JonS

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kipanderson: ... “ As a result of these checks and subsequent work on correcting problems, the opening of fire,….was brought down to 40-90 seconds in a number of units. As a rule, prepared fire was opened in 1.5-3 minutes after it was called for and the opening of unplanned fire took 4-7 minutes.” <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Kip, of relevance here is what they mean by 'opening'. Is that the first roound FFE, or the first round of adjustment? If it is the later, then the overall delay before FFE becomes quite long - especially if their adjustment procedures weren't too flash. Now, from the Soviet POV this 'reduced' delay might have seemed just wonderful, especially if they had been used to waiting an hour or more in the past, but it doesn't necessarily make them the equals of the Germans, Americans, or the Commonwealth. Or even the Mighty Finns. Then again, maybe it was to the opening of FFE. Who knows. :confused:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matthew_Ridgeway: Let's take an example of when most guys would like to have a fire mission. You are advancing and a pesky AT gun or infantry squad is in a building or dug in along a tree line. WWII maps and those of today have a scale of 1 meter = 50,000 meters. A 1,000-meter by 1,000-meter grid square is thus represented by only 2.5 cm by 2.5 cm area on an FO’s map. On these maps the village you are attacking is a few black dots that denote the village and individual building representation is in most cases an impossibility. Your FO, if he sees the target, swags a grid to the mission and calls for fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 1:50,000 maps are great. No problem picking out details at that scale, and obtaining an 8 figure grid (10m accuracy) is no trouble. Don't forget that relating map to ground and picking targets out is what FOOs do. And what they trained for. In some cases for a very long time. Also, casualties in artillery units are, compared to infantry and armour, light, so the individual and corporate knowledge and skill base tends to be very good. 'Swagging' a grid is not part of any SOP I've ever seen.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matthew_Ridgeway: ...I recall reading pre-registered fires used by the British in WWI would walk barrages in front of advancing infantry by about 100 meters. However this was shrapnel type ordnance and was being delivered by 18-pounders (75mm-80mm…something like that)...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Brits/Commonwealth did this in WWII also. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...Applied to the game, the fact that "what one sees, we all see" makes the use of FA in the game even more tricky to model. How does the sniper observer in contact talk with the FO? If the FO cannot see the target or get a reliable grid coordinate, then calling for fire is indeed much more of a challenge...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> True, but a FOO in real life can 'see' more than he is able to in the game. If a round lands in the middle of a clump of trees - in the game - the FOO cannot 'see' where it landed. However, in Real-Life, one is able to see the explosion/debris/plume, and from that figure out where it landed. Also, in Real-Life a FOO is able to use his ears, a stopwatch, and a map (and is trained to do just that) to figure out where a round that he never sees must have landed. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...Elapsed time, anywhere from 5 to 10 minutes IF YOU AND THE GUNS ARE REALLY GOOD, ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, the standard for the Commonwealth in the period covered by CMBO was around 5 minutes from seeing the target to FFE with the Regiment. Nothing about being REALLY GOOD, it was the minimum standard. This isn't meant to start another pissing contest, its just that my knowledge is largely of Commonwealth (rather than US) gunnery, and I know the two approaches differed in some key respects.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: ...Prior to the landing the first fire command to all batteries was 55 rounds at the same elevation. (That is 5000 rounds at one target, folks)...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How big were the batterys? I was under the impression that a towed US bty was 4 guns. Therefore, 5 battalions * 3 batterys * 4 guns * 55 rounds = 3300. If the batterys were 6 guns each (usual for an SP bty, although apparently you would expect two of them to be 'down' with mechanical failures ) then the maths works out: 5*3*6*55=4950. Did the Marines use larger towed batterys? However, in the overall scheme of things, 1700 odd rounds here or there in a fireplan of this magnitude is trivial, I know, and not the point of the post. [ 09-06-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

Wasn't CMBO released on the aniversary of D-Day? Therefore ... June 22 would be my pick.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by vireo: ... It would be cool if the use of flares could be modeled in CM...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But it already is! It takes a bit of finding but its there alright. Works grate to.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: But I don't quite see the point in playing "artillery, the atari version"...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've seen this kind of snide remark made before, and frankly I don't buy it. Why is it okay to go into endless detail regarding amour penetration algorithims, including hardness, slope, defects and shot traps, okay to have umpteen dozen squad types, etc, but not okay to request a better artillery model?

