Mark IV

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: The 16" gun does NOT have a 100 mile range. Please quote me a source that makes that claim. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>16/11-Inch Long Range GPS Concept with Sabot The concept was outlined on a briefing slide dated 17 April 1991 and was based upon using shell bodies from the Army’s old 280mm Atomic Cannon from the late 1950’s. The launch weight of the projectile, with sabot, was to be about 650 pounds, with a projectile weight of about 525 pounds. The payload is about 175 to 200 pounds and would consist initially of 248 M46 submunitions (small grenades). The projectile would have terminal guidance using the Global Positioning Finding System (GPS). With a range of 100 nautical miles, this projectile meets all required needs of the Marine Corps for high volume, high explosive ammunition, and greatly exceeds the objective range of 63 miles. Weighing 500 pounds, this projectile will deliver about 10 times the ordnance of the proposed Extended Range Guided Munitions (ERGM) 5-inch projectile. Since it is larger, it will have about 1/3 the flight time of the 5-inch projectile. This projectile is relatively inexpensive with a projected cost of about $50,000 per projectile (including powder). At this cost, coupled with it’s range and lethality, this projectile is a much less expensive alternative to Harpoon, ATACMS and MLRS land attack missiles that are currently being proposed for use on ships. Though only a conceptual design, this projectile demonstrates the capability of the 16-inch gun to exceed the capabilities of the current alternatives (missiles).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://usnfsa.com/articles/techdata/td2.htm You harp on and on about how crappy airpower is, but every single failing you mention is shared by the BB. A 16" shell cannot see its target any better than a 1000lb bomb can. I haven't seen many claims that airpower is "crappy", only that it has its limits, and that its capabilities are sometimes overestimated. First, not even the Navy is suggesting that aircraft carriers replace battleships for naval surface weapon support; the Extended Range Guided Munitions (ERGM) program is designed to provide NSWS with 5" guns. The advanced gun system (AGS) is the long-term solution, using 6.1" guns. These are all gun systems and thus subject to the same limitations of the already existing 16" guns. Second, there are many ways to acquire a target without seeing it, but cannon shells fly in any weather. Tomahawks and 16" guns do not replace one another. Just as we concede that 16 inchers are not suitable for precision strikes hundreds of miles inland, it should be acknowledged that cruise missiles are not suitable for suppressing or destroying large enemy formations. Of course, battleships can carry both... "The Navy estimates that reactivating both Iowa and Wisconsin would cost $430 million. They can both be extensively modernized for about $500 million. This gives us two capital ships for the cost of a single DDG-51 destroyer." http://usnfsa.com/articles/repliestonavyfInal0073.pdf

Major T, you have now twice set up and knocked down the same straw man. No one is claiming that either Iowa-class battleships, nor the US Navy, nor any other weapon system, is unsinkable, invulnerable, or flawless. The battleship is very difficult to sink. That is all. As for the 60-year old hull... is it leaking? Breaking up? What leap forward in full-displacement hull technology has obsoleted it? There are no 10000t warships with the "effective amount of bombardment" of the Wisconsin or any other Iowa-class. When there are, perhaps this will be a valid argument.

I don't think BBs and ACs do the same job. Yes, the AC has the bigger footprint- but with far less power. Airplanes miss, a lot. The more precisely they strike, the greater the risk to the manned delivery system. The whole Navy isn't against the Iowas, either. They have debated this in a lot more depth than we have. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The only thing that the Iowa brings to the table is an outstanding ability to deliver large amounts of conventonal firepower to onshore targets not protected by terrain (NGFS is limited by the arc that they can loft shells).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think that is sufficient, and so does the USMC, one of the big proponents of keeping them around. The most useful battleship role is now one of ground support.

