Jump to content

Dinodawg33

Members
  • Posts

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Dinodawg33

  • Birthday 09/16/1970

Contact Methods

  • Yahoo
    ju87_d5

Converted

  • Location
    Wisconsin
  • Interests
    World War II
  • Occupation
    Manufacturing Specialist

Dinodawg33's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (1/3)

10

Reputation

  1. I am ready for this game. My son is ready for this game. We took my extensive model collection (close to 1,000 pcs) and decided to have a major campaign with the stuff I have by playing it out in CMBB & CMAK. We started on rules for ammo, supply, experience, travel speeds, artillery ranges and combat readiness. We made a map of the county we live in almost 4 feet square. Then I heard the awesome news about CMC. We decided to wait, focus on an Ostfront Campaign, and play it out in CMC when its available. So we wait. So how could someone get the opportunity to test the CMC program?
  2. Howdy, The high velocity guns' barrels last (roughly) about 25% of the life of the short/slow gun barrels. Between the barrel cost and the "off the line" maintenance time required to replace the barrel 3-4 times as often is a logistical decision. US 105mm howitzer Death Traps by Belton Y. Cooper ISBN 0-89141-814-8 The author explains the 105mm round could be seperated to adjust the amount of propellant charges. Each new round came with 7 bags of smokeless powder. Every 7 propellants used equalled a service round. Army ordinance estimated the service lfe of the barrel to be 7500 service rounds fired at a rate of 4 per minute. However, the gun barrels did not fire near that many service rounds (no specific number given) and the entire divisions 105mm barrels (54 in all) needed immediate replacement. Army ordinance were told, and had to see to believe the 105's were being fired at over 10 rounds per minute. 'Weapons of War' Series: The 25-Pounder in Canadian Service by Doug Knight ISBN 1-894581-26-1 The 25-lb gun was not the most powerful or longest ranged weapon on the battlefield, but Doug points out where its strengths were and why it was popular. One point he makes is the gun fired a projectile only slightly smaller than the US 105mm (25 pounds versus 33 pounds) to the same range and with a smaller and more easily handled gun. The 25-lb barrel was also more long-lived. Artillery weapons' life expectancies are based on how many "full charge" (e.g. tabular charges for reaching maximum range as designed without any modifications to the charge or projectile) rounds could be fired: for the 25-lb gun, it was 10,000 effective full charge (EFC) rounds. To put this in perspective, Soviet sources note that their powerful long range 2S5 152mm gun only had a life expectancy of 300 EFC rounds, and that the early T-72 125mm 2A46 gun had a life expectancy of only 200 EFC (e.g. sabot) rounds. Of course, firing reduced charges increases life expectancy and "super-charges" reduce it (e.g. each "super-charge" is rated at 4 EFC for life expectancy computations for the 25-lb gun). He notes that some guns were still fitted with their original barrels when placed out of service in the 1950s. From my own memory, I thought I had read the 75mm L/70 & 88mm L/71 had service lives in the 400-500 round range. While the 75mm L/48 & 88mm L/56 lasted 3-4 times longer. This is also part (yes just part) of the reasoning behind the US Army Ordnance Dept.'s decision to stick with the lower velocity 75mm main armament on the M4 series. They didn't want to be replacing tank barrels so often. Easier to replace the whole tank I guess.
  3. Adam, my apologies- I misquoted what I thought I remembered. Hitler's Greatest Defeat- The Collapse of Army Group Center June 1944 by Phil Adair ISBN 0-304-35449-X The amount of ammunition and fuel required for an operation on this scale was prodigious. Stavka had laid down that Fronts should have five first and second basic loads of ammunition, 10 to 20 refills of fuel, and 30 days' rations, but in many cases these targets were not met. One of the greatest dif*ficulties with ammunition was the transportation forward from the railhead to the gun positions where dumps were formed. This caused a problem when the artillery advanced because the ammunition had to be left behind and brought up later. Sergeant M. Fukson, a technical sergeant in an artillery brigade supporting First Baltic Front, tells how this was done: 'For this we got on Lease Lend sixteen Studebakers from America for transporting shells. The Studebakers were powerful vehicles which could travel over marshland and all types of ground. The Soviet roads just couldn't be compared with European ones. There were muddy swamps and so on, but the Front doesn't run along a main road! So the Studebakers helped a lot.' (6) 6. Interview with Mr Fukson at Tel Aviv. I have heard that phrase before from another Russian source but I don't recall specifically where. With the poor detail of maps I have I checked out some new roadway maps of Belarus and compared them to the 5 Bagration maps in my own books. The initial idea of the thread is getting your opponent to deploy early. And yes standard operating procedure would be to cut the spearhead off at the neck in flank attacks, in order to cut off the supply and the avenue of retreat / withdrawal. Forgive me for bludgeoning Bagration so much but it's something I have plenty of data on, and the Soviet preparations were very significant. It was planned out in several phases. The main bodies initially attacked to a limited depth (6-10 miles) , mainly near Bobryusk, Orsha, and Vitebsk. The majority these thrusts do not appear to follow any significant roadway system. In fact some Rifle Divisions attacked through marsh without any roadways. By the time the Soviets broke thru the main defensive lines the Germans were forces to commit the few reserves available. Thereby deploying early. The Russian exploitation phase then started. (In a way like Patton streaming out of Normandy) These thrusts did follow the main roadways Bobryusk-Minsk, Slomensk-Minsk, and the highway WNW from Vitebsk in the first month of the offensive. And following these groups the encircling and ambush subunits were deployed as the exploitation forces pressed on. The Soviet plan was that the German reserves were already deployed, engaged and unable to react to the exploitation forces as they were soon to be miles to their rear cutting off large parts of Army Group Center from supply and withdrawl So, by now I've abandoned the initial plot of the thread. And I've twisted and stretched it to pieces. The parallel pursuit on a CMBB level doesn't sound logical to me. How big would the map need to be to send 2 companies on an end run just out of sight on an opposing company? If they aren't mechanized they wouldn't be in any shape to fight when the time came. Thanks for putting up with me. Its time for a hotseat game with my eldest son. Dean
