delems

The 251c.

28 posts in this topic

Weren't there 251's in France?

Maybe give panzer divisions only, a couple 251 for tier 0, and bring in 251s to the rest of the flags like normal, in tier 1?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the 251C is a tier 2 item
But the A and B are tier 0 items.

Good luck convincing players to follow the panzers with a 251 full of infantry though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We get the 251c in Tier 1, just saying, maybe it would make sense to give the panzer divisions only, a couple 251c (like literally 3 per flag), as they were in France.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree the 251c should be tier 0, however, probably not until the UC and some appropriate US/Frog equivalent was in.

Do we not have mods in here any more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The German APC was available and used in the BoF.. its not the 251c but a earlier variant of the 251. It has its distinct advantage which is best utilized or where I have done/experienced it being most effective is transporting troops around a town like Lux for recapping CPs or capping cps. The majority of enemy you find in the interior of a town like that are infantry carrying small arms incapable of killing the 251 where as an Opel ferrying recappers can be wasted in route. A major problem for the allies doing the same.. Even when the AB is partially camped by ei and a opel cannot live a block past the AB gates, a 251 can get out and set a DFMS up.  It was my go to back in the day prior to the FMS to get our troops out of harms way for recapping in large towns... the only down side was we still had the staircased buildings then and at times your infantry was hosed down from the roof tops.  Not a issue ATM in a large town like Lux or Antwerp.

 

I would prefer the allies get their APC before we get another 251 variant into T0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2017 at 2:48 PM, stankyus said:

I would prefer the allies get their APC before we get another 251 variant into T0.

By all means give the Allies a big metal ATG target as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, saronin said:

By all means give the Allies a big metal ATG target as well. 

You mean you dont like the current ones?
R35 H39 S35 B1 M5 M4A2 M4A3 A13 A22 C3 C7 CRU3 etc ?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, merlin51 said:

You mean you dont like the current ones?
R35 H39 S35 B1 M5 M4A2 M4A3 A13 A22 C3 C7 CRU3 etc ?

The one he’s talking about is filled with oowy gooey squishy goodness. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, saronin said:

By all means give the Allies a big metal ATG target as well. 

Sooo... what about being a small arms target too? - Ah nope which is why there is a request for them to enter early. There is something that is missing in T0 Axis want - being able to drive something that eliminates the small arms danger.. its better to be a ATG target than a bullet and atg target.

The 251 is not a panacea however it does have its uses where its unique characteristics do well in given circumstances. These APCs where not exactly quiet vehicles but in game the sound issue does hamper them. They are more resilient to incoming than an opel or any truck and as I pointed out I believe they really do shine in large towns by being able to protect troopers while on capping and recapping missions.  Hot dropping cps with a LMG to cover the 251 excels at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, saronin said:

The one he’s talking about is filled with oowy gooey squishy goodness. 

Tanks are not crunchy on the outside and chewy in the middle also?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, stankyus said:

Hot dropping cps with a LMG to cover the 251 excels at.

I don't think i have ever observed a 251 with a living gunner, except where it was no place near EI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, merlin51 said:

I don't think i have ever observed a 251 with a living gunner, except where it was no place near EI.

I kept experiencing that the map we last won in Luxemburg or mb it was Brussels... Axis spawnable SW of the EAB that has a flag building about 100m from the 3 depots connected to it.  The Axis kept using the 251 to hot drop it and covering the depot. It was very effective at keeping us away from the flag building several times. I tried several times to shoot the gunner and died in the process. We where down to R35s and some light AA guns.. I tried to get light AA guns out to get the 251 but the ei in the flag building kept killing me also. We did keep recapping it, and they kept hot dropping it. The Axis where also using the 251 to roll down the main road full of EI to cap the west side and CAB. I was at the CAB bunker when they drove up a 251 to the AB farmhouse style bunker and unloaded mb 8 ei. I got 3 but they managed to kill me and cap it. The point there has zero to do with the gunner - the 251 was able to get by the 4 infantry in the wooded area shooting at it as it rolled to the AB, unload and the EI assault the bunker, hold it and cap it. I intercepted their next hotdrop at the west depot with a light AA gun and killed the 251 and the ei. Then assaulted the CAB bunker eventually killing loonie who was the guard in it to recap it. 

I however Merlin, find it somewhat hard to believe you have never observed a living gunner on the 251.. back when I was Axis I used them to camp depots, I even used them to cover the AB bunker entrance from inside blown buildings in the AB.  Anyway the gunner is HARDLY to the point, the point is that the APC has the ability to transport troops in an environment that the truck wont survive.  THAT is the point. That point alone is why the Axis want a 251 in T-0.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** That point alone is why the Axis want a 251 in T-0.

