Bullethead

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Oh, and the site stated that each round would be 350 kg's...that's over half a ton I believe. Wonder how long it would take for the thing to reload.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Assuming the naval guns came with their naval mountings, not very long at all. When mounted in ships with ammo hoists, power loading trays, and power rammers, these guns could shoot 2 rounds per minute easy. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Tiger that has to be the UGLIEST,Most EXPENSIVE tank that the Americans ever tried to produce<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Bah, the T10 Mine Exploder's got this thing beat on both counts ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

I can see 1 good reason for having ragtop TDs, provided you accept the whole US TD concept as unavoidable. The US TD doctrine was to use TDs as a defense against enemy tank attacks. Because attackers usually outnumber defenders, to stop the attack the TDs would have to kill more tanks during the battle than the tanks killed TDs. One way of achieving this would be to enable the TDs to spot and engaged tanks quicker than vice versa. So if you had the whole crew poking their heads up looking for targets, you'd have an advantage over tanks with just 1 crewman at most unbuttoned. This is just a guess. But a piece of thin armor over the turret wouldn't have weighed very much, so I don't think fear of slowing the TDs down was the reason. Of course, TD crewmen had another idea on this subject. The one I've heard the most is that the open top was required so they could bail out quickly after the inadequate front and side armor had let in an enemy round . ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Have had an engineer squad within 10 meters for 3 turns. Am I doing something wrong?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I could be wrong, but I think clearing mines requires the engineers to have satchel charges. Do they? ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

BTS said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So putting all game related type questions, do you or do you not think that a vehicle has an inherent worth that should be factored in?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't think so. Instead, I think all units (foot, horse, and guns) should be priced based on their combined scores in the 3 areas of firepower, mobility, and protection. Thus, the price ends up being based on over-all usefulness on the battlefield. If you gave vehicles an intrinsic value just for being such, you run into the problem over-pricing what are really low-value units. For example, look at the MG Jeep you mentioned. Sure, it has a .50cal and it can go fast. However, a single sniper bullet can destroy it, which won't happen with an armored MG carrier or grunt HMG team. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

There also seems to be a discrepancy between the total casualties shown on the AAR screen at the end of a game and the total casualties you see in damaged units. And I'm not talking about damaged units that may have run off the map before the end, which would make the on-map casualties less than the AAR screen. I'm talking about where on-map casualties are higher than the AAR screen's totals. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Obviously, the Bob Semple beats all others mentioned so far. But there is 1 tank that beats even this: The Mine Exploder T10. Yup, a tank specifically designed to drive through minefields. Start with an M4A2(75)W and remove the entire track assemblies. Bolt 2 8" thick axles under the hull, the first just behind where the original drive sprockets mounted and the other about 4 feet further aft. Both axles protrude 3.5 feet on either side. On each end of the front axle is mounted a huge, multi-disk mine roller 8 feet in diameter and 3 feet wide. These roller wheels are driven by a new, large-tooth front sprocket meshing with serrations on the inside of the rim of the inner roller disk. The front side sponsons of the hull have to be cut back to allow clearance for these roller disk wheels. The roller disks in each wheel are separated by thick spacers mounted every foot or so around their circumferences. On the 2nd axle under the hull are mounted 6 star-shaped pieces of sheet metal that mesh with these spacers as the front roller wheels turn. They clear dirt and mines from between the disks. Holding up the rear of the whole vehicle is a third multi-disk mine roller just behind the lower end of the hull. This one is about 6 feet in diameter and the ends of its axle are attached to an A-frame, the other end of which is pivoted on the center bottom of the hull for steering. This rear roller also has a frame structure protruding behind it, which mounts its own set of star-shaped disk cleaners and, behind them, a bumper plate for other tanks to push the T10. Thus, the overall vehicle was like a backwards tricycle on huge, solid wheels. Fully assembled, the T10 was 13' 1" tall, 28' 3.5" long, and 12' 9" wide, and weighed 124,400 pounds (a normal M4A2 was 9' 5", 19' 4", and 8' 7", respectively, and weighed 70,200 pounds). With its bizarre front-wheel drive and rudder-like steering, it could reach a max speed of 7 mph on hard surfaces. Unfortunately, only 1 was ever built But how can anybody not think this was the coolest-looking tank of all time? ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

The Germans used big flak (not just 20mm, but 88s and above) as anti-personnel weapons many times. See MacDonald's "Company Commander" for a few examples of this. American troops (and I assume Russians as well) absolutely HATED facing flak guns because of their nasty airbursts. The primary mission of a flak gun was to shoot shells the explode in mid-air, so they usually had a whole bunch of time-fuzed HE available. And they had to have a high rate of fire to fill the sky with fragments, and a high muzzle velocity to get the shells up to bomber altitude quickly. These attributes made them deadly in the anti-personnel role. The high velocity made for flat trajectories and good accuracy. The guns had highly accurate fuze setting machines built-in, and there were guys in the crew with tripod-mounted rangefinders to help them set the fuzes correctly. Combined with the high rate of fire, flak guns could and did blanket advancing troops with massive amounts of fragments. They'd set the fuzes to burst the shells just short of the target, so the fragments would continue into it in an expanding cone, like a charge of Napoleanic cannister, only more powerful and a lot more of it. So NO, it is not gamey to site flak guns as anti-personnel weapons. It has draw-backs, such as lack of mobility and vulnerability to arty, but it's a very realistic tactic. Only problem is, CM doesn't model mechanical time fuzes, so all you get is ground burst HE. This really reduces the potential effectiveness of using flak guns this way ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Unfortunately, the mean point of impact was 1,252 yards over . . .'" So, it sounds like CM is about right on the dispersion, but most of the patterns should just miss the board completely.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Remember, WW1 and later battleship guns were all of about 45-50 caliber for high velocity. Same idea as long barrels for AT weapons. So they put out shells doing 2000-3000 or more feet per second at the muzzle, again like high velocity AT guns. This means a flat trajectory. Watch a high velocity tank try to hit a target on the crest of a very slight rise of ground. If its sights are just a bit low, the round can hit a few hundred meters short. If the tank aims just a hair too high, the round lands hundreds of meters behind the target. Same thing with naval guns, only on a larger scale. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Michael emrys said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I understand all that. It's just that so far in my readings, I haven't come across many cases where this was actually done. If you know of more than the ones I listed, I would would be interested to hear of them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Offhand, I'm almost certain the guys up on that hill at Mortain did some CB observing but I'll have to check to be sure. However, I do know that CB was a constant occupation during the drive into Cherbourg. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also, just getting the crews to abandon their guns, if even for a few minutes while they take shelter is often enough to get your infantry close enough to the enemy so that he is inhibited from using FPF, or so I have been lead to believe.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> True, but this reaction is generally not SOP. If the enemy has you located well enough to make you duck, he can kill you any time he wants to. Which he will do if you show him you're not dead yet by jumping right back up and firing again. Therefore, the SOP (if the guns can move at all) is when you jump up, you toss everything within easy reach onto the nearest truck and get the Hell outta dodge ASAP. On rare occasions, the brass consider arty less valuable than the units it supports So sometimes guns are ordered to remain in place and fire (apart from the occasional ducking for cover), come what may. This usually results in a lot of dead gunners and the grunts often still get overrun anyway. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

John Kettler said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Here are some real world data on WW II field artillery employment, including registration procedures, ammo types (HE, WP), FO options, etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Very good stuff, thanks . <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The FO then goes on to describe the limitations of gradually moving the concentration where he wanted it, a problem solved by forming a human chain down the slope to watch for the impact and holler corrections up slope.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, I can see this. The problem with adjusting fire at night is not just seeing the shellburst itself, which is easy for WP rounds, but seeing where the shellburst is in relation to the desired point on the ground, so you know what corrections are needed. These guys apparently didn't have time for using a coordinated illume mission to light up the whole area, so had to improvise. They put an FO as close as possible to the impact point, so he could see the relevant terrain features in the darkness, and found a way for him to communicate his observations to the guy with the radio or (more likely) telephone to the guns. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"I called for more artillery fire either by new concentration number or moving from the original by giving slight corrections...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> FOs are not limited to always using cartesian grid coordinates when specifying a target location. The can use polar coordinates as well. A concentration (aka registration or TRP) is a known point that the guns know how to hit. So an FO can adjust to a new target by using a known point as the polar origin and giving the direction and distance from it to the new target. This method eliminates or reduces a lot of error inherent in using cartesian coordinates for each new target. It's a lot easier for the FO to judge the direction and distance from the known point than it is to estimate the new target's grid position. IOW, the FO doesn't need to know where the new target is absolutely, but only relative to a known point the guns can already hit. The result is that the new target is engaged faster and more accurately. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>* Routine use of WP for spotting rounds<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> While in general WP is a common spotting round due to its high visibility, I think the circumstances here were far from routine procedurally . <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>* Target coordinates precomputed; even with empty guns, time to receive fire = load time + time of flight after fire command received<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think what he was doing here was just telling the guns to lay on target and be ready. When you say "Fire Mission" to a battery, you are in effect saying "you work for me until I say otherwise". Fire missions are not just the rounds being fired, although we tend to use that meaning a lot. Technically, a fire mission is an administrative term defining the whole period during which particular guns are under an FO's control. Fire missions end when the FO says "End of mission", thus releasing the guns to do something else. The time between the initial "Fire mission" message and "End of mission" can vary enormously and during this time the guns may (and often do) engage multiple targets and/or cease fire for a while. So as you can see, it's also possible for a fire mission to start with a command to not shoot, but just get ready. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