Jeff: I certainly wouldn't oppose weapons development. What do we use in the mean time? We have a perfectly serviceable weapons systems with no replacement in sight and I cannot imagine throwing it away. It costs very little (in the context of USN) to keep them on hand. Battleships are mostly about floating and shooting and these concepts are not obsolete. Iowa-class ships do them both extremely well. They have been retro-fitted in major and minor ways many times over the years. Each turret has its own radar. RPVs provide spotting. The 16"ers are supposed to be able to hold a group 125m deep by 35m wide. They can create 50,000+ sq. ft. of Visitor Parking with each salvo, within 25-30 miles of shore. With 11" sabots they can reach 100 miles. There is little a Tomahawk or a 5" gun can offer in these categories (but they have those, too). Major Tom: Absolutely no one has claimed that battleships are "invincible", nor are they a universal problem-solver. Just like in ground warfare, they are one element of a combined-arms threat. They are one more tool in the box; I would not throw away my hammer because I am looking into beginning development of a nail-gun. The South Dakota took 26 hits from 5.5" to 14" guns at Guadalcanal, btw.

There are no Iowa-class battleships "lying on the sea floor". North Carolina was a North Carolina-class battleship. It was a lucky hit on a weak spot, btw. It still didn't sink. Iowa has better anti-torp armor than NC's. It also has 60 years of ASW development on its side. Comparing the damage to the Cole to that which might be sustained by an armored Iowa class battleship, is like machine-gunning your family car to gauge the effects of MG fire on an Abrams tank. Iowas exist now. The Navy is researching new long-range naval support weapons which will be, it is safe to say, expensive, less damaging than 16" rounds, and a long time in development. One 16" ICM round disperses 656 ICM DP bomblets (as much in one shell as in two artillery batteries). One 9 x 16" salvo = one complete volley of an entire division's support arty (109 x 155mm). Battleships were designed to be shot at. Modern warships are not. Their mere existence in a theater forces the OPFOR to divert resources to a separate defense. Battleships strike ground targets with more accuracy than mass aerial bombardments, without regard for weather conditions, and without risking both planes and pilots (and the subsequent hostage/rescue media circus and political "crisis"). Iowa-class battleships do carry Tomahawks (they launched over 1000 of them in the Gulf War) and remotely piloted video recon drones for spotting. Cruise missiles have great range, but nowhere near the destructive power of 16" guns. They cost far less to operate than aircraft carriers (about 4 for 1?). I would never advocate predicating our entire defense on a 60-year-old platform, but these monsters are a "bird in the hand" with intrinsic value. Anything that the Russian Navy, the PRC, and the US media hates that much, has got to be good.

Yes it would, but you can't. Maybe in the way distant future. There are Reasons. A Search will reveal 80,000,000 posts on the subject.

This is a very inflammatory topic, currently the subject of a couple different threads. The answer is that there is no one right answer. I will re-post my personal approach: If I am defending and the crew is nowhere near the main action, it's straight off the board they go, unless it isn't safe to move them; then it's Hide until I can (and I guess if you stumble over them while they are Hiding, whatever happens happens, just as in RL). If they are near enough to the action and can safely rally to a rearward point (usually a bulding, near a VL, near my CO), I sometimes will send them there. This is when I've "declared Alamo" as some other poster once aptly described it. They go in the building and Hide. This will generally occur in somewhat desperate but not-yet-lost situations late in the game. Then, if some badly-chewed enemy infantry barges into my building, he will get a little hail of pistol bullets and may leave. This fits MY little notion of what might happen in such a situation. It is intellectually consistent with my interpretation of the crew's and commander's psychology. It might suck, but that is my reasoning. If one of my Hiding crews had the opportunity to whack a lone enemy FO, the most hated and softest of targets, I do believe they would. They would never participate in an infantry offense. Using them for spotting is pure BS, as they not only have no radio, but would be far less adept at communicating through battlefield expedients than real infantry. So that is my crew doctrine.

Don't waste points on Tigers if you're Germans attacking. PzIV (or StuG or StuH) is your best infantry support tank if you're going to buy many AFVs at all. They're all bullet magnets and at close range the 'zooks kill the big 'uns just like the cheap 'uns. Lots of MGs and HE, that's what I like in a close infantry support tank. And my treasured little PSW234/3, but always with a Veteran crew...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by retarded_keydet: lol I feel more confused than insulted<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps I can help clear this up. What the poolers are trying to convey is that you are: 1) Stupid. 2) Uninteresting. 3) Burdened with a sig which validates your nick, and as a result 4) Unwelcome. Work on the first 3, probably in the order listed, and #4 may clear up with time. Hope this helps!

If I am defending and the crew is nowhere near the main action, it's straight off the board they go, unless it isn't safe to move them; then it's Hide until I can (and I guess if you stumble over them while they are Hiding, whatever happens happens, just as in RL). If they are near enough to the action and can safely rally to a rearward point (usually a bulding, near a VL, near my CO), I sometimes will send them there. This is when I've "declared Alamo" as some other poster once aptly described it. They go in the building and Hide. This will generally occur in somewhat desperate but not-yet-lost situations late in the game. Then, if some badly-chewed enemy infantry barges into my building, he will get a little hail of pistol bullets and may leave. This fits MY little notion of what might happen in such a situation. It is intellectually consistent with my interpretation of the crew's and commander's psychology. It might suck, but that is my reasoning. If one of my Hiding crews had the opportunity to whack a lone enemy FO, the most hated and softest of targets, I do believe they would. They would never participate in an infantry offense. Using them for spotting is pure BS, as they not only have no radio, but would be far less adept at communicating through battlefield expedients than real infantry. So that is my crew doctrine. What one member seems to want is an Absolute Code of Conduct for Crews and other "borderline" situations, which I don't really think can or should be created, but if you need one, there it is. Sign below and return. I PBEM quite a bit and this has never been a real problem; I've seen a crew rush or two but I killed them. Recommend you do the same.

Scroll down the forum to the post from BTS or click: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/013969.html The link to Windows or Mac is in the first post.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JessRobinson: I lay in bed for an hour and think about the couple previous turns, and how I’m going to deal with that counterattack of German armor around my left flank. Little squads with green bases are running around inside my eyelids. My pillow shakes with blast concussions... I’m the first Obsessive-CMpulsive.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Don't think so. Two pointers: 1) You are not Obsessive-CMpulsive, you are Allied-Retentive. 2) Your wife is a Gamey Abstraction. Listen to the Sound Contacts in your head; she is probably a Tiger Ie. You know what to do....

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lorak: Mark IV, would you be willing then to try and update our game then? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Aye. Advancing mayhem is what I am about. I am Marketing. Hear me Update!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lorak: Just leave a message here f you'd be willing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Undoubtedly a decoy post from bauhaus, always prowling for the willing. I have both versions (1.05 and 1.1b24). I have never deleted a CM version....

Read sober, Kipling is the worst sort of ugly-Englishman jingo imperialist doggerel ever put to paper... but who reads sober? I've kippled since I was 10, read every word the man wrote, and with a beer or two and a ha'pint of something special he positively ROKZ DEWDZ. You can hear the bagpipes and smell the powder in Kipling, lads. 'Tis like giving Germanboy and his ilk a marching band and a tin of gray paint... He (Kipling) also provided the stock for one of the finest movies ever to grace the screen, "The Man Who Would Be King", a point M. Aitken would do well to note, as it features real Brits, with cool battles, a helluva story, and a guy who gets his girl (rather loses his head over her, in fact), and is not at all a neurotic introspective touchy-feely anachronistic somnambulatory and, dare I say, narcissistic, piece of boring filth like TLR, the release of which sadly approximated that of SPR so closely as to completely eclipse that of the "other" and good war movie, "When Trumpets Fade". None of which excuses M. PawBOOM for existing, ceasing to exist, or re-existing. But he has certainly shamed the Saxon/Pictish elements of the 'Pool, which, predictably, is rather easy to do. And this leads directly to my thesis for the evening: Where does this Wildman get off referring to "his" f**king airplanes??? Does he have his own personal goddam airforce? Just what is it that I have been making substantial payments for? Ain't no freeway with my name on it. Is "Wildman" the nick for our new/old Secretary of Defense? The new/old Commander-in-Chief? Did the real jet-jocks let him sit in the pilot's seat once, or maybe loop-de-loop him a couple of times 'til he hurled expensive AF mess hall chow and the concave cockpit dripped it back on his CRT-faced REMF head when they leveled out? I hope he doesn't mind my using HIS internet to ask these questions over HIS telephone system. Thank you for your attention. I would now like to open the board to questions.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Manx: Feel free to either comment on the Sherman family in general<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They seemed like nice folks... quiet, kept to themselves a lot. Never expected anything like World War II to happen...