Hmm, no, that is not what I stated or why I posted this topic.

Pretty sure I stated, historical reasons for adding the 251.

I also suggested panzer divisions only and only in limited quantity.  Why would I do that if I wanted them everywhere to run around in large towns?
 

Your belief of why axis requested it is wrong.


The simple fact is both Poland and France had 251 vehicles of type A or B.

Since there is so little difference among them (a, b, c or d), the C can easily be substituted for the A or B.

It's historically accurate for axis to have a few 251 vehicles in tier 0.

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, stankyus said:

I however Merlin, find it somewhat hard to believe you have never observed a living gunner on the 251.. back when I was Axis I used them to camp depots

I usually just run up behind / beside them and shoot the gunner, or someone else already has.
Poor guy needs a gun shield, his lifespan is about the same as the wack laffly gunners.

10 hours ago, stankyus said:

THAT is the point. That point alone is why the Axis want a 251 in T-0.

Eh, fine by me, just hold it off a tiny bit to get a UC modeled (I dont think the loyd provides much protection), and a Lorraine 37L or a Laffly S15 RAM or TOE which we can make from the existing Laffly should be good to go no?
(Me say LAffly, faster to build?)

TOE (I think it was a rear box that can be fitted, but im not 100% positive)
full

RAM
laffly_s15_r_am.jpg

 

 

And this is NOT how to hot drop in your UC
The_British_Army_in_France_1939-40_O570.

Now if it was WWI
char-d-assault-schneider-light-tank-02.p

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparison of Universal Carrier and Windsor Carrier:

Universal Carrier...used by Britain, Canada, some by USA. Transported a half section.

376632.jpg

Windsor Carrier...used by Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, others. Transported a full section.

Windsor%20carrier_zpsjvgp5lyv.png

Both vehicles utilized suspension elements identical to those of the Vickers light tank. Both could tow a two pounder or six pounder, but not the seventeen pounder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, merlin51 said:

a Laffly S15 RAM or TOE which we can make from the existing Laffly should be good to go no?
(Me say LAffly, faster to build?)

TOE (I think it was a rear box that can be fitted, but im not 100% positive)
full

RAM
laffly_s15_r_am.jpg

Laffly S15 TOE was cute, but was used only in various colonies...not in France itself.

Lorraine 37L was only a supply/ordnance carrier and sometimes a gun tractor. It had only a shallow cargo box, therefore could not serve as an APC.

Lorraine37L027801.jpg

Lorraine 38L was intended as an APC, but carried only four men in its own armored box. The other six men of the section had to ride in an odd tracked armored trailer. An APC with a permanently attached trailer would not be able to be backed up, a key requirement for an APC, and could not tow a gun out into the field...another key requirement for an APC. (Certainly the SdKfz 251 had that capability, and presumably the model will be reviewed in that regard when the APC set is filled in.)

gas50111m.jpg

The 37L also could tow a tracked trailer...a bulk fuel container, for supplying tank units in the field.

Lorraine+with+fuel+trailer.jpg

Lorraine 39L was just coming to production in 1940. It's unclear from the relevant history if a few units were produced and used in combat in the last days before the armistice. In any case, it should be eligible for T0 because certainly it was contracted for production no later than the July-August time frame, based on conversion of the existing production lines for the 38L design.

lorraine020.jpg

lorraine048.jpg

May be troops picking up their early-production Lorraine 39L at the factory.

lorraine041.jpg

All of the Lorraine tracked vehicles, not just the 37, could tow light and medium guns when needed:

ec1b506f69d2513f3c1b7b872a4d37f1--lorrai

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jwilly said:

Laffly S15 TOE was cute, but was used only in various colonies

Well, all of their useful APC's were off in NA and such.
I saw a pick of a 37L with a box on the back, but its a bad pic i cant tell if its canvas or an actual box.
Guess maybe the 39L if it exists before june?  Dont think any post june vichy designed stuff would be eligible? It would technically be axis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jwilly said:

Windsor Carrier...used by Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, others. Transported a full section.

I can fit 50 people in a bedford, i dont think capacity is an issue here LOL

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, merlin51 said:

I can fit 50 people in a bedford, i dont think capacity is an issue here LOL

And yet some folks care about what tier a weapon is introduced in, or whether its ballistics or destructive performance are historically consistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, merlin51 said:

Guess maybe the 39L if it exists before june?  Dont think any post june vichy designed stuff would be eligible? It would technically be axis. 

