Big Boss Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 The new Final Blitzkrieg manual is excellent and quite the fun to read. I stumbled on just one misspelling. Hope its ok to post my findings here.Page 91Sturmmörserwagen 606/4 mid 38 cm RW 61Should be; Sturmmörserwagen 606/4 mit 38 cm RW 61 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Boss Posted December 28, 2015 Author Share Posted December 28, 2015 Here are some other thoughts.On page 113The spelling of the different geschuetz shown should be Geschütz.Also the whole name of for example the 75mm leichtes Infanteriegeschuetz 18 should be 7,5cm Leichtes Infanterie-Geschütz 18 in correct Geman. schweres Infanterie-Geschütz 33 instead of schweres Infanterie Geschuetz 33 etc. I thought maybe the missing German ü was intentional for easier understanding of the English speaking players but then again I noticed that for example the Sturmgeschütz on page 87 had a correct spelling.Also on page 113 I would like to see the same sentence structure on all the guns. On the 75mm guns the whole name is written in the text and the short form is in bracket but on the 150mm the whole name is in brackets but the short form is in written in the text. It would be nice to include RoF and maximum range for the 75mm leIG 37 and maximum range for the sIG 33. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CM-Kane Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 (edited) Hi Big Boss,there is no "Infanterie-Geschütz" or something like that in german.7,5cm or 75mm leichtes Infanteriegeschütz 18 -> so the manual is correct. Edited December 28, 2015 by CM-Kane 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Boss Posted December 28, 2015 Author Share Posted December 28, 2015 Thanks for the reply CM-Kane. Maybe your right with using no -, but I´ve seen both forms even in German documents. But the spelling geschuetz in the manual is wrong either way :).Then in your view the manual is wrong with schweres Infanterie Geschuetz 33 and not Infanteriegeschuetz? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CM-Kane Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 Hi Big Boss,you are right, it should be Geschütz with Ü.The same with Infanteriegeschütz, but I don't know for sure, because you said you saw documents with the - between Infanterie and Geschütz...I will do "research". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 Spelling corrections made! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Boss Posted December 29, 2015 Author Share Posted December 29, 2015 (edited) Spelling corrections made!Just trying to help Hi Big Boss,you are right, it should be Geschütz with Ü.The same with Infanteriegeschütz, but I don't know for sure, because you said you saw documents with the - between Infanterie and Geschütz...I will do "research". Spelling and military nomenclature can be a real headache so it’s probably hard to make a definitive answer and I definitively not trying to be a besserwisser. I have only seen the spelling with a – between the words in post war literature like http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Waffen/Infanteriegeschutze.htm But even here they sometimes use the combined word without -. In wartime German Kriegsstärkenachweisung (KStN) they seems to use the form with punctuations to separate the word. For example; Inf.Geschütz and I.G.. But even here there are discrepancies as they sometimes use the whole word schweres Infanteriegeschütz. http://www.wwiidaybyday.com/kstn/kstn1761nov41.htmMaybe ist best to focus on more "important" matters Edited December 29, 2015 by Big Boss 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CM-Kane Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 Ok, so we agree on both terms, with "-" and without. I find another error, on pages 53 and 54.The M36s ammunition table. There are 2 "AP" rounds, the one with 3 rounds should be APCR, right? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Boss Posted January 2, 2016 Author Share Posted January 2, 2016 This is a tiny if not totally insignificant find.Page 84Marder I...August 1942, 170 Marder I`s were... The word Marder seems to be of another font. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnarly Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Pardon my ignorance, as I only have Black Sea, in which there is an extensive 'Formation Encyclopedia' section. I don't see the equivalent in this CM: FB manual? Am I blind? Or is this yet to come/be added? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holman Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Pardon my ignorance, as I only have Black Sea, in which there is an extensive 'Formation Encyclopedia' section. I don't see the equivalent in this CM: FB manual? Am I blind? Or is this yet to come/be added?That section appears in the Black Sea manual but not in any of the WW2 game manuals, presumably because WW2 formation logic is generally more straightforward than the variations-on-variations seen in the modern game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 That section appears in the Black Sea manual but not in any of the WW2 game manuals, presumably because WW2 formation logic is generally more straightforward than the variations-on-variations seen in the modern game.Besides, there are literally tons of source material on WW II formations readily available to an interested reader, but very little on modern formations and almost none that is really up to date. It exists, but unless you work at the Pentagon or its foreign equivalent, you might have to search a long time to find it.Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnarly Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Many thanks @Holman and @Michael_Emrys 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vencini Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) HelloI see Mr. Marco Bergman among the tester's team. Does this mean that Battlefront will include his silhouettes mod ?Regards Edited January 13, 2016 by Vencini 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.