too high, at least for the HA. It sounds like you are all agreed that this used a short barrelled 75mm, which is the same weapon as used on the PzIV kz, and so its ratings should be similar to it - maybe slightly different due to turret layout/ammo loads/optics etc. but similar. And in this case the Pz III kz should be lower or the same as it had a short barrelled 50mm, although longer caliber than the 75mm, I think.

So if the HA ratings in your OOB, VM, are Pz IV kz 4/1, Pz III kz 7/1 and Rum Pz III N at 15/1, then the Pz III N is much too high, having the same weapon as the Pz IV, and I would say the III kz is too high by a couple of points or the others too low.

No idea on the 6.Pz tanks, as I don't have my resources handy. However, by Kursk the 6.Pz had 18 Pz III Ns, along with 34 Pz III lg, but no III kz. So I would think Milicko is correct on this point, but can't confirm it, just a gut feel that some of the 50mm kz IIIs would have still been in stock from the repair shops if the division had any back in December and no III Ns.

Rick

[Volcano Man]

Thanks Ricky. I think that appears to be the issue. The PzKw IIIn is rated far too high, hard attack wise. This appears to be an oversight by McNamara because he makes the PzIIIn's hard attack rating as high as I have it. However, as far as I can see, it should have have same hard and soft attack ratings as the PzKw IVe or PzKwf1.

As far as the 6.Pz.Div having PzKw IIIn's I can make this change for the ALT version of course, but given that I had the ausf N rated too high there shouldnt be any illusions that it would suddenly give the 6.Pz.Div some uber panzers. Looking at it, they would end up with lower HA ratings but higher softattack and assault values.

[Volcano Man]

*edit / delete*

[milan]

Hello,

thanks very much for your response.
The book I have: Osprey Vanguard 28: 6th panzer div 37-45

On p26 (reorganization in France): 11th Panzer Regt. was to have two battalions only, each with one medium and three light companies equipped with PzKpfw IV Ausf.F2 and G and PzIII Ausf.J and N.

On p33 (AAR after Winter storm): Although 6th Panzer started its mission with entirely new allocation of fighting vehicles, they represented a weak force only. Available had been:
24 PzKpfw IV with the L/48 75mm gun ...
24 more L/28 75mm guns of the Anti-Tank Battalion
75 PzKpfw III with L/60 50mm gun
30 PzKpfw III with the L/24 75mm gun
The short-barreled 75mm gun could penetrate 90mm of armour with its new HEAT ammunition at any normal range; but owing to its low muzzle velocity and its curved trajectory, its hit probability was very low....

I can see two more divisions with PzIII(kz) in OOB for November: 11. and 17. Panzer. The question is did they had any PzIIIN in their arsenal? That one I can't answer right now.

Never mind infantry HA values - this will make game more interesting.

milicko

[Volcano Man]

Ok, what I have done in the next update to come soon, is fix the PzKw IIIn ratings (HA is much lower) as McNamara must have made a minor mistake there. Since my db is based on McNamara's then this explains it.

I have also changed 6.Panzer Divisions PzKw III (kz) to PzKw IIIn. But this is about all I will do there.

Anyway, thanks for pointing out the mistake.