Bullethead

My absolute worst: SSI's "Great Naval Battles" #5 (I think)--"Burning Steel, the Mediterranean". My Gawd, where to start...? Being able to sink the entire Italian fleet, including modern BBs, by gunfire from a single squadron of Brit CLs. The way the game always crashed when airplanes were involved. The totally unplayable (due to instant crashes) campaign mode. The incredible ugliness of the ship graphics, to include using the same *sprites* (not models) for many classes of ship. Plus they had nothing below the waterline, so when the ship stood on end while sinking, you saw no lower hull. Microprose's "Pacific Air War" was another total dog. The planes just fell out of the sky when inverted so you needed like 10000 feet to do a split-S. The P-39s and P-40s could out-turn Zekes. The AI had an incredible penchant for mid-air collisions. The ships were about 1/4 scale compared to the planes so squadrons couldn't launch from CVs without massive taxi collisions on deck, and if you somehow avoided that, you didn't have enough runway to take off. "European Air War" wasn't much better. Although the AI didn't ram so much, it still only knew 1 way to fight: turn and burn, even in P47s and Typhoons. Plus there was NOTHING in the air except your squadron and you "date", and if you missed your rendezvous time with the enemy, you wouldn't see anything that mission despite flying all the way to Berlin. No way to edit waypoints even as squadron leader--all rank got you was more AI subordinants to ignore your in-flight orders. Top this off with a flight model that had torque effects, etc, but NO TRIM CONTROLS for the pilot..... ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Just did a test of Shermans in the mud. I made a long, narrow map, lined up pairs of different types of Shermans at one end, and gave them fast move orders to the other end. I did this with both "mud" and "deep mud" conditions. The main results are as follows: 1. The various Sherman models have a definite hierarchy of relative speeds in the mud; 2. VVSS Shermans bog down more often than HVSS Shermans. However, once bogged there seems to be an equal chance for both to become immobilized, and; 3. Among VVSS tanks, those with higher ground pressures bog more than those with lower pressures. As to the 1st point, the different marks of Sherman always finish in the same order, shown below. All numbers are from the CM unit details box. Speeds shown are the stated max, although they were all obviously going much slower than this in the test. 1. M4A3E8(76)W - 32 mph, 37 tons, 11.0 psi 2. M4A3 - 32 mph, 33 tons, 13.6 psi 3. M4A3(75)W - 32 mph, 35 tons, 14.3 psi 4T. M4 - 24 mph, 33 tons, 13.6 psi 4T. M4A1 - 24 mph, 33 tons, 13.6 psi 5T. M4A1(76)W - 26 mph, 35 tons, 14.5 psi 5T. M4A3(76)W - 32 mph, 37 tons, 15.1 psi The "Easy Eight" was BY FAR the fastest of the lot through mud, quickly pulling away to a commanding lead right off the start. In fact, even if it lost time being bogged, this tank could easily overtake the whole pack and regain the lead. The other tanks were much closer together in speed, it taking several turns to really start spreading them out enough to see which type was faster. A couple of interesting things here. First, it seems that mud speed is a function of all 3 stats listed above. This seems evident because some heavier tanks with higher ground pressures were faster than some lighter tanks with lower top speeds. So maybe the Ford GAA of the A3s had more low end torque than the Continental of the M4 and A1, as well as a better top end? I don't know. The other interesting thing is that the only difference in the stats between the fastest and slowest tank is the ground pressure. Thus, this variable seems to have the most effect on mud speed. So it seems that Rexford's question has been answered: higher flotation = higher speed in mud. HOWEVER, regardless of how the numbers work together in the games model, I am not sure the specific numbers used in the game are all correct. For instance, I have the following numbers from U.S. Military Tracked Vehicles, by Fred Crimson: M4A3(76)W - 35.5 tons M4A3E8(76)W - 37 tons (with T66 track) This is because the HVSS and the wider track it used were heavier than the standard VVSS and narrow track. I also have different numbers for some of the speeds of different models. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Have you ever looked at the ground pressure values CM has for the various tanks in question here? The game uses nearly the exact same numbers you calculated here: 75mm Shermans, VVSS: 13.6 psi 76mm Shermans, VVSS: 15.1 psi 76mm Shermans, HVSS: 11.0 psi Panthers: 12.5 psi Tigers: 13.8 psi King Tiger: 14.1 psi So I think the game models ground pressure accurately for these tanks. Note that a King has a lower ground pressure than a VVSS 76mm Sherman Anyway, a fairly easily available book that discusses (rants about, more like) the relative mobility of US and German tanks is "Death Traps" by Belton Cooper (he was a tank recovery/repair dude for 3AD in WW2). Cooper has nothing good at all to say about Shermans and points out repeatedly how Panthers and Tigers were able to move through mud that Shermans could not negotiate. He also mentions the duckbill track wideners but IIRC says they didn't work very well, primarily because they didn't stay on the tracks very long. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

