What WW2 equipment should be included

[MiloMorai]

As Chizh is requesting WWII equipment info and no discussion is allowed on any of the equipment mentioned, I am starting this thread on what equipment should/shouldn't looked at to be included.

 

Only equipment that was manufactured in high numbers should be included due to the time and effort in making these vehicles.

 

For example, low numbers, only 87(or 105) Wirbelwinds were made, contrary to only 44(or 43) Ostwinds produced from July 1944 to March of 1945 and there was never enough to properly equip front line units.

[Gooseneck]

Gas masks?

[Rangi]

Gas masks?

 

That's what my wife says when she comes into the computer room.;)

[WinterH]

Anything seen fit should be included for ground units, regardless of big production numbers or not. This is a sandbox. For aircraft I can relate to argument somewhat, but for ground units, come on now...

 

I mean yeah, if something was only made as a few prototypes I agree, but if it has seen production, I would like them included.

[Solty]

When I added my list in the Chizh thread, I actually took most common US, German and Commonwealth tanks, vehicles, AAA etc.

 

I think there is wierd misconception about some units beeing more relevant than they actually were.

 

For example M4 Sherman is getting a lot of flack from people around the world, for beeing flamable as it used gassoline as fuel... I mean realy? Every German tank used gassoline. Most British tanks used Gassoline... but it is Sherman that is "flammable" just because people assume that... Also, its armour is called "paper" because its half of the thickness of a Tiger meanwhile most German tanks were PzIII and PzIV.

 

And standard mid-production M4 Sherman has at its hull 51mm of armour

Standard Panzer IV G has 80mm. That seems like big gap right?

 

Just take the Hull armour and check those angles. As PzIV armour is at near 90' its armour is near 80mm thick. M4 51mm is at 56' angle, and that gives it a 91mm thickness... who is paper like now(FYI Tiger hull front is 100mm)? :P Also Sherman's turret is around 76mm thick front and 51mm thick at sides. Pz IV turret is 50mm front and 30mm sides :P

 

Anyway. I am all for standard equipment, but some icons like Tiger I should be added, because they are fun to hunt down with planes :P I don't like prototypes but I agree that all units that are relevant should be used.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Solty

[MiloMorai]

German AFV production 1939-45

 

Here are detailed production statistics for German armored vehicles. Source is ‘Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933 – 1945’.

 

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.gr/2013/05/german-afv-production-1939-45_7.html

[NineLine]

Its always tough with stuff like this, there is stuff you should have and stuff you really want :) I mean especially if this will be all controllable like the modern stuff. I am not to worried that we will get a bunch of wonder weapons and barely manufactured stuff. ED has their heads on straight, and Chizh is a very smart man when it comes to all this military stuff. That said, if we have a few limited produced vehicles, I wouldnt complain either.

 

What I hope to see is a well rounded force, even if at the start its only a few units, so a tank or two, transport vehicles, AA, artillery, and infantry (I would like to see some more AI aircraft too) SO if we have 1 or 2 per that category, in my mind this would be a good start to make some interesting scenarios. They can add to it as they go along.

Edited September 9, 2015 by NineLine

[Kurfürst]

For example M4 Sherman is getting a lot of flack from people around the world, for beeing flamable as it used gassoline as fuel... I mean realy? Every German tank used gassoline. Most British tanks used Gassoline... but it is Sherman that is "flammable" just because people assume that...

 

Actually the "flammable" rep came from the poor ammo storage, and that even more was carried in practice . This improved a lot with the introduction of "wet" storage though.

 

Also, its armour is called "paper" because its half of the thickness of a Tiger meanwhile most German tanks were PzIII and PzIV.

 

And standard mid-production M4 Sherman has at its hull 51mm of armour

Standard Panzer IV G has 80mm. That seems like big gap right?

 

Just take the Hull armour and check those angles. As PzIV armour is at near 90' its armour is near 80mm thick. M4 51mm is at 56' angle, and that gives it a 91mm thickness... who is paper like now(FYI Tiger hull front is 100mm)? :P Also Sherman's turret is around 76mm thick front and 51mm thick at sides. Pz IV turret is 50mm front and 30mm sides :P

 

The reputation for all armor protection wasn't because the lack of thickness of the armor since the Sherman as you point out, (though early ones were inferior because of armor quality flaws and poor layout of that armor - it had many shot traps) was actually reasonably well armored for the time, but the fact that practically everything that shot at it could go right through it - which speaks rather more of the qualities of German PaKs and tank guns it faced rather than how poorly armored the Sherman was. relative to the guns it was supposed to protect from, it did a poor job at protecting the crew, and this puts even the 80 mm front hull of the panzervier in a much more favorable light, never mind the bigger, badder cats..

 

The M4, otoh, was poorly armed, with 3 inch variants coming too late and too few,

Not that I have a great opinion of the Sherman as tank design, imo a much better tank could have been built, but its often gets a lot of unfair barrage.