Well, I would gove it a go, but I'm a bit stacked up right now (and for the forseeable future - WB-Rumblings Of War hehehe) JonS

Right. You think there is too much control over artillery currently in CM, based on your worldview. I think the way rounds fall on the ground in CM is grossly abstracted, based on my worldview. Note that these two statements aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. My point about being able to see where each guns' rounds were falling wasn't a request for individual gun corrections. It was merely meant to illustrate that individual gun PEr's are insignificant within a larger pattern.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: Artillery fire called within 400 meters of friendlies was considered dangerously close in WW II.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Commonwealth used a technique know as 'leaning on the barrage' to advance closely behind a moving, linear, barrage. Blackburn refers to the official distance in training during 1942 as being 300yards (270m), and the actual distance somewhere around 2/3 of that. With practice and improved techniques I would expect this distance to be significantly lower for operations during 1944/45.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rommel22: Hi Speedy!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You're Speedys' mum? :eek: Oh yeah, Hi Mum! [ 09-04-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: ...Name me two operational cases in western Europe where instead, defensive German armor, through its technical superiority or its manner of employment, stopped Allied advances cold. I sincerely doubt you can. I can name Goodwood. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Does Epsom count?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: Um, you do realise that the reason the scatter pattern is elongated E-W is because that is assumed to be the direction of fire, don't you? Errors in the range are generally larger than errors in the direction.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> PEr (Probable-Error-range) is indeed much greater than PEd (Probable-Error-drift, though to tell the truth this one is refered to SO seldomly that I can't recall the exact term). But, in practical terms it doesn't actually matter that much*. Certainly not as much as is shown in the game. Nowhere near as much. When firing a circular pattern, say, the pattern of the rounds falling on the ground is indeed a circle. In fact I vividly remember watching a circular distribution impact, and being able to tell exactly which part of the circle each gun was aiming at due to the tight little groups of impact craters at each designated point in the pattern. Its been a while since I studied stats, but IIRC what you are dealing with is the average of a group of averages, which tends to cancel out individual error. In other words, the error for individual guns within a pattern should be masked by the overall size of the pattern itself. Sure, each gun will have its own little impact footprint, but those 4 (or 8 for a proper battery) individual footprints combined as part of a pattern don't affect the shape of the pattern. Regards JonS *There is a time when PEr does matter, though. During adjustment of a target the FOO needs to know what the PEr is for the type of gun he is using, at the range he is firing, in order to be able to make accurate corrections without wasting time trying to adjust within the PEr limits either side of the target. Since CM doesn't really model adjustment (except as a general time delay), this doesn't count/matter in game terms either. Note1: I've used 'pattern' where 'distribution' should more properly be used. Note2: There are lots of different patterns/distributions available, though for speed and ease in pre-digital days the parallel (all guns firing the same bearing and elevation) distribution was most common. [ 09-05-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

try it...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: ... WP ... Its a dangerous round to carry because if it is ruptured, theres maybe a split second before the inside of the tank gets deadly. Another reason for wet stowage! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Lewis, you know that Phosphorus and water don't mix right? Or rather, they do mix, but rather explosivly. Engineers - even static engineers - in the States get taught that, yeah? If you were worried about the likelyhood of WP rounds fracturing and wanted to flood them with something, you'd be better off with oil.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: ... and after my last post just silence? Surely someone has some comment... Sorry for the self "bump", but I did go to a bit of trouble on the previous post...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry to take so long getting abck to you Jason, but I've been busy doing life-stuff. My post - the one you took exception to ("it was on credit, and I don't think the terms were that great either") was semi-serious, but teh bit about terms was meant as a joke - hence the "*...risk must have looked bloody awful too" LL and the Marshall Plan are, IMHO, two of the things the USA has to be proudest of last century. An incredible, and unprecedented, degree of generosity of material and spirit. Thank you. Jon