While you never see a morale state message on a CM vehicle other than "shocked", I suppose you could consider some of their behaviors as analgous to temporary panic. For instance, when a Sherman sees a Panther facing it, the Sherman slams into reverse and pops smoke But otherwise, nothing. HQ units don't seem to have any effect on them, either. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

There was a big discussion on the effects of exploding vehicles on nearby troops a LONG time ago. Shortly thereafter, the "catastrophic explosion" was added to the game. These graphics appear to me to represent the usual result of a tank "blowing up", both visually and physically. IOW, no damage to nearby troops other than sometimes making them take cover or be cautious. I think the problem is, most people think that "exploding" tanks function like big bombs, so they expect lots of casualties from its fragments. But in real life, this usually isn't the case. Normally, after the tank "blows up", you're left with a recognizable tank carcass missing very few parts. What happens most of the time in real world "catastrophic explosions" is that the propellant charges for the tank's ammo ignite. This is more of a high-speed burning than a real explosion because that's what the propellants are designed to do when ignited. So it doesn't really seem to produce a blast wave capable of ripping solid steel apart, but it does create a very high pressure inside the vehicle. This pressure naturally vents itself out all available openings, carrying the burning propellant gases with it. But the hull of the tank stops solid pieces of internal fittings from getting out. What happens is, jets of intense flame spurt out every crack and opening of the tank. The heated air rises instantly, causing the jets to coallesce into a single big fireball mushrooming rapidly up above the tank. It's all over literally in a flash and you're left with the tank sitting there, mostly intact externally, with anything flammable still inside burning away normally. The pressure of the propellant fire, however, is often strong enough to lift the turret a few inches. When the pressure is gone, the turret drops back onto the hull, often slightly cock-eyed from its usual position. Sometimes hatch covers will blow off, but usually they seem to just pop open. Thus, there really isn't usually anything coming from the tank except a brief wave of heat. So that's what you get in a CM catastrophic explosion--the big fireball blooming up quickly over the tank and nothing in the way of fragments to hurt bystanders. And if you look closely, you often will see the turret sitting slightly cock-eyed. This all seems quite realistic to me. True, sometimes tanks suffer more damage. Sometimes the turret pops completely off and sometimes the hull itself is ripped apart. But these fates are pretty rare compared to the propellant fireball thing. So because CM doesn't have a model for a totally shredded tank anyway, it seems this sort of truly catastrophic explosion is just not implemented. Which is fine with me, considering its relative rarity. That said, there's still the question of the effects of catastrophic explosions on the vehicle's crew and passengers. I'm quite surprised so many of them survive because the heat of a propellant fire will instantly flash fry all personnel in the vehicle when it happens. Yet in the game, you see the big fireball, then the crew bails a few seconds later, sometimes with no casualties. I can only conclude that this is simply a misleading effect caused by the order in which CM does things. I believe that the occurrance of catastrophic explosions and the crew's fate are determined instantly upon the vehicle being knocked out. However, CM always has the surviving crewmen bail a few seconds after the vehicle is knocked out. Still, I think the game has already decided by that time that some of them really got out BEFORE the explosion. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Very nice ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

I'm currently involved in developing a very cool naval wargame called "Raider Operations". It features both tactical battle scenarios and a full strategic campaign (including some land ops) that will generate tactical battles when opposing ships and fleets meet. The game can be played solo or TCP/IP, with competitive, cooperative, and team multi-player options. The graphics are nothing to get excited about but the gameplay is quite excellent. In fact, I pride myself in thinking that it's the "CM" of naval wargames. If interested, check it out here: http://www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Martyr said: I disagree. Evolutionary evidence is in the form of bones and tools. All else is inferrence from these things and ranges the gamut from educated guesswork to self-delusion in support of a pet theory. But the solid (as