Rhet

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>One person even emailed me asking for "Schmidt" to be removed since it was (and I'm paraphrasing slightly here) possibly the most common name in Germany and thus would have been common among anti-nazi resistance fighters ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Fionn, You have got to be kidding! If "Schmidt" perchance does not make it into CM I hope you will email me this guys address so that I can personally hunt him down and include him into the next road we build down here...permanently. I've told you this before but it doesn't hurt to re-itterate once in a while. Thanks for your efforts with the names! ------------------ Rhet

Boy this thread looks like a reunion now. Remember the old board with the never ending spiral of good discussions. Remember how it almost drove Steve crazy. Michael, make sure you give that computer a good once over, the Beta should be out soon and you wouldn't want to miss that would you? ------------------ Rhet [This message has been edited by Rhet (edited 10-27-99).]

rhet@magicnet.net

I started out as a boardgamer, somtimes I think that maybe I was keeping a few game companies afloat by myself. Board games: Squadleader(IC,CD,GIAV), ASL, Jutland, Diplomacy, Wooden Ships & Iron Men, Submarine, Storm Over Arnhem, Panzer Leader, Panzer Blitz, Luftwaffe, Victory at Sea, Gettysburg, Feudal, Ploy, Titan, Kingmaker, B-17, Arab Isreali Wars, Star Fleet Battles, Ogre, GEV, Carwars. Looking back on it my favorites were SL (of course) & Wooden Ships and Iron Men. Fun little games: Risk, Stratego, Illuminanti, Cosmic Encounters, Ace of Aces & Lost Worlds. Ace of aces was a lot of fun it really got you to understand WWI dog fighting manuvers and counter manuvers. Cosmic Encounters was a Blast, it was a great game to just sit down and have fun with. Computer games: Way to many to list! I would have to say that one of my old favorites war Empire. It was kind of a cool game for playing aginst someone. I think it was the first head to head game that had a fog of war element. ------------------ Rhet

Dunt da, dunt dunt dunt da, dunt dunt dunt da, duntduntda... (sort of a Mission impossible theme) Way to go Los! Anything in there interesting... like the use of satchel charges? ------------------ Rhet

Pythonisims are all well and good just as long as no one asks to have the Holy Hand Grenade included in CM. 1, 2, 3, 5 I think someone is already asking for the Black Knight scene on another thread of this board. ------------------ Rhet [This message has been edited by Rhet (edited 09-22-99).]

My Father-in-Law was a navigator in a B-29 and he has some great stories. Last christmas he showed me the war diary of his brother. His brother was a B-17 pilot that was shot down on the Schweinfurt Raid. This poor guy endured a whole lot of bad luck. He also took me to dinner with a Pearl Harbor Survivor. This guy was ordered to be a Naval liasion officer to Eisenhour during the final stages of the war. He told some great stories including this little gem. After the Germans had surrendered, he was ordered to oversee the transfer of a war prize back to the United States. This particular prize was a German Warship. When he told me it was the Prinz Eugen I almost choked to death on my beer! It is a shame what happened to that ship. Sniff, sniff ------------------ Rhet

Martin, What do you mean "the patch" is not effective for the game? Smoking cigarettes or smoking halftracks it is still smoking right? HaHaHa ------------------ Rhet

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>he drove into the English column, firing on the move. From 80m. Wittman first destroyed four Sherman tanks. He then positioned himself beside the column and roared along it, firing in his direction of travel<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's all in there... He drove into the english column , this indicates that a traverse adjustment was a minor adjustment if any at all. From 80m , at this range it is just point and shoot baby. Finally, firing in his direction of travel, they probably had the turret set to a fixed skew angle to the hull and just fired as the targets came into alignment. Wittman was a tactical genius! He saw that he had the initiative and the element of surprise (along with the better equipment)and used it to legendary effectiveness. ------------------ Rhet [This message has been edited by Rhet (edited 09-22-99).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Would anyone like to take a stab at the "high" speed issue? I can't figure that one out at all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Mike, Please bear with me Dynamics are not my favorite area. I believe there are two major factors to consider to help you understand this statement. These factors are independent of the environment of your example so we can concentrate on these and not any "external" factors that may influence the problem (e.g. soft soil conditions) The first is how suspension systems work. Without getting into some really technical stuff here let us suffice to say that suspension systems are very effective damping systems. They lessen the intensity of the vertical forces acting upon the vehicle. The slower the vertical force is applied to the vehicle the less the suspension "damps out". The easiest way to explain this is with