JonS

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio: Back to the post by JonS - the reason why I want to know what problem he see with TRP is: An on map mortar can fire on a TRP as long as he don't move. The problem with the time needed to bring a vehicel into fire position can be avoided the same way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> IMHO, the problem with TRPs is not who or what can fire on them, but rather the rather pathetic range you can adjust off one before time and accuracy penalties start stacking up. I think 20m is the max distance. Really, any adjustment up to 3-400m from a TRP is should - IMHO - be swift, and show a fairly steady decline in accuracy out to that range. In the attack (and defence, for that matter) FOs are trained to lay out TRPs at regular intervals on 'likely' enemy locations and approaches. The beauty of a flexible artillery system such as the Brits and US had is that any target near one of these TRPs could be engaged quickly and accurately by initiating a fire mission at an adjustment from a previously recorded TRP. Of course, to balance all this, there is the overall swiftness of the artillery as presented in CM. 2-3 minutes to get from the initial call for fire to FFE is very quick, even today using similar methods but vastly better communications and computing resources. In Real Life 5-10 minutes is more likely: Time 0: call for fire Time 90 (seconds): first round of adjustment T 120: Round impacts T 125: observer calls first adjustment T 160: second round of adjustment T 190: second round impacts T 195: call of 2nd adj T 230: 3rd rnd of adj T 260: 3rd rnd impacts T 265: 0bserver calls final adj and goes to FFE T 300: first rnd of FFE lands. Now, thats only using 3 rnds in adjustment, which is pretty slick. A mis-read on the opening grid can easily push that out to 8 rnds or so in adjustment, each one taking up about 1 minute in total. For my money, time spent on improving the artillery model for CMBO, CMBB, or CMWhatever, would be much better spent addressing the limited way TRPs can be used, a better adjustment model, and a better range of impact distributions, rather than futzing around with indirect fire for tanks. Regards JonS BTW, FWIW, Belton Cooper in "Death Traps" also makes mention of tanks firing indirect. From a fair ways behind the line, in muddy conditions, on a narrow front, and for a major offensive (into the Rhineland). Not exactly your everyday, run-of-the-mill situation. But, I'm a bit dubious about this book having read it - some of the things he comes out with are ... odd. When he stays in his lane and writes about his job I have no problem, but when he starts banging on about grand strategy, etc., I (IMHO) think he oses some credibility.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurtz: [QB]A small question: Since tanks use fixed ammunition (shell and cartridge) as opposed to artillery, in which shell and powder charge is two separate units (and the charge can vary in size), the minimum range would be longer for a tank gun firing indirectly (since it always use "max" charge). I assume the minimum range listed for artillery is calculated on the basis that the smallest charge is used. Wouldn't minimum range using max charge be considerably longer than when using the smallest charge? QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Kurtz It depends on the elevation. For artillery, there are two elevations for each charge which will give you a specific range: low angle and high angle. What you say regarding tanks firing indirect is basically correct: They had fixed ammo, and a relatively limited elevation range (especially when compared to artillery) which would limit their effective range to a relatively narrow band between min and max elevation. Unless I miss my guess, this is why the photos you do see of tanks and TDs firing indirectly so often show them on a bulldozed ramp - the ramp allows a higher elevation and therefore a 'better' minimum range, as well as more 'plunging' fire at all ranges. Regards Jon

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio: IMO, if tanks and especially self-propelled artillery were/are able to fire indirect in reality, they should be able in CM, too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Scipio, if you use a 105mm, 75mm, or 25pdr FO then SPA can be in CM, firing indirectly. Just because Off Board Artillery isn't on the map, doesn't make them a non-entity in the battle. Their FOO is their link to the battle. If that link is broken, you (or your enemy) loses that capability, then as now. IMHO, there are much more fundamental problems with the artillery model than Wah! I can't fire my M4A1 indirectly. Commando Comic # 5324 showed them being fired indirectly, so clearly it was common practice, so why can't I. BTS, fix it or do sumfink Yes, I am aware that there are better sources than Commando Comic regarding using tanks in indirect fire mode. But what about the completely emasculated TRP presented in the game? Don't you think that's kind of more disturbing? Regards Jon PS. Read what Babra, Michael Emrys and Slapdragon have written. Please. [ 07-28-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: Okay. Then we have to find a convincing explanation for why this one has a splinter shield, unless Bakker@home is right about it being a standard model--but I don't remember it having a muzzle brake. Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The short barreled version didn't have a muzzle brake. It did have a very short barrel, and a sort of flash suppressor (if you've seen a jungle carbine version of the Lee Enfield you'll know what I mean). Because the barrel was so short there wasn't enough time for the propellant to burn completely before the end of the barrel, leading to excessive muzzle flash. Tactically not a great idea, and not a great feature from a use-friendliness POV either. The suppressor made life a little easier on the crew. The muzzle brake was a standard feature on the regular field guns (as opposed to the jungle guns) from a certain date (which escapes me). As for them being Sov arty ... well ... maybe they were captured in Korea and handed over to the Russians who gave it to the Poles? Those are definately some British pieces. Alternatively, the Polish forces fighting with the Brits (ie, the Polish Armd Div in Normandy, and the Polish Inf Divs in Italy. Although, of course, the Armd Div would have been equipped with Priests/Sextons) would have used these guns. Maybe they took them as souvineirs when they were 'repatriated' at the end of the war? Regards Jon [ 07-28-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