 

Anyway. I am all for standard equipment, but some icons like Tiger I should be added, because they are fun to hunt down with planes :P I don't like prototypes but I agree that all units that are relevant should be used.

 

Especially as it costs money to build the models, so priority should be given to the "iconic" stuff, which not always translates to common though.

 

Still, I can't get the excitement about it since its mostly just stuff that we shoot up on the ground, isn't it?

[NineLine]

Still, I can't get the excitement about it since its mostly just stuff that we shoot up on the ground, isn't it?

 

Although no official word yet, I would hope we will have full control like we do currently with modern stuff.

[Nirvi]

Something completely different, but what about horses? They were essential in 1944 for towing equipment and transporting troops.

[Kurfürst]

Something completely different, but what about horses? They were essential in 1944 for towing equipment and transporting troops.

 

Can be problematic from the animation, and more importantly, legal point of view - violence ratings go bizarrely high once you start to truthfully represent the interaction between 30 mm mine shells and furry furry cute animal internals.

 

Which is why you neither have infantry, nor animals represented in sims. Even field gun's are usually operated exclusively by the 7. Panzer Division (aka the Ghost Division).

 

In any case, if horses are in, I want Friesians.

[NineLine]

Something completely different, but what about horses? They were essential in 1944 for towing equipment and transporting troops.

 

It was most certainly noted that horses were heavily used ;)

[TheSkipjack95]

I think we need stuff like Kubelwagen, Sd Kfz 251s, 8t trucks, that sort of stuff

[MiloMorai]

European Air War (1998 ) had solders that could be shot at.

[MiloMorai]

I think we need stuff like Kubelwagen, Sd Kfz 251s, 8t trucks, that sort of stuff

 

Yes!!

[NineLine]

European Air War (1998 ) had solders that could be shot at.

 

We have infantry that can be shot at in DCS World.

[fastfreddie]

When I added my list in the Chizh thread, I actually took most common US, German and Commonwealth tanks, vehicles, AAA etc.

 

I think there is wierd misconception about some units beeing more relevant than they actually were.

 

For example M4 Sherman is getting a lot of flack from people around the world, for beeing flamable as it used gassoline as fuel... I mean realy? Every German tank used gassoline. Most British tanks used Gassoline... but it is Sherman that is "flammable" just because people assume that... Also, its armour is called "paper" because its half of the thickness of a Tiger meanwhile most German tanks were PzIII and PzIV.

 

And standard mid-production M4 Sherman has at its hull 51mm of armour

Standard Panzer IV G has 80mm. That seems like big gap right?

 

Just take the Hull armour and check those angles. As PzIV armour is at near 90' its armour is near 80mm thick. M4 51mm is at 56' angle, and that gives it a 91mm thickness... who is paper like now(FYI Tiger hull front is 100mm)? :P Also Sherman's turret is around 76mm thick front and 51mm thick at sides. Pz IV turret is 50mm front and 30mm sides :P

 

Anyway. I am all for standard equipment, but some icons like Tiger I should be added, because they are fun to hunt down with planes :P I don't like prototypes but I agree that all units that are relevant should be used.

 

There was a video floating around not long back where a Army officer did research on the crew loss rate on the Sherman and found it was lower than almost all the other countries. It had easy escape avenues compared to the Russians and British which fought in cramped quarters. Doesn't mean they didn't lose the tank but most of the crew would escape compared to other tanks. He also spoke about how unrealistic the air to ground attack statistics were and they weren't even close to actual loses for the Germans.

[NineLine]

Well DCS isnt quite ready to be worried about equipment vs crew loss yet anyways ;)

[MiloMorai]

T-34

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.ca/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html

 

fastfreddie is this the video?

[buster_dee]

VK-62

[Paradox]

For me the most important equipment is the stuff that's relevant to the air war like the Chain Home radar system, and Rebecca/ Eureka transponder systems.

 

The British and Ameriancs were operating portable radio transponders equipped at the platoon level for airbourne infantry as well as armoured groups.

 

Spitfires, Typhoons, Tempests and others were able to tune to these frequencies and find the signal sources up to an accuracy of some 50 to 100 yards.

 

Things that make the air war more interesting.

 

And an excuse to actually *use* some of the systems that warbirds had apart from their guns.

 

Not everything was dogfighting as I'm sure we are aware.

 

Also horses are a fantastic suggestion.

 

edit:

 

The AN/UPN-1 radio beacons used by the USAAF in conjunction with the airbourne forces is also a very important piece of equipment in my opinion:

 

 

If airbourne infantry and the ground support thereof is to be simulated of course.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Paradox

[Friedrich-4B]

The standard British tank was the Cromwell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwell_tank

 

 

 

while the standard heavy armoured car was the T17 Staghound https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T17_%28armored_car%29 .

 

 

Light armoured vehicles included the Humber Scout Car https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humber_Scout_Car

 

 

([sir] Micheal Caine charged around in one during A Bridge too Far):

 

 

and Daimler Dingo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daimler_Dingo.