  4. Wie Gehts Volks Parallel pursuit logic just seems to be an adaptation of the blitzkrieg philosophy. After looking over some of my books regarding Operation Bagration "parallel pursuit" is closer to "near parallel penetration". Russian forces attacked in several areas each with a relatively broad front. Once the attacks begin to gain ground and tie up German forces, German reserves need to be sent in. After the reserves are commited the Soviet "deep penetration forces" (also referred to as "exploitation forces") attack thru the line on a narrow front with minimal opposition in the German rear areas, keeping a corridor open for other units and supply, with objectives to take rail and road centers in pincer movements by subunits of deep penetration forces on either side of the objective. In my own opinion, I feel the system needs to be on a regimental level or higher. And as for how to beat it- We can debate that for days and examples will be given for a stand fast and counterattack the flank scenario A+ @Bastogne and F- @Minsk during Bagration. Every operation and battle is different with variables in unit size, composition, morale and fitness as well as enviromental- weather, terrain, and even the amount of daylight (or lack thereof) may have an effect. The Russians also say "Front lines don't follow roadways." I have heard that from at least 2 different Soviet sources. The Russians had no fear of going cross country to meet thier objectives. I wouldn't either if I were using tanks with crosscountry abilities like the T-34. And from the limited detail maps I have, it doesn't appear the Soviets followed roadways with exploitation forces. OTOH the Germans during the advance on Moscow stayed on the few highways in the same region. The Russians deployed a delaying force in each village. The German infantry would pause, wait for artillery and/or air support, and by the time those units were ready, the Russians would pull back to the next town. If I seemed to ramble too much please forgive me, I should have gone to sleep hours ago. Was ist los?
  5. Is an hour of firing a day sustainable for an artillery gun? The hour of fire would be spread out across many fire missions. Is it sustainable for a week? What about a few hours or more of firing per day? What kind of lifespan do tubes have, I wonder. US 105mm howitzer Death Traps by Belton Y. Cooper ISBN 0-89141-814-8 The author explains the 105mm round could be seperated to adjust the amount of propellant charges. Each new round came with 7 bags of smokeless powder. Every 7 propellants used equalled a service round. Army ordinance estimated the service lfe of the barrel to be 7500 service rounds fired at a rate of 4 per minute. However, the gun barrels did not fire near that many service rounds (no specific number given) and the entire divisions 105mm barrels (54 in all) needed immediate replacement. Army ordinance were told, and had to see to believe the 105's were being fired at over 10 rounds per minute. 'Weapons of War' Series: The 25-Pounder in Canadian Service by Doug Knight ISBN 1-894581-26-1 The 25-lb gun was not the most powerful or longest ranged weapon on the battlefield, but Doug points out where its strengths were and why it was popular. One point he makes is the gun fired a projectile only slightly smaller than the US 105mm (25 pounds versus 33 pounds) to the same range and with a smaller and more easily handled gun. The 25-lb barrel was also more long-lived. Artillery weapons' life expectancies are based on how many "full charge" (e.g. tabular charges for reaching maximum range as designed without any modifications to the charge or projectile) rounds could be fired: for the 25-lb gun, it was 10,000 effective full charge (EFC) rounds. To put this in perspective, Soviet sources note that their powerful long range 2S5 152mm gun only had a life expectancy of 300 EFC rounds, and that the early T-72 125mm 2A46 gun had a life expectancy of only 200 EFC (e.g. sabot) rounds. Of course, firing reduced charges increases life expectancy and "super-charges" reduce it (e.g. each "super-charge" is rated at 4 EFC for life expectancy computations for the 25-lb gun). He notes that some guns were still fitted with their original barrels when placed out of service in the 1950s. From my own memory, I thought I had read the 75mm L/70 & 88mm L/71 had service lives in the 400-500 round range. While the 75mm L/48 & 88mm L/56 lasted 3-4 times longer. This is also part (yes just part) of the reasoning behind the US Army Ordnance Dept.'s decision to stick with the lower velocity 75mm main armament on the M4 series. They didn't want to be replacing tank barrels so often. Easier to replace the whole tank I guess.:confused:
  6. We Shall not risk another frontal assault. That rabbit's dynamite! When I attack the pillboxes with infantry I try to use smoke to cover the infantry's movement until they can get to a point (20-25M) to the side (but still just in front) of the pillbox just out of the PB gunner's field of fire. I had noticed the issue with units taking more time to eliminate a PB (from behind), but as was noted earlier, being right behind a PB isn't all that great. Now the enemy are in front of and behind you. Maintaining position just far enough off to the side still allows your unit to fire any of it's weapons at the opening, pin/panic the crew, and either destroy the PB or allow more squads to advance and help eliminate the position.
  7. The AAR indicated there are different aggressive levels available for the AI. Prokhorovka Assault scenario. From Page 1 of 33 "In CMC I select the Prokhorovka Assault scenario and decide to play as German. I set the Russian AI to play with a medium level of aggression." In all the CM games, If you were to choose veteran for a specific Battalion, you would not get all veteran troops. Some will be regular, some crack. It was my thinking that the AI Btn and Co commanders would be affected in the same manner. Some bold, others cautious. It seemed clearer to me when I read the AAR that different units acted quite differently. One unit turns the flank and attacks forcefully, then later another unit abandones his comrades to "wither on the vine". Can I get on the BETA list yet????? Still play Combat Mission almost every day.
×
×
  • Create New...