But ... where are the pics of The Weasle?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: The center one might be a 4.5" or 5.5".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> True, they are kinda hard to tell apart. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>... is a 25 pdr, lightweight airborne version. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ??? I didn't know there was a leightweight A/B version. The Aussies made a short barreled version for use in the Pacific, which also did away with the sheild, and had a much simplified carriage. Overall it ended up much lighter. But AFAIK the Brit A/B forces used the US 75mm howitzer. The muzzle brake is just to limit recoil IIRC. Jon [ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

L: 25 pdr C: 5.5" R: ?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mace: Blah, blah blah ... stuff like Aussies, ... blah blah blah, Aussies, blah blah blah ... Aussies (and perhaps other areas in the mediteranian that I failed to mention, and more Aussies). ... Blah blah blah<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is, until they got scared by all the nasty Germans and Italians and ran off home to Mummy. And Ethel, the pet ewe. :eek: [ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: Whaddaya mean you can't geddit? Is that java or IRC?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Java. It just won't connect. <shrug> when the internet gods are agin ye...

[mutter]Oh no, another bleeding dingo![/mutter] Ahem. Oh, Hi Mace Great to see you again. Last time we spoke you were setting up an arranged marriage between one of your sprogs and one of ... James'? How'd hat pan out?

blimmin chat won't work for me :mad:

You should have it b'now

are you going to be around for a while? I have some time to kill ...

so, Einstein, where's your email address then?

What I find frustrating is watching a stationary tank fire round after round just behind a target moving laterally. I find myself shaking the screen, screaming something like "lead him! Lead him! Haven't you ever been duck shooting you stupid dumb pixelized gunner!" I find that helps. He still misses, but I feel better. Sometimes. JonS

Simon, I've lost your email address , so send me another email and we can continue. Alternatively, I would be most grateful if one of you kind folk could supply me with tht dodgy dingos e-ddress. Then he can carry on with the arty overkill :mad: Cheers Jon

Try using smoke so your troops don't come under fire ...

Impressive analysis. I await the finished operation with anticipation. JonS

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Coach36: From some research done on the Canadian Armoured forces ( specifically the 79th Armoured Division ) ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The 79th was a British Division, not Canadian. Still, they were scattered all over the show supporting different units, so I expect elements of the 79th worked with the Canucks often enough. Regards JonS

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: Note to self - always send Jon his turns during tea time!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Steady on, old man! That's hardly cricket! [mumbles to self] Bloody colonials... [/mumbles to self]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: I wonder what the ratio of arty shells fired were. I bet it was at worse odds than the ratio of guns. The allies went on a shooting spree with arty shells and actually were getting short of them at the end of the war...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Really? Would you include, in your definition of 'short', having more rounds in theatre at the close of hostilities than had been fired in total during the previous 11 months? I wouldn't. Regards JonS

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: ... we probably would have seen some sort of American reserve formations concentrated in the Mortain vicinity...1st ID or 2nd AD or 3rd AD. [ 07-18-2001: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Um Jeff - they were concentrated in the Mortain vicinity.

Oh, there is also the issue of silhouettes of units between the observer and the illuminating source. Should that be included too? And what about the effect of burning buildings/trees/AFVs? Should that be included also? Shrug. I can cope without it ... I'll fight during civilised hours. 9am - 5pm please, and can I have some toast and a coffee with the morning paper? Thanks. :cool:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947: ... I enjoy fighting at night alot myself. Mostly due, I have to admit, to avoid German armor. This to me evens out their greater range over the American Shermans and makes it a much more even match. So flares would really be super and hope it's at least considered in the next game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry lcm1947 - couldn't resist Don't you think that star shells (or flares. whatever) would defeat your tactic of defeating german armour advantage by fighting at night? Night-into-day and all that. On a techo point ... just how would one model flares - at a reasonable programming overhead - in a 3D environment? If you think about it, its rather a complex problem. * units that are in the primary illumination area actually have reduced vision (due to impact on their night vision) * units that are '00's of metres away can see the illuminated area, but not the intervening ground * how do you taper off the illumination effect as you get futher from the flare *etc. IMHO, nice, but too hard. But then, I'm no programmer

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xavier: But what was the purpose of these degree marking :confused:?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> To assist their use in idirect fire support. The tanks could parallel themselves against each other by comparing the markings, then fire as an ad-hoc SP Bty. BTW: no, I don't think tanks firing indirect should be in CM... JonS