If the AI infantry has to advance any distance before launching an assault, it almost always has its grunts wait on the MGs and other slow support weapons to get in position before launching the attack. How often have you seen that before in other games? And it is a demon for pulling well-orchestrated single envelopments and counterattacking out of nowhere. It coordinates its grunts with its tanks rather well, too. All in all, I find the AI a very good and often curse its ability . That said, there are limits to its ability. The AI appears to be designed around having room to maneuver. It has trouble adjusting to attacking across complex, restricted maps, often doing banzai charges. It also seems to dislike leaving FOs behind on dominating terrain and prefers to have them up with the riflemen, where their LOS is limited and where I kill many of them. And in so doing, it doesn't prepfire my likely hiding places enough. But I think its greatest weakness is that it doesn't recognize on-going arty FFE as an obstacle to maneuver. If you attack it on a flank and shield your move with a curtain barrage across likely avenues of enemy redeployment from other parts of the map, you can often inflict severe casualties on AI units trying to reinforce the threatened sector. At the time, you often won't see this happening, but the lack of the expected counterattacks and the endgame map view will show you the damage done. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Michael emrys said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think counter-battery fire usually only occurred in WW II when two armies had been facing each other long enough to locate opposing sites. Then at some point in the opening of an offensive, defending batteries would be saturated before fire would shift to other targets.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> While a fireplan involving suppression of known enemy arty positions is a standard way to open a major offensive, I disagree that this was the only time in WW2 when CB happened. 2 things only are required to locate an enemy battery, regardless of the method used: 1) properly placed observers, and 2) enough enemy activity for the observers to use. While WW2 CB location methods were primitive compared to what I used in the Gulf, they were still quite effective within their limitations. For example, a common WW2 technique was to put an FO on a hill, in a church spire, or in a light aircraft, so that he had a field of view over the battlefield. He could easily locate any gun or rocket battery firing within his LOS. Thus, CB fire was very possible even in maneuver battles, provided the conditions of observer placement and enemy activity were met. Also remember that at the operational level and above, artillery often is the decisive weapon. So the brass put a very high premium on winning the arty battle. Also, artillerymen's favorite target is enemy artillery, not only for professional rivalry but also because that's the main threat to them after TacAir. The result of both of these fixations is that CB fire usually has the highest priority. Arty will often stop supporting grunts to nuke an enemy battery that pops up. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Silencing of opposing artillery was usually only temporary, but may have been enough to enable attacking infantry to close with the enemy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This depends on a lot of variables. Such as how the location was achieved (LOS or flash/sound, for example), how the fire was conducted (adjusted spotting rounds or TOT), how much fire landed on the target, what type of fire it was (small shells to big bombs), and the mobility of the battery (fixed, horse-drawn, motorized, or SP). Often in prepfires, there isn't enough tubes and/or ammo to do everything you'd like even when you mass all you can find. So on the CB side of things, using a few rounds to just scare the enemy guns into moving to a new position will silence them for some time. This allows you to really hammer the enemy MLR and reserves with your available assets. However, on the battlefield, where enemy arty is actively causing you grief, its destruction is more often the object, so things are done differently. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My point is that this kind of tactic could only be rarely employed on the Western Front as it was not that common for the front to be static long enough. In fact only two occasions come immediately to mind...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If there was any shortage of CB missions on the Western Front, I think it was due more to the conditions on that front than anything else. TacAir is the biggest threat to arty by far, and the Germans faced total Allied air supremacy. Also, in the rout trying to get out of France, the Germans lost a lot of arty (along with a lot of everything else), so there wasn't the usual amount to shoot at later. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>One of the four shells was a treeburst, which was slightly short and took out about a half squad of my troops. The woods that I was targeting were sterilized, taking out about 2 platoons. I think I'd be afraid to use target wide anywhere near my own troops...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You ain't supposed to be anywhere near the 14" impact area, regardless. That gun was designed to sink 30,000 ton enemy battleships by poking a large number of holes in them. Consider the difference in scale between that task, and thus the energy required, and poking a single 75-88mm hole in a 30 ton tank. Yeah, I know this is APC work, but it gives you an appreciation for the HE of the same calibers. Don't treat 14" like regular arty. You DO NOT have to follow the barrage closely to capitalize on suppression effects . ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Sage2 said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I was wondering if it was in fact of older derivation: to "lock" or half-cock a muzzle loading rifle in preperation for loading powder, place a cap on the nipple etc... As I understand it these older mechanism used "half-cock" as a safety mechanism to assure that the weapon would not fire accidentally -- my presumption is there was some sort of detente.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think Blackhorse is correct. In the Marines, "lock" meant lock the bolt to the rear, even if you were unloading the weapon, such as "remove, clear, and lock". This means, remove magazine, clear the chamber, and lock the bolt to the rear. As for muzzlestuffers, I don't know how Napolean's and Friedrich's boys did it, but I always mess with the lock LAST during loading. Simple reason: there is NO WAY it can fire with the hammer in the fired position, even if a little powder leaks out the touchhole during loading the main charge. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Before everybody gets carried away with the whys and wherefores of naval gun accuracy vs. land gun accuracy, just remember 1 simple thing: The reason you are seeing such tight patterns for NGFS is because CM resolves naval guns with the same routines as all other OBA guns. That is, they ALL have the same impact pattern under the same conditions of LOS, TRP, and regular or wide pattern selection, regardless of make, model, nationality, size, or point of origin. All mortars use a slightly larger pattern under the same circumstances, and all rockets use another. Search for impact pattern sizes for their dimensions. So here's the question you all should be debating: should CM separate all naval guns out and give them their own generic pattern like it has for mortars and rockets? Regardless of the merits of either side, I don't see this happening. NGFS is only available in scenarios set in June 1944 anyway, so I doubt BTS would find it worth the effort. I do, however, find the extremely tight grouping of 14" fire with the regular pattern to be extremely wasteful. Those shells have a kill radius of AT LEAST 100m vs. light friggin' ARMOR, as determined in testing. So I recommend only using the wide pattern option for 14". And if you do that, you can't complain that the shells land too close together ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