it were) evidence, going back over a million years, points to highly carnivorous, and thus predacious, behavior, almost exclusively until just a few thousand years ago. True, people are social animals, but so are wolves and lions. There is nothing that says predators can't be social and cooperative. Also, remember that also until just a few thousand years ago, all human social groupings were small: family, tribe, clan, etc. These were like troops of monkeys or packs of wolves, with members mostly cooperating with each other but waging bloody war on the rest of the world, both for food and in competition with other, similar human groups (IOW, war). I doubt it. They don't live long enough to acquire that sort of knowledge Besides, have you ever noticed that, in general, the higher up the foodchain an animal is, the smarter it is? I suppose this is just a natural result of the natural war: offense is harder than defense. Our ancesters were predators, so that's why we're smart. Don't tell me you've never seen a dog feel guilty about doing something it knows it shouldn't have. Consciousness and conscience are not unique to humans. You have a misconception here. You think that war is per se immoral. But war is simply the ultimate expression of natural competition between human groups. There's never enough of the stuff everybody needs to go around, so there is always going to be fighting over it. Fighting for what you and your group need is, IMHO, per se moral. If you don't fight for it, you won't get it or keep it others from taking it from you. If you don't get it or lose it, your group suffers. Letting that happen is immoral The only difference between people and animals in this regard is that people are "smart" enough to have invented many new reasons for war besides bare necessity, such as religion, personal ambition, soccer games, etc. But OTOH, these at bottom line are simply derivatives of the basic reaons. Getting and maintaining political or religious power simply allows you and your group to feed and breed better. In fact, you could argue that these other reasons for war are a direct result of the increasing size and complexity of human societies. How could you launch a jihad or crusade if not for multiple, pre-existing, large-scale, organized, and "heretical" religions? Most of the time, there are usually several separate wars being waged every single day in various places of the world. It is an illusion just to look at your own group's periods of relative peace and assume the same state prevails world-wide. Besides, as mentioned above, I think human "culture" is responsible for more and bloodier wars than any other cause. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

GWG said: It's quite possible to make an historical, grog-approved movie that even mass audiences will find entertaining. Just stick with the facts and the action, don't go into BS character relationships that have no bearing on the actual events. IOW, instead of using the original footage, graphics, and narration of a documentary, just act out the historical scenes and use impressive special effects. "Tora^3" is a good example of this style. "Midway" is borderline--a bit too much fictional character development for my tastes--but still pretty good on the main facts of the battle. Now as to this movie in particular, it sounds like it's not just about Pearl but most of the early war, tracing the careers and loves of fictional characters against this backdrop. IOW, the main focus is the characters, not the historical events. Sorry, that means chickflick to me, as well as just the soapbox for the film-maker's political revisionism. Plus, it's been done countless times. Sadly, I bet "Enemy at the Gates" will be of the same type, based on the graphics on the web site ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Well, if that photo is from the movie, I'll pass, thanks. That's a Charles F. Adams-class DDG in the foreground with what looks like a row of modern LST bow ramps sticking up in the background. Looks to me like they just went up to Puget's mothballed fleet storage area to film the harbor scenes and made no attempt at all to make the ships look anything like WW2. At least SPR had some pretty believable-looking Tigers. Strange. You'd think it would have been worth their while to make a computer-generated harbor scene with representations of the actual ships in it. Then they could really have blown them up. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Mr. Clark said: I imagine a "high explosive" grenade is mostly a concussion device with little fragmentation effect. As to what frags (or, for that matter, most other type of HE device including arty shells) look like when they go off, it's NOTHING like what you normally see in movies. Hollywood almost always uses a bucket of gasoline or deisel to give you this big mushroom fireball with little or no concussion--very safe for expensive actors be relatively close to. This type of explosion is an absolute turn-off for me in movies, BTW. I don't care how good the story is, if the explosions look totally bogus like this, the movie sucks. With HE, you NEVER have flames per se and, if the HE was contained in a grenade or shell body, no flash in daylight, either. Just a jagged cloud of flying dirt clods that quickly subsides leaving some hovering dust and, if the device was big enough, a little smoke. The explosions in "Saving Private Ryan" were very realistic in this way, both for frags and arty. Uncontained HE, like a demo charge, makes a small, brief visible flash in daylight, varying in color from yellow to red. Shells make similar flashes at night, but these flashes are VERY small compared to the size of the dirt cloud thrown up. I never got into a grenade battle at night so can't tell you what they look like in the dark. As for sound, frags, mortar shells, and AP mines make a very short, sharp, loud BANG. AT mines make a deeper, louder BOOM but are still short and sharp. Arty shells for some reason make more of a KAROOMP, longer and less sharp than the other devices. All of them segue seamlessly into a nasty, ass-puckering SWISH of flying fragments if you're close enough. "Flashbang" has 2 meanings. Some people use it for the small concussion grenades used by SWAT teams and such to stun people in a room without hurting them too much with fragments. Others mean a type of training boobytrap device, usually operated by tripwire--basically just a big firecracker to say, "Bang, you're dead" without even stunning. The English gave a great 'Huzzah!' And marched out to the guns of war. They wavered, turned, and ran awa' Like sheep at shepherd's warnin' ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

People are predators. That's how we evolved and all "civilized" ideas like pacifism are no more than a very recent, thin coat of paint on a creature that is a raging beast to its very core. Put an avowed pacifist in a foxhole for a week or so, just long enough to scratch through this paint, and see what you end up with. Given this is what we have to work with, there is only 1 thing you can definitely say about the future: there WILL be war. In this situation, it is the height of folly to be a pacifist. The only logical survival strategies center around being ready, willing, and very, very able to fight. So I'm in no way a pacifist. OTOH, having seen the horrors of war 1st hand, I don't wish them even on my hated ex-wife. Nevertheless, because these horrors ARE inevitable, and because it is somewhat more horrific to lose than to win, I'll endure them again to keep from getting the short end of the stick. Violence, afterall and despite naive statements otherwise, settles EVERYTHING. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

John Kettler said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Based on veterans' accounts I read years ago in AFV-G2 magazine, it was standard practice on the Eastern Front to do just that by firing first an MT round to remove the infantry, then the armor piercing projectile to kill the tank underneath. Note that this was in a direct fire role<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> While I'd very much like to see indirect MT airbursts for FO to go along with VT airbursts (a glaring omission IMHO), the thing I most want to see is direct fire airbursts such as you mention here. This is exactly what I was talking about the other day in that thread about 88s, airbursts, and "TRPs". The direct fire airburst is a tactic of very long standing. It was noted very early in the history of cannon, no later than about 1500, that an exploding shell, especially one exploding in the air, was very effective against troops without overhead cover. So gunners have been causing such airbursts for centuries. And up until the end of the 1800s, all battlefield arty was purely direct fire, so that's how they did these airbursts. In fact, direct fire airbursts were so popular that in the early 1800s a guy named Shrapnel invented a special shell that gave better fragmentation in airbursts than the standard hollow roundshot-type shells used up to then. Even with the advent of battlefield indirect fire, the direct fire airburst has remained a standard tactic right up to the present day if the situation calls for it. Of course, a necessity for an airburst is a time fuze of some sort. So naturally, these have been available in one form or another for all this time as well, evolving along with gun technology. Up until the mid-1800s, guns remained essentially the same as they were when first invented: smoothbore muzzleloaders. For these, a sort of firecracker fuze sufficed. Gases from firing passed around the shell and ignited the fuze on its way out the muzzle. These fuzes were made with marks on their side indicating either ranges or times and the gunners just cut them on the appropriate mark before firing. In the mid-1800s, rifled guns started coming into widespread service. But the shells for these early rifled guns had external lugs fitting into the grooves, and these were loose enough that gases could still get around the shell and ignite the fuze. By the latter part of the 1800s, however, shells started getting modern-type driving bands for increased efficiency, which sealed off the gases behind the shell. This necessitated