Print Screens are not saved as files, until you paste them somewhere. They are temporarily saved on the Windows clipboard. If you are using Win 98, click Start, Programs, Accessories, System Tools, Clipboard Viewer, and it will show you whatever is currently saved on your clipboard (whether text or picture). You need to paste screen shots somewhere (like Paint) with CTRL-V or one of the other Paste commands, and they will initially be pasted as .bmp or bitmap files. Then you can resize or, with most other graphics apps, convert them to smaller file formats, like JPEG (or .jpg). The clipboard in Win98 can only hold one object at a time. It is a temporary storage area. If you take a Print Screen, then take another one before pasting the first one somewhere, the first one will be lost (that is, it will be replaced by the second one, and so forth). The "other" right place to Search for this answer would be the Windows Help text, btw, you cranky b*****d.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nathman: My question is in regards to the american practice of using "time on target" barrages and why this isn't modeled in CM? And could it be? (not being a programmer, it seems like it wouldn't be a big deal - just have one FO for all the available artillery and the timing of the seperate artillery units would be the same) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Your average FO represents 4 tubes off-map. A TOT of 4 shells is not as devastating as Goodwood-scale plastering, but you are not normally going to get corps-level arty support for a CM-sized engagement (even battalion-sized engagements). Here's a good one showing much of the reasoning behind the artillery modeling: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/003248.html

Death to You All: I have various complaints, interferences, and complications at the moment, which disallow my regular expectoration in this most deserving of receptacles. Do not despair. I will be saving the intellectual sputum in 35mm film canisters for a giant heaping when time and technology permit. As proof, I submit the return of Pawbroom as an example of what I am capable of flushing down the old 'pool when I've a mind to. It is likely that this unfortunate state of affairs (which is to say, continued intermittency by me, and regular visits by French) will continue through mid-February. For those already bound to death at my hands, your laughable turns will be dealt with, though not, perhaps, in my usual very timely manner. Croda will be inexorably ground into paste. Hakko Ichiu, in the game without beginning or end, will continue to be shot and exploded. PeterNZer will have paid off his back dues to the ISP, or whatever his problem is, by the time I get back to my usual total war status, and we can resume as though nothing happened, which indeed it hasn't. I've whittled me c'pool PBEMs down to this laughable confederacy of dunces, and would be free and clear of obligation if the dullards would only return once per bathing cycle. As an aside, who would like to see Lorak and Hiram bound together at one wrist, with a knife in the other hand, up to their waists in an alligator pit? I know I wouldn't, but I would relish the account in the Times the morning after. That's all for now! Wish you were here!

I will add that I did not run such a test in 1.05, so I cannot make an informed comparison (maybe when I get back from the NY trip). Overall I've been delighted with the 1.1b24 patch. As for tank battles, I did get to see several large mock battles at Hoehenfels and Grafenwoehr during ARTEPS in Germany, from an evaluator's-jeep-driver and RTO perspective. My chief impression was one of mass confusion, with big things moving fast in poor visibility. There was a lot of dust, smoke, and tear gas involved, with flash-bangs from the Hoffman devices used to simulate gunnery. I cannot imagine scoring with every pull of the trigger in those conditions. Of course, they were simulating a Soviet-style echelon attack against US overwatch tactics. My experiments were with stationary lines of tanks. Still, CM seems to have it about right!