BigAlMoho said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My question doesn't involve losing the spotter, it involves (nearly)instantly losing the fire mission that those spotters gave their lives to call in.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ben Galanti posted the link to a previous discussion on this subject, if you care to read it. But since you apparently haven't already, I'll summarize here..... In real life, after adjusting the spotting rounds onto the target, the FO calls for a specific number of rounds of FFE. The battery then shoots that number of rounds. During the FFE, if the battery hears nothing more from the FO, it will shoot all the rounds, then say "Rounds complete, request end of mission." So if the FO dies during the FFE, you will still get the number of rounds he called for. In CM at present, you cannot specify the number of rounds of FFE, but can only check fire at turn breaks. Given this unrealistic situation, the question is, should CM give you some random number of rounds after FO death? There are 2 positions. One is that because in real life more shells would probably be on the way at the time of the FO's death, CM should give you some random number of rounds afterwards. My position, however, is that it should not. If CM had this feature, what would it base its decision on? It has no idea how many more turns the player would have left the FFE falling, etc. And no matter what BTS did, because there is nothing they can really base their implementation on, somebody would surely bitch that it allows too many or too few extra shells. Even more fundamentally, it just goes against my nature to cover up the unrealistic effects of 1 game abstraction by introducing another unrealistic abstraction. My preferred solution is to fix the underlying problem and force players to specify a number of rounds of FFE when they call for fire. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Karch said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How about taking counter battery fire into account.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> PITS does this. When you set up a scenario, each side has a counterbattery rating, which basically determines its chance per turn to locate and suppress or destroy the other side's OBA. I've never liked this feature. Counterbattery is a complex art (I know, I've done a LOT of it in real life). The main problem is locating the enemy battery accurately enough to shoot it. These days we have nifty radar that backtracks incoming shells to their origin with pinpoint accuracy in about 0 time. But back in WW2, it was eyeballs and ears, and some special gear to amplify these senses. Unless you had some FO up on a hill or in a plane who could actually see the enemy guns, or some specialized flash/sound ranging units, you probably didn't get a tight enough location to warrant shooting with just the few rounds fired in a tactical battle. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Wolfe said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Maybe I'm using my arty wrong, but I often find myself adjusting in fairly small increments (30m~80m at a time to try to follow troops on the move)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, that's not entirely your fault You are using what the game currently gives you in terms of impact patterns and adjustment radius, plus the ability to see into the impact area. I'm just saying that these game features are not realistic. Change the way the game does things, and your tactics will have to change as well. Another real life thing to consider in this whole adjustment thing is that arty is almost always much further behind the FEBA than mortars. So you're talking 15, 20, or even 30 second times of flight for the shells. This is another factor causing larger adjustments than CM currently allows, if you are trying to lead a moving target. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 09-26-2000).]