the invention of the clockwork MT fuze, which the overall industrialization of the world's powers now made practical to produce on a large scale. So basically, all through the 1800s, guns were using Shrapnel's shells for direct fire airbursts. In the 1st 1/2 of the century, they used the old firecracker fuzes, but then got MT fuzes and fieldguns took this combination into WW1. But by then, improved metalurgy and the development of stable HE had made thin-walled HE shells just as deadly in airbursts as Shrapnel, so classic Shrapnel shells gradually faded away, but the direct fire airburst tactic remained. In fact, it was given a new battlefield role in the form of flak, which originally was just standard fieldguns on special high-angle mountings firing standard Shrapnel or HE shells with standard MT fuzes. WW2 saw the highpoint of the direct fire airburst tactic. There were still a lot of the classic direct fire fieldguns and IGs around using the tactic, as well as flak guns and modern-style arty pieces pressed into front line roles. Even ATGs and tanks used direct fire airbursts via ricochet fire (see thread from last week) using a slight delay on their impact fuzes in lieu of the MT fuzes supplied to other weapons. It's somewhat different today. Classic field guns and heavy flak are largely extinct species so most airbursts are fired indirectly. And although the VT fuze is available, radar jammers can greatly reduce their effectiveness, so the old MT fuze is still very much alive and well. But arty still uses direct fire airbursts for self defense. They start with the shortest possible setting and gradually increase it with each round fired, working the fragment storm further and further out. This is more flexible than using cannister One thing to note about all this. It is MUCH easier to get the fuze setting right for direct fire airbursts than for indirect. This is naturally because the gunners can see the target themselves, determine the range, and quickly tweak the setting (if needed--a wide variety of rangefinders are and were available to the gunners) based on their own observations. Plus, one of the biggest problems with indirect fire airbursts, that of allowing for ground elevation changes, is not a factor at all with direct fire. So IMHO any gun on the CM map with MT fuzes should be able to get its airburst in the right place almost all the time with the 1st shot, and certainly by the second. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Normally, regardless of situation, the order in which I pick units is artillery (almost always includes TRPs), infantry, armor. This is because I view artillery as the decisive weapon, infantry as the exploiter of artillery's success, and tanks as support for infantry. Any points left over go into the "support" category, almost always for a couple of snipers, followed by something mission-specific like ATGs or flamethrowers. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matthew_Ridgeway: Conversely the best riflemen in the world couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn at 200 meters with a Brown Bess. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Remember that muskets had no rear sight graduated for different ranges. Also, back in the days of the musket, a soldier's skill was rated on his ability to perform the steps of loading his weapon and marching in formation. His firing training was rigidly confined to firing exactly parallel with the ground regardless of range (nobody back then except artillerymen paying any attention to ballistic trajectories), and the sergeants made sure he developed muscle memory for this point of aim by using his spontoon to keep his squad's muskets from pointing up too high. So the ball starts out about 5' above the ground (shoulder height). It then accelerates downward just like any other falling object. Thus, a ball fired parallel to the ground from about 5' up will hit the ground about 1/2 second after it was fired. (D = 1/2A(T^2) + VoT + So) The horizontal distance the ball travels is thus a function of its muzzle velocity and how far it can go in that 1/2 second before it hits the ground. Muskets fired subsonic balls, so assume a max muzzle velocity of 1000fps. Ignoring speed loss in flight, this means the ball would only travel 500' before hitting the ground. Thus, because 200m is over 600 feet, the ball would hit the ground due to ignorance of ballistics long before it reached the broad side of it, even assuming probably a higher-than-actual muzzle velocity. Thus the oft-cited statement above, solidly based on both mucho battle experience and contemporary tests by trained troops at battalion-sized paper targets, fails to appreciate the fact that given the marksmanship training of the day, 200m was simply beyond the ABSOLUTE, not just the effective, range of the musket. The fact that a few hit were obtained at this range anyway indicates some troops aimed higher than they were supposed to ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria. [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 01-19-2001).] [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 01-19-2001).]