I ran a couple more: 1500 pt. QB Rural, Flat, Open 9 PzIVG vs. 9 Easy-8s, all VETS. Ranges from 295 to 371m. Axis: 9 shots, 4 misses. Allies: 16 shots, 5 misses. 2 of the Allied misses were at German tanks reversing. 2 of the German misses were from the same reversing tanks. 1500 pt. QB 7 Easy-8s vs. 14 PzIVH, all VETS. Farmland, open, flat. Ranges from 336 to 411m. Allies: 12 shots, 5 misses. 3 of the missed targets were either in wheatfields or with wheat intervening. Axis: Bunch of shots, several misses observed. Basically I quit counting at this point. I would conclude that there is no such thing as a 100% hit chance. Some misses were stationary vehicles with Vet crews firing at stationary targets over flat, clear terrain in the 300m range. Sh*t happens, especially on battlefields. By the 2nd shot (for those lucky enough to have gotten that far) some units were buttoned or had commmanders hit by the ranging MGs. That would be a factor. Some crews appear to just be more adept than others- that's realistic. There seems to be a higher chance of hitting on the 2nd shot, but the little tests weren't designed to prove that. One observation is that PzIVs burn and explode a helluva lot more than the HVSS Shermans. Nice. As for feeling right, I haven't been in any real tank battles, but I have missed deer at giveaway ranges for no other reason than operator headspace, and they weren't shooting back. It "feels" right to me, with the above qualification.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rexford: In MARK IV's message, were the misses due to targets obscured by woods or were they out in the open.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Some were partially obscured. Some were in the open. No allowance for hull down. So I tried again with 8 PzIVH vs. 8 M4E8, Open, Flat, Farmland, Clear... a regular OK Corral. 30 total shots, 13 misses. All under 415m, most between 369 and 269m. Axis took 14 shots, 8 hits, 6 misses. Allies took 16 shots, 9 hits, 7 misses.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rexford: American tankers taught to aim at mid-point on vertical tank profile, which is glacis, and at close range shots will bunch about aim point. Some Sherman tanks obviously kept to their teaching exactly as taught even when continued hits in same spot did nothing. Germans aimed at turret/hull meeting point, which meant that half hits struck vulnerable turret, half hull, and aim point hits might disable turret by jamming turret ring or penetrating weak armor.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The US doctrine may have evolved. In the July '44 manual, it says: The proper range line is laid on the center of mass of the visible portion of the target. At very short ranges the point of aim may be shifted to the most vulnerable spot visible; for example, a gun port in a concrete pillbox, the turret ring, or a lightly armored point on a tank. This FM (17-12 Tank Gunnery 10 Jul 44) is the most fascinating reading... one of these days I'll have to post what it says about HE skip fire... great diagrams.

I just tried an unscientific little test, with an all-armor QB on a small map, heavy woods. Allies, attacking: 4) M476W 4) M4E8 1) M4(105) Axis: 2) Panther G 2) Mk IVH 2) Mk IVG 1) StuGIII All crews were Regular. Longest shot fired was about 253m. Almost all were under 200m, bulk between 189 and 153m. Out of approximately 34 shots fired, there were at least 18 clean misses. There were 14 kills. 8 Allied, 6 Axis vehicles destroyed. There were at least 3 non-lethal hits (ricochet off a Panther, a track hit, and a gun hit). 1 Allied, 2 Axis survived at the time of the AI auto-surrender. The German defense was relatively static (the Panthers never moved at all). The Allied AI unwisely tried to force a gap in the trees, 2 or 3 at a time, though it was nice for test purposes. The Panthers were closest to the action, and fired 5 shots with 3 kills and 2 misses, before succumbing. The MkIVHs fired the most, and one of them was the kill leader with 3 AFVs. The Allied kill leaders were an M476W and one of the easy-eights. The E8 had the longest range kill at 241m (with 3 misses from that range).

I have a two-name deadbeat list, and I would like to think that, if the bail-outs were not due to car wrecks, there are some in their near future. Set ups are a lot of work and it annoys me to no end to have someone bail without a word. Not that I'm vindictive. My best luck, as usual, is with the sorry lot of cesspoolers, who wouldn't dream of such behavior, knowing they would have to leave the forum, change their names, and mutilate their fingertips to prevent a positive ID in the future.