Los said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Bullethead, I have just read over the topic and your good suggestions though I dont have time to respond in detail now, we will be mulling this over (in fact most of this stuff has already been discussed by us at some point.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's nice to know. It's all I can ask for . <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However the challenge for you is this: You need to do some research to see how many of these points and suggestions would be valid points in A WW2 sim within the contsrains of scale and engine as opposed to how things are done nowadays in the modern era.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Research? I thought that was your job Seriously, I'd love to. Expect an email from me shortly taking you up on your offer to help. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Silesian-jaeger said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How dare you downplay the plight of the Siberian Hamsters, you incensitive Nerferder.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What I want to know is why nobody but Elijah has yet mentioned the dreaded nutria? IMHO, it was the appearance of these hefty, evil rodents in the front lines that finally beat the Germans. Yet historians continue to downplay Brazil's contribution to the Allied cause....... ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Wolfe said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Some really good ideas here, BH. But I'd have to agree with Michael on this point, particularly for mortar FOs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> First off, I expressly stated in my original post that all my suggestions apply to arty ONLY, not mortars. While some of the things I want changed for arty maybe should apply to mortars also, I leave that as an exercise for the interested mortar expert in another thread. I simply don't know enough about these grunt toys to express an opinion Now as to the kill radius and how it relates to shifting FFE. First off, all shells have a kill radius extending some distance beyond their point of impact. And shells do not all land in the same hole, so all around the target point you have shells exploding. Their kill radii overlap and extend beyond the furthest craters all around. In the vast majority of cases, therefore, the total area within the kill radius of at least 1 shell of an FFE is at least 100m wide. This, plus the inability to see into the impact area anyway, is why arty usually shifts by 100m jumps. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Here's a picture (green line points to target; six 3in mortar FOs fired their allotment of 180 mortars each):<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Mind you, I'm only discussing mortars here because this picture also holds true for arty Your picture shows the typical mortar distribution for an LOS shot: the effective impact area is about 160x80m. That for arty is slightly tighter, but not significantly. In both cases, the kill radii of the outermost shells extends some distance beyond the holes in the map. So the kill zone in both cases is going to be close to 100m wide. You DO NOT need total coverage of overlapping craters to make a kill zone ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

I recently posted a suggested method of providing illume rounds in the BH's Arty Wish List thread. I'm sure this idea could be improved, so have a look. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I suspect that WP was so taken for granted that mention of it gets buried in smoke, so to speak.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you read the reports of the German commander of Cherbourg, you will find reference to many of his arty batteries being knocked out with WP shells. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Elementalwarre said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>great stuff! anyone at BTS reading this?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hope so <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>7. adjust FFE by 100m increments to anywhere within 200m of target. 200-300m cylinder around target cannot be targeted. 300+m from target is new target re 7, adjusting FFE: why is 200-300m out from the target not targetable? or did i misinterpret?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Something of a misinterpretation. What I suggest is that once an FO has FFE going on a certain point on the map, then the area in which he can move the FFE should be limited as follows: anywhere in a narrow band 100m +/- 10m from the current point of aim, and another concentric band 200m +/- 10m from the current point of aim. If the FO wants to shift more than 200m, he has to start all over again with the spotting round process and long delay. All the above is an attempt to force shifts in 100m increments, such as happens in real life almost every time. Shifts less than 100m, which is all that CM allows now, just don't happen but once in a blue moon. They are unnecessary due to the kill radius of the shells, and the FO can't see into the current impact area anyway due to smoke and dust. This is why I also suggest the 100m no-fire zone outside the 200m ring. Note that with the system I propose, it would be possible to shift in steps up to 200m all across the map over several turns. However, the max shift per turn is 200m, and the minimum is 100m, and nothing in between. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>these would be changes in a CM patch, thus the limited, abstracted graphics. right? just ensuring that's the only reason for the graphics suggested<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have no idea when or if BTS would get around to doing any of these changes. But we NEED illume rounds and BTS has mentioned they have a problem with dynamic 3D lighting. So I was just suggesting a way to have illume rounds w/out needing dynamic 3D lighting. Whether BTS likes the idea or not is up to them. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>5. smokescreen in roughly twice the time of HE fire mission<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And in the orientable linear pattern I also mentioned, instead of the current "snowball" pattern. ------------------ -Bullethead Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html