The 39L's design certainly existed during the BoF. It was being ramped up for production, on the 38L production line. There definitely was a production contract. The unit in the last photo above was being delivered, or at least shown, to French soldiers. Post-armistice, French industry did not build further weapons for the French Army in a visible manner...only for the Germans. So that photo must have been shot before the armistice, since there are no German soldiers in the photo.

With regard to stuff designed during the Vichy period, lots of folks (though not me) have argued here over the years that the ARL44 tank...certainly related to the musings of French armaments engineers during the Vichy period, even if the tanks they sketched during the war were nothing like the ARL44...should be French-eligible. I've never seen an argument that it should be German-eligible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2017 at 9:25 PM, delems said:

*** That point alone is why the Axis want a 251 in T-0.

Hmm, no, that is not what I stated or why I posted this topic.

Pretty sure I stated, historical reasons for adding the 251.

I also suggested panzer divisions only and only in limited quantity.  Why would I do that if I wanted them everywhere to run around in large towns?
 

Your belief of why axis requested it is wrong.


The simple fact is both Poland and France had 251 vehicles of type A or B.

Since there is so little difference among them (a, b, c or d), the C can easily be substituted for the A or B.

It's historically accurate for axis to have a few 251 vehicles in tier 0.

 

Sure thing and by all means put the APC into t0. However let's get the allied ones done before we make this move.. they are just as historical.  I'm tired of all the let's do more Axis stuff and screw the allies stuff talk. The allies need new stuff also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, jwilly said:

With regard to stuff designed during the Vichy period, lots of folks (though not me) have argued here over the years that the ARL44 tank...certainly related to the musings of French armaments engineers during the Vichy period, even if the tanks they sketched during the war were nothing like the ARL44...should be French-eligible. I've never seen an argument that it should be German-eligible.

Cant be eligible, at least in my thinking
Because 1) it was real, there are 3 in museums
And 2) it was real only after WWII, like 1949 afterwards, during WWII too much of the idea was unfinalized

That to me would disqualify it.

Even the gun, 90 mm SA47 DCA45 , is post war is it not?  1946?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, merlin51 said:

Cant be eligible, at least in my thinking
Because 1) it was real, there are 3 in museums
And 2) it was real only after WWII, like 1949 afterwards, during WWII too much of the idea was unfinalized

That to me would disqualify it.

Even the gun, 90 mm SA47 DCA45 , is post war is it not?  1946?

My understanding is that the gun was a Schneider AA design for Marine Nationale (French Navy), used for naval base air defense. The model was 90mm Mle 1926-30 sur affût Mle 31/32. Some ARL44s got pre-war guns that survived the war, others were newly made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the French lack a dedicated APC, perhaps the answer would be to:

Give the axis limited numbers of 251's in some brigades in tier 0, with other variants of 252 additional in tier 4 onwards (Pak40  in place of gunne))

Give the British lots of UC's at tier 0, with M3 halftrack additional in tier 3., and tier 5 Ram Kangaroo (A turretless Sherman would do as a placeholder?)

Give The French M3's in tier 4  onwards with additional (6pdr atg, quad .50 cal AAA at tier 5

Give the US M3's with other variants in tier 3, (6pdr atg, quad .50 cal AAA at tier 5

 

These introduction tiers and numbers could all be played with, but you see the principle? Only 2 new models would be required: (UC and M3 halftrack, the remainder being amendments of existing models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fidd said:

As the French lack a dedicated APC, perhaps the answer would be to:

Give the axis limited numbers of 251's in some brigades in tier 0, with other variants of 252 additional in tier 4 onwards (Pak40  in place of gunne))

Give the British lots of UC's at tier 0, with M3 halftrack additional in tier 3., and tier 5 Ram Kangaroo (A turretless Sherman would do as a placeholder?)

Give The French M3's in tier 4  onwards with additional (6pdr atg, quad .50 cal AAA at tier 5

Give the US M3's with other variants in tier 3, (6pdr atg, quad .50 cal AAA at tier 5

 

These introduction tiers and numbers could all be played with, but you see the principle? Only 2 new models would be required: (UC and M3 halftrack, the remainder being amendments of existing models.

While I applaud you for offering a fix for the unbalancing of APCs, since the Allies have none, you MUST consider that NOBODY  USES THEM AT ALL.

 

Sure, once in a while someone drives one in and plays with the MG... but really. It's hardly ever used, if at all.

 

Play Axis for a campaign and count how many times you see one being used. You won't run out of fingers on your first hand...

 

Why not put your efforts into something REALLY out of balance like the medium bombers?

 

Wait.. then you'd see that the Axis have NO bombers that can loop and dive repeatedly dropping four bombs at a time in each pass.

 

Ah well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.