Bullethead

From what I've been able to tell, the ONLY chance of hitting the slit comes when shooting at the side of the pillbox with the slit. IOW, you have to be in the pillbox's field of fire to do it. If you are to the side, you'll see a 0% chance of a kill, which I assume means you can't get through the several feet of unpierced concrete you're facing, although sometimes you can get a lucky hit anyway, it seems. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

From the Book of Armaments: "And the Lord did grin and the people did feast..... " ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Escurlock said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You'd be suprised to see how long propellant burns when not under pressure. When I was in the Artillary we used to have to burn the excess powder after training. Make for one big and very hot fire. And yes it burns for quite a while.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Right, we did that also But for some reason, you don't get this long burn when a tank goes up. Every one I've see do it has gone POOF, unless the HE went off also, in which case it went KABOOM! I think it's because the shell of the tank traps the intense heat, which thus builds up pressure. Kinda turns the whole tank into 1 big cartridge. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

KIA said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Damn straight. Who wrote this poem, anyway? I know I've seen it before. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Killmore said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Does the catastrofic explosion causes casualties to near by infantry? It definitly should.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Depends on what the new catastrophic explosion represents. If it's supposed to be what it looks like, a propellant fire, then I wouldn't expect much if any effect on outside troops. Anybody further than like 20 feet away would probably just feel a flash of heat, over in less than 1 second, with no physical effect. Closer than that? Hmmm, maybe some sunburn-like effects and smoldering clothes for those very close, but nothing I'd say was a permanent casualty. However, anybody sitting on the back deck and enveloped by the fireball would be crispy on the outside, juicy on the inside. OTOH, if this is supposed to be a massive internal secondary blowing the tank apart, then yeah, there should be some casualties over a considerable radius. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Geez, this is fabulous The new camera thing will be quite helpful and of course anything that increases the coolness of explosions is fine with me Question: so what happens to the tank after the catastrophic explosion? Does the usual burning tank model sit there? If so, great! This new explosion looks like a propellant fire, which would POOF out like this and then leave just a burning tank. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

OK, the Tigers in SPR were faked... But what about the Kettenkrad and the halftrack? ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Kurz: Great idea Green grass on hillside Reddened between mangled dead The IG's harvest Tall pines are shredded Gunner blood dries on gunshield Arty found IG Corpse-laden Shermans Like green, moss-covered boulders Lie before pillbox Pillbox is silent Acrid smoke vents through shell hole Fouling the sweet air War god of legend Panther, cloudburst of hot steel Shermans died in vain Fallen bazooka Twisted 'round riddled tree trunk But Panther is dead Ruins of Plomville Sound with calls of crows, vultures Feeding on the dead ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Whoops, already mentioned [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 06-12-2000).]