As a long-time advocate of the inclusion of MT fuzes in CM, I'd like to point out just how extremely prevalent they were. MT fuzes had been around for like 60-80 years by the time of WW2, and even then simply replaced burning fuzes cut to length, which had been in widespread use since at least the 1500s. As an example of the sheer ubiquity of MT fuzes in WW2, take the German arsenal. The short story is that except for PAKs, light flak, the monster railroad guns, and for some reason the 15cm sIG, every single German weapon that could be classed as arty under the broadest sense had MT fuzes as standard equipment. This even includes coast defense weapons ranging from pre-WW1 antiques to modern 15" left over from the Bismarck program, neither of which needed MT fuzes for their original naval use. So hopefully someday we'll see MT fuzes in a CM game. Maybe not CM1, but I sure hope by CM2. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria. [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 01-19-2001).]

rexford said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Accuracy depends on alot of factors and velocity, or scatter or penetration alone can be misleading in certain cases.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You listed all those technical factors, but you omitted the most important factor of all--the gunner. You seem to assume that a given gun firing a given ammo will always either hit or miss depending on some mathematical formula. This might be true for a static gun bolted to a test frame firing at a paper target at a fixed range. However, this is NOT true when there's a gunner with control over the piece. Therefore, IMHO, most of the technicalities you mention here have very little bearing on how the gun will perform in combat with somebody behind the sights who can actively compensate for the gun's performance. The worst gunner can always manage to make the most accurate gun miss. And vice versa. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria. [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 01-19-2001).]

I thought everybody used guns on the attack. After all, how else do you soften up the enemy line for your assault columns of gleaming bayonets, but with a grand battery of all your guns lined up wheel-to-wheel? It helps, of course, to first threaten the enemy with your cavalry and make him form square, thus providing better artillery targets, but the gun is still the decisive weapon. Vive l'Empereur! Seriously, I like to play Brits and when you buy a complete Brit battalion, you get 6 6pdrs with carriers to tow them whether you want them or not. If you're attacking, they don't usually do you much good in the rear so I send them forward to support the grunts and use them in the approved Napoleanic manner. Their puny shells don't do much damage to dug-in grunts but neither does the 2" mortar. Plus the 6pdr is much more likely to hit close enough to catch the enemy in its tiny blast radius than the 2" mortar, and can fire from a useful distance back. Besides, if the enemy sends up armor in support, I'll be ready for it. At the very least, the enemy might waste some arty ammo on them instead of my grunts But the main thing is, it's just cool to use guns in the Napoleanic tradition in a WW2 battle . ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Fun night for the fire department. I observe the fire has spread already to neighboring trees Oh well, the city budget just took a hit for AFFF foam resupply no doubt. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

The use of German flak guns to fire airbursts at ground targets is well-documented. No surprise, considering they had more time fuzes for their HE than impact, given the guns' main role. This is the main reason US grunts hated the 88 and other big flak guns so much. For an example of being on the receiving end of this, read MacDonald's Company Commander. The 8.8cm Flak 18, 36, and 37 all used the Zeit Z S/30 family of time fuzes. These fuzes had a maximum running time of 30 seconds (hence the S/30). Like all German time fuzes, these were set using a hand-cranked device that was so accurate that there were no time markings on the fuzes. As to how the Germans would set these fuzes to burst at the right place relative to the target, they had tables showing what fuze setting to use at a given range. Thus, the real question was determining the range. For this, there were at least 2 main methods: by pure eyeball and using an optical rangefinder, which was a standard piece of equipment for big flak guns. Either method would probably result in firing a few shots and tweaking the fuze setting based on observation to get the setting optimized. However, this would only take a few seconds due to the high ROF of the gun and its muzzle velocity. So IMHO, guns like the 88 Flak should be able to shoot airbursts anywhere on the map very rapidly. If they had a TRP-like thing you there, they'd be able to do it even quicker because, like an arty TRP, all this would be is a marker showing where you've already got the range and fuze settings figured. BTW, just to make sure we're on the same wavelength, any TRP-like thing used by an 88 should be totally separate and distinct from an arty TRP. They would be created by different people on different communications nets for entirely different purposes. The thing the 88 would use would be much more akin to an HMG's recording its T&E settings to hit various places in its sector of fire or for its PDF. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Seeing how BTS is going do CM3 in North Africa and Italy anyway, why not do your mods on something BTS is afraid to do? Like the PTO or CBI? ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Tiger said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Bullethead, I wrote "you won't be able to make a straight line defensive position" meant just that. I assumed you're thinking that whenever an enemy unit got past any irregular part of your line that means your flanked, hence I shouldn't have had my tank "so far forward that it would fire at enemy infantry on its flank."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK, we weren't on the same page. Gotcha now. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>When you issue a move command, your unit is supposed to execute that move, without actively looking for targets (i.e. to the sides and rear). The hunt command is used to have your unit move in the direction you indicate, actively searching for something to shoot at, I assume at any angle to its advance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That was also my original understanding. However, just based on game observations over the last few versions (i.e., after I'd become familiar enough with CM to look for this sort of thing), it does seem to me that these commands actually work as I described in my last post. That is, tanks are more likely to ignore things that aren't more or less in front of them when you give them Hunt as opposed to Move. Thus I've been using Hunt to help keep tanks and turrets pointed the way I want to for some time, when I have doubts that they will do so otherwise. Besides, Hunt covers ground faster than Move, and I like that But I haven't made a test scenario to see if there's really the difference I think there is. So your mileage may vary. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

I said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>OTOH, if the potential flanking positions are too far to the side to actually walk grunts through without unduly diluting your schwerepunkt, you should use a smokescreen to block all distant LOS to your exposed flank.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Jeff Heidman said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Oh, so now we should drop kilometer long smokescreens to screen off all potential enemy forces ffrom our own stupid troops who are too dumb to let the flank security deal with the flanks?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmm, I seem to recall such smokescreens being done in real life, in several different wars, including the one I fought. But if you don't have that much smoke available, then pick a different avenue of approach with less-exposed flanks. If even this isn't possible, at least don't cross the open ground in a formation that is intended to focus your firepower on your flanks if that's not what you want. In any case, all these things are within your control. They are perfectly sound tactics from the real world and by using them, you are not only playing realistically and well, but are also protecting yourself from both gamey hull rotation exploitation and any lack of fire sector discipline inherent in the AI. If you fail to use these tools, don't complain when your tanks die. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is ridiculous. You do not just randomly start dropping smoke liek that because you are concnerned that if you do not your vanguard might decide to turn his hull perpendicular to the spot where he knows there are enenmy AT assets.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, you drop "random" smoke because FOW prevents you from knowing with absolute certainty, until you actually have somebody walk over the ground, that there are no real threats on your flank, and you know your enemy would love to flank you. Oh wait, I forgot. You always do everything "*perfectly correct*" so it doesn't matter if there are threats there or not <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You are contriving some fantasy-land field manual situation and then demanding that anyone who cannot fulfill those criteria is a poor tactician and deserves whatever ridiculous result the TacAI hands him.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's more realistic than approaching the battle with an "I am perfect" attitude like you seem to do. I said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you are on the defense, you should certainly know that the main tactic of the attacker is the envelopment...You have 2 main options to defeat this tactic: smash the flanking force BEFORE it reaches your flank, or fall back to your alternate position BEFORE you are enveloped.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Jeff Heidman said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Not even REMOTELY!!!! The very best tactic is to set an ambush, let the flamking force close in, and wipe it out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmm, I think I said one of your options is to "smash the flanking force BEFORE it reaches your flank." But maybe I didn't. I better check the above quoted paragraph, the time you quoted it yourself, and my original post... (later) Yup, that's what I said. I guess reading comprehension is another of your weak areas. So field manuals, whether "fantasy-land" or not, won't do you any good. Oh well, not my problem <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I suggest you go spend some more time playing and less time reading the Idiots Guide to Small Unit Tactics.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I suggest you look at our respective results. My tanks don't die like yours do. Hmmm, so who needs to read "Idiots (sic) Guide to Small Unit Tactics"? Oh wait, you can't comprehend what you read. Oh well... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You cannot possible determine that tactically validity of any action based on some pat little forumla.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Funny, but that's exactly what all the great generals and the military writers they learn from have been doing for thousands of years. Seems to work for them. But if you want to buck the system, go right ahead ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

I said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It's all a question of geometry. The ONLY way it's AT ALL possible to turn away from something on your front to something on your flank is if you have something on your flank to begin with...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Jeff Heidman said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is utter BS. You clearly no nothing about real world tactics.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I dunno 'bout that. I managed to fight a real war, live through it, not kill any of my troops, and win, which is a lot more than I can say for the badguys I met. I also "no" how to spell "know" <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The idea that all battlefields are so neat and pat that anytime you get flanked its your fault, and then we can excuse terrible decisions making on the part of the TacAI is total crap.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I guess you're doomed to a life of utter frustration due to the sheer inability to recognize the possibility of your own mistakes. Oh well, not my problem. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The battlefield is not a perfect place. There are no absolutes, and it is very common to do exactly the right thing and still have bad things happen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Mostly true. But there ARE absolutes. One of which is this: bad things are minimized if you don't make mistakes. Letting the enemy get or remain on your flank is a mistake. You'd be amazed how much better you do, hull rotation or not, if you don't let the enemy get on your flank <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I cannot say it any more clearly. In the example I cited I did *precisely the correct thing*.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Unfortunately, the above-mentioned epiphany seems unlikely for you given this conceit. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The tank that turned and got itself killed was in the van of my attack. His job was to drive ahead and engage targets in front of him. This was *classic* combined arms tactics. His flanks were extremely secure. Secure enough that I could guarantee that the bad guys did not have infantry half a click away? No. But secure enough that I could guarantee him that any bad guys trying to flank would never get close enough to engage him.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Let's see if I understand you correctly: you were advancing in separate elements. You pushed your center element, containing the doomed tank, forward somewhat of the flank element 500m away. IOW, your whole force was rather analogous to a grunt platoon in wedge formation with the doomed tank in the "squad" on point. Right? OK, I guess you don't understand the reason for adopting a wedge formation. You do this so if you meet the enemy on either flank and a bit ahead, you can bring the point unit and the unit on the flank to bear on him in a crossfire. So if you were in a wedge formation and the AI made it function like this when an enemy was encountered on the flank, then you shouldn't be surprised. Instead, you should think the AI was performing realistically. Had you instead been in a V formation, which is what I was describing in my post, things would have been different for you, no? Or is all this talk about formations above one such as I, who "nose" nothing of real tactics? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I hate it when people try to blame the craftsmen because his tools are broken. At least *think* for a moment about what is being discussed, and do not just assume that the game is perfect, and any problem MUST be with the player.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sure, the game isn't perfect. But given that combat is so complex, as you have taken some pains to emphasize, it is much more likely that the player misread the situation (especially given the FOW) than that there is some basic, fundamental, and utterly damning problem with a game of CM's track record. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Tiger said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Most of the time you do not have a position that will allow you to set up in a straight line across the map.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You shouldn't want only a straight line across the map. This allows the enemy to concentrate superior force at his point of attack, break through, and be rampaging about in your rear before your units at the other end of your line can do anything to stop him. What you want is defense in depth. At CM's scale, this usually means strongpoints forward, mobile reserves behind. Of course, your strongpoints will have open flanks that the enemy will try to exploit by flanking maneuvers. But you know this, which is why you have mobile reserves. Their job is to come up and smash the enemy attempting to flank your forward positions. And if this isn't possible, these reserves should at least enable you to extricate your forward units before they get totally enveloped and destroyed in place. At least that's the goal <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I gave my tank move orders forward to a ridgeline where opposite sits some enemy armor, etc. that I want it to engage next turn or two. The turn starts and my tank begins to creep forward (move command), only to turn it's turrent backwards to engage an infantry unit(not crew) in the woods 498 meters away.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, this can be annoying. But what would have been the difference if your tank had been using Hunt orders instead of Move? If you give a tank the Hunt, it seems that it keeps its attention focused better in the direction it's moving. Also, the tank moves faster than with the Move command. And when it does spot a target, according to the 1.1 README, it will stop and use the hull rotation thingy. Seems like BTS has built into this command the assumption that the enemy is in the direction moved, and that fighting him is more important than moving to the next waypoint. OTOH, if you use Move orders, everything is different. It's like the Move command assumes the enemy is either anywhere or nowhere, but moving is more important that fighting. So Moving tanks don't stop to shoot, don't rotate the hull to the target, and are more likely to aim in a different direction than they are going. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.