Hi Mum!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra: ... Everything else was purchased (though I suspect on credit more often than not).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yup, it was on credit, and I don't think the terms were that great either*. IIRC, the UK paid off the last of its Lend-Lease debts sometime in the 1980s. I'm pretty sure it was after the Falklands War. I wonder if the Reds ever paid theirs back? * against that it must be said that in late 1940 and 1941 the risk must have looked bloody awful too

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: ...Having said all that, my only real beef with your position is that you claim the HMG is getting something (FP or ammo) for "free". I take this to mean "not reflected in the purchase price". I just don't see it...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think Jasons point in this, and the SMG ammo thing, is that it is something that can be changed be a scenario designer to better reflect reality (well, Jasons view of reality anyway). Not that it is something to consider for QBs where purchase prices come into it. Following is what I believe to be a summary of teh previous ### posts. So, in a pre-made scenario price isn't an issue. What is an issue is that the germans seem to be able to carry significantly more ammo than the Allies. Now, perhaps the Germans did have horse and trolleys, etc., to carry all their gear around with them, but then the allies had access to the equivalent support as well. Men are men, regardless of which nation they come from. You can set the nominal load-per-man where-ever you like (though I'll be sticking to the 70lbs/man as a rule-of-thumb thanks), the point is that all teams should be able to carry roughly the equivalent weight, or be penalised equally (in terms of speed) when their encumberance climbs upwards Personal kit and personal weapons are much-of-a-muchness in terms of weight, so that leaves the heavier support weapons (MMGs, HMGs, Mortars, etc), and their ammo. From his calculations Jason believes that the MG42 - as modeled in CM - fires less rounds per "CM burst" than other weapons, giving it an unfair advantage in terms of usefulness in a battle. Now, in a short battle, this isn't really an issue - as has been pointed out - because no-one runs out of ammo. But, there comes a breakpoint where support weapons start to run out of ammo. Jason thinks this happens too soon for some, and/or not soon enough for others. Usually, its the germans who are able to keep fighting at full ammo strength for longer because of the way their ammo expenditure is (incorrectly) modelled. And this could/can/does lead to exploitative behaviour with these usit types. Remember, in a QB you're paying for this with the cost of the units concerned, but in a pre-made scenario no-one pays for anything. Um, I think that's it. IMHO I tend to agree with Jasons analysis. Jason - have you designed any scens with your revised squad and support wpn ammo allocations? If so, I'd be interested in having a look at them. Could you email them to me please? (email in profile) Regards JonS

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader: ... but nowadays they are 3-5 second bursts...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Make that 3-5 rounds

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: BTW, I went to your homepage. It has a very nice... background <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL - good one

yep, sure is ... http://www.battlefront.com/cmdemo.html

You may well not need to install the patch ... someone got their copy recently and it was already at 1.12 Oh, and don't freak out when you can't find the CD immediately

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: But we're not talking about "large bodies of men on or near a continuous FEBA". We're talking about 6 men (MG-42 crew) ...[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh, for goodness sakes! Are you really trying to say that MG teams are completely independant entities, who have no relationship with the batalion around them? That they do not move with, eat with and take orders from the batalion they are co-located with? When I said "large bodies of men" I was refering to the organisation within which the MG teams work. If you are prepared to say that an MG team isn't part of a large body of men then you must also believe that armies as a whole aren't large bodies of men, but rather small groups, running around with their insignificant 100lb loads, ingnoring everyone, and everything, else around them. SAS (and other special forces) patrols are on the order of 4-8 men, can be days away from friendly forces, move slowly by conscious choice, answer to the theatre commander, and generally try to avoid contact with the enemy. Of that list I would suggest that none of them apply to MG teams. [ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB: The Brits had in turn overestimated their losses of vehicles in NW Europe so had the necessary spare.....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ... also, I believe, the Brits converted to 100% locally sourced vehicles for their armoured units sometime around the New Years period, which would have freed up quite a few more.