Sunday I got an email saying BTS hadn't paid attention when I told them I'd renewed my credit card.... However, this email said they'd be shipping "this week" ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Richard III said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Should never have gone off on this OT tangent....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree. So let's get back to talking about boats. A potential problem with doing CM-Ironclads is that there just weren't many real naval battles from 1866 until 1904. Lissa, a few South American things, a Spanish rebellion, the bombardment of Alexandria, and that's about it. So pretty much all scenarios outside "The War of Conflicting Names" would have to be hypothetical or involve extremely obscure ships. Anybody got a problem with that? ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have a question. Maybe one of you history buffs can help me out. I was under the impression that sucession was allowed by the constitution until the civil war came about.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The pre-1861 prevailing legal opinion, from the Supreme Court and even Lincoln, was that secession was perfectly legal, although not mentioned in the Constitution. In fact, many states had joined the US with contracts containing an express escape clause if they didn't like it once they were in, and such things were considered valid. Therefore, the CSA was, according the the US legal theorists of the day, a perfectly legit and separate country. Unfortunately, theory and practice are 2 different things. What do politicians always do when faced with unpleasant legal realities? They toss out the law and do what they want to. Thus we had the bloodiest war in our history. To justify the prosecution thereof, the USA had to characterize it as the Civil War, rather than the War Between the States or, most accurately, the War of Northern Aggression. Like Stalin said, political power comes from the barrel of a gun. And the USA won, so it got to write the history books and impose new rules on how the USA's federal system would be structured. Thus we have so many folks today who don't think the CSA was legit, etc. Really a sad case of revisionist history, especially considering the overwhelming increase of federal power stemming from this period at the expense of state sovereignty, no matter what state you come from. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Crapgame said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How big are those submunitions that caused that to happen???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not big at all. They were about the size and shape of tuna cans. Each contained a shaped charge. When one landed on the top of a vehicle, this would blow a lance of plasma and molten metal inside. If this came in contact with the ammo, KABOOM! If it didn't, then the top of the vehicle would just have some small holes in it and whatever was below would be damaged (engine, crew, etc.) Thomasj said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I believe that turret popping in WWII happened mostly under the same conditions as the Gulf War and other military encounters. Mostly it took the caliber and velocity of large guns/artillery 155mm and bombs. If you look at most of the Iraqi tanks that were destroyed by AG “Air to Ground” missiles “IE. Hellfire” or 155mm artillery on a flat trajectory used as LOS antitank guns and not indirect fire, and indirect artillery that scored a direct hit on the deck plate that their turrets were more than just removed, and rather sometimes quite a distance from the impact area<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This situation isn't a secondary. A really big HE explosion on the outside of a turret sometimes has enough force to knock a turret off its mountings, even completely off the vehicle. It happens because turrets are mostly held in place by their own weight, so any force large enough to move a turret can pretty easily break the few bolts locking it down. Internal secondaries blow off turrets for the same reasons, but have the advantage that the explosion is contained in the hull at least partially, so it's more like popping a cork than hitting a golf ball. Mark IV said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It should occur at random intervals within a minute or 2 after the hit. An M4 might brew with a fuel fire for a bit before the ammo rack is heated and served.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't entirely agree. In my experience, if the turret comes all or partially off, it almost always happens immediately with the fatal hit. This is the only time large external forces can do it. It's also the best time for a large propellant fire which, due to its extremely high heat, has the best chance of setting off internal HE rounds. Fuel fires have cooked off HE--it's happened a lot on aircraft carriers, for example. However, in such cases, the bombs have been totally awash in massive amounts of burning fuel for a fairly long time, allowing the large amount of heat required to explode the HE to build up. Vehicles don't seem to contain enough fuel for this to occur. Of course, fuzed shells cook off easier, because the fuzes and detonators cook off at lower temps and then set off the HE. And most vehicle ammo is fuzed in the ready racks already. However, even this takes some doing (shell fuzes are designed to withstand being fired from cannon, after all). Suffice it to say that I've never seen a vehicle HE secondary occur from a fuel fire. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It should have the blast radius of a nice HE shell so any cowering infantry get suppressed or maimed. I would not expect to see the turret arcing through the air or anything.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> For a small secondary that just knocks the turret cock-eyed, I don't think there should be much, if any, external blast radius. The explosion is contained within the hull. Pretty much the same for just popping the turret completely off an essentially intact hull--the blast is all going up. OTOH, if there is sufficient HE involved to totally destroy the vehicle, IMHO there should be a very large blast radius, including all the big fragments. Basically, I'm saying it's pretty much an all-or-nothing affair. However, you don't often see solid things like welded or cast tanks getting blown completely to bits. Most often, the hull and turret retain most of their mass and external shape. This is for 2 main reasons. First, the armor constrains the blast to follow the path of least resistance and pop the turret off. Second, tanks don't hold has much HE as other types of vehicles, so the secondary isn't as powerful as that in, say, an SP gun. So I think the current CM graphics and effects for brewed tanks is fine in most cases. Thin-skinned vehicles, OTOH, are usually devastated. They're not as strong structurally and they often carry a lot of really big HE shells. This is the type of thing IMHO that should have a good chance of wiping out nearby grunts and using fragmented models for graphics afterwards. Perhaps old riveted tanks had the same problem but I've never seen one of these blow up. The thing that should have the most effect on exposed troops, however, is the Katyushka launcher. Lots of explosive, lots of light metal for fragments, and nothing to contain it. In the Gulf, we lit up a whole battery of them, including the adjacent ammo trucks (DPICM is a wonderful thing ). There was nothing left in the area taller than 6" except engine blocks, only a few recognizable human fragments, and wreckage was strewn up to 400m. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Maximus said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Com'on, you downloaded the 30MB Gold Demo didn't ya? What's 20MB?? I'm on a 56K too<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> First off, I live way out in the sticks. I have 28.8 on a good day--most often it's 26.4 or less. Second, I wasn't going to get the gold demo at first because it was my understanding that it wouldn't be released until the full game was almost in my hands. Didn't think it was worth struggling with. So I waited more than a week to get it, until it became obvious that the full game was still weeks away. And even then it took several tries to get it all--thank the Dark Gods of Cute FTP. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Mark IV said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There are a lot of great photos of the blown-off turrets. I believe most of them are the result of secondary explosions from the ammo and fuel stew, though<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Every one I've ever seen was from an ammo secondary, specifically the HE/HEAT going off. Propellant alone doesn't seem to do it--the flash squirts out every small gap instead--and fuel fires aren't usually under the turret and aren't violent enough anyway. A lot more tanks have minor secondaries that unseat the turret but don't blow it completely off. Crapgame said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>never noticed the turret actually looking like it is not quite sitting correctly on the turret ring though<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Contrary to Targetdrone's opinion, turret displacement does NOT happen every time a tank is knocked out in CM. Only seems to happen about 30-50% of the time. This seems reasonable to me. Such skewed turrets result in real life from small HE secondaries, which aren't that common, but are moreso than full pop-tops. HE is after all relatively hard to set off (for an explosive) so you don't always get a secondary, and it's not always very big. Mark IV said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Then there's the occasional 500lb. Jabo or the 240mm direct hit. Would a 155 do that? Dunno.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What blows turrets completely off (and sometimes shreds the whole hull) is a lot of HE going off at once inside. Turrets weigh many tons, remember. So basically anything capable of getting inside the tank and setting off most or all of the HE has a chance of causing such a secondary. Thus, arty HE shells wouldn't be very likely to cause such disasters, simply because they're not that likely to penetrate. OTOH, if one fell through an open turret hatch, that's a lot of bang in the ammo stowage area. Also, the more HE aboard, the more chance of a bigger secondary. On the tank pix page in my sig is a link to my Gulf War page. On it you'll see some photos of 2S1 122mm SP guns in various states of disassembly following internal HE secondaries. They range from externally intact but internally ruined to totally obliterated. All of them were hit with the same thing: DPICM submunitions from 155mm arty. And most of them had the same amount of HE aboard. So as you can see, the effects vary a lot even with the same basic situation. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Kwazy said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for them being speckly, that is becuase they are the autumn tile set. As matt said the winter ones look much different<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK, I can see brown specks on green in autumn. However, IMHO that shouldn't be universal. In the thicker types of wood, there's not much light reaching the ground until the leaves fall, so there's no green on the ground in spring and summer. It's always all brown under these types of trees. It's only the thinner types of woods where enough light gets to the ground in the growing seasons to create a green backdrop for brown specks to appear on. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Gustav said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also, in your Ironclads modification, would you be able to simulate more firepower to the sides than the front and rear on Virginia-type ironclads? That would sure change combat, presenting your flanks to the enemy, rather than the front, like tanks try to do.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I detect the presence of a lubber here . Actually, from the time of the galleon up to the present day, ships have always tried to fight broadside-on to the enemy (except for some ships in the latter 1800s when ramming was thought to be the thing again). It's the tanks that are doing things differently Seriously, we're talking about modeling each gun of each ship, so ships with broadside guns would be able to use them. One problem I see, however. Many guns of the Ironclad era had reload times well in excess of 1 minute. Thus if the CM engine was used directly, there could be several turns in a row without a shot fired even though the enemy ships were close together. Which is one reason the ram got popular again in the Ironclad period. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Looks pretty good, dude. Likes: New trees More pronounced detailing on the vehicle such as weld lines, hatches, etc. Dislikes: I think the patches on the ground under the trees are too speckled. Every bit of woods I've been in, the ground has been covered with dead leaves, needles, and branches, making the whole thing brown of various shades. The only green is above the surface of the ground, on the underbrush and trees. For this reason, I think you should change this part. The stock greenish patches are cool with me for some types of woodsy areas (woods, scattered trees) because they look like underbrush and/or grass. OTOH, I think tall pines and heavy woods should be all brown underneath, due to no light to allow underbrush. The speckled brown/green ground just doens't look right to me. BTW, any chance of breaking the modpack up into individual textures for those of us without cable modems? ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

John- Excellent idea. My favorite paper wargame of all time is Yaquinto's "Ironclads". I got the Expansion Pack and even the rewrite called "Shot and Shell." These games at the most detailed level are pretty much the same as micro armor, where you track the results of each shot fired, check penetration, etc. It's always annoyed me that nobody has ever computerized Ironclads. Aide de Campe just can't handle it, either . Having a CM-based version would be most excellent I really hope BTS sells the CM engine so folks can do stuff like this (and make a PTO/CBI version, too). Otherwise it will never happen ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

KwazyK9 said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There are many different models of Shermans in CM, and some definately brew up easier than others.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The detail unit info page for the M4A3(105)s in VOT says "burns easily." The 105 Shermans didn't have wet stowage. Note that none of the reinforcement tanks, all of which are Ws, have this "burns easily" note. 109G said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They didn't earn the nickname "Ronson tank" for nothing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The earliest Shermans didn't have wet stowage. This was introduced later as a result of battle experience. I believe this experience came from the Brits in North Africa, where IIRC the Germans called Shermans "Tommy Cookers". This was a year or 2 before Normandy, so I think by then most Shermans were Ws. But even then, none of the 105mm Shermans were Ws. I think the rounds were so big that to hold a decent number, they couldn't waste the space. BTW, the "Ronson Shermans" were those armed with vehicular flamethrowers built by the Ronson cigarette lighter company. Their official designation was POA-CWS-H1. They were used on Iwo and Okinawa. These had no main gun, so a POA-CWS-H5 was built with the Ronson flamer sorta coax to the main gun. These were too late for WW2 but were used in Korea. Maximus said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From another thread, I was under the impression that Shermans didn't brew easily due to wet ammo storage<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think you're refering to something I said in explaining what wet stowage was supposed to do. As to how well it actually worked, I really don't know. I imagine it had to have helped prevent propellant fires to some degree. However, you'd have to think that a shell going through the ammo stowage area would splatter the water like a rifle bullet hitting a soda can, thus removing it from the area of the fire hazard. I think a more important redesign put the ammo in less vulnerable places. I don't think any later US tanks have had wet stowage. I don't know why this is. Maybe it didn't work that well, maybe the larger rounds of later tanks made it impractical. But this is just propellant fires. Almost all US and about 1/2 Brit Shermans had gasoline engines, which of course is a much greater fire hazard than diesel. So a regardless of what happens in the fighting compartment, Shermans should brew up easier from rear hull hits than diesel tanks. OTOH, gasoline fires are nowhere near as violent as propellant fires, giving extinguishers a chance to put them out. So I wouldn't expect even Shermans to brew up every time from rear hull hits. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 06-02-2000).]

Lee said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Limiting WP use to support fire from 4.2 inch mortars may be the best solution to this whole WP problem. This would mean you only get WP if the scenario designer specifically includes it in the battle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think WP should be available for tanks to properly model bocage tactics BUT should also only be available if allowed by the scenario designer. What I propose is this: Do not put WP into the default ammo mix for any AFVs or even mortars and FOs. However, make WP available for scenario designers to add to specific units in specific amounts. And also make it available in DYO scenarios but in very limited quantity at very high price. The results would be as follows: In designed scenarios, the only WP available would be what the designer put there as part of the overall design. If WP was an intended part of the scenario, then the scenario would be built expecting its use and thus wouldn't be unbalanced. OTOH, in DYO scenarios, if WP was very expensive, the player opting to use it would have to do without significant other forces. This would also tend to limit its use. Personally, I don't see why BTS is so concerned over players "over-using" WP. In solitaire games, how can anybody really care what people do to the poor AI in the privacy of their own homes? If some folks get their jollies from throwing WP all over the place on AI troops, I say let them. BTS might sell a few more copies that way . OTOH, in MP games, the use of WP would IMHO be self-regulating by the CM community. I'm sure most folks playing against their regular buds would establish house rules about WP and other powerful things. Same would happen in organized ladders and tourneys. This I believe would account for 90% of all MP games. In the other cases of 1-game-stands with random bozos, I'm very sure word would get around on this board and others about players who make unrealistic use of ANY game feature, including WP, thus preventing these people from getting anybody to play with them. End of problem. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I was screwing around last night and placed about a dozen anti-personal minefields overlapping each other about as close as I could (usually you can get 3 close together, 1 in the middle and one each overlapping the outer edges) and then i marched a US company straight into the field.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is the sort of thing I am most anxious to have the full version's editor for. Gawd, this brings back memories of Myth and piling up dozens of sack charges under dozens of wights, then putting the rest of my army all around the area, then having the wights mass suicide, just to see if any bloody chunks would reach the edge of the map..... ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So, doesn't the tank crew start popping grenades out the top of it right on top of the .50 cal crew.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I bet that was the Nahfartsungwhatzit gizmo in action But just for the sake of argument, why didn't you instead hit the .50cal team with the Spell of Forlorn Incystment? Or perhaps the Agency of Far Dispatch? You invented both of those, didn't you? Jack Vance rocks ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>All I can speak of is WP hand grenades of wich I have experience. They are causualty producing grenades. Effective causualty radius of 25 meters even though particles of WP can be thrown 30 meters.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yup, and it's also the best type of grenade for use on a pillbox or serious bunker. When the enemy goes to the trouble to make such things, he almost always puts doglegs and grenade traps in all the corridors and air vent shafts. Thus, a regular frag tossed in won't have much effect inside. But the WP fumes will go around the corners and out of the grenade sumps and spread dismay throughout the structure. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Does anyone here ever attack up the german right along those buildings down into the valley and up hill 216 from the NW corner<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, that's better IMHO than going through the woods on the German left. If you can get to the woods in the NW corner of the map, you have a pretty clear shot to the summit of Hill 216. If you get up there, you will either kill or scare away any FOs up there. But after that you can be in serious trouble--very hard to get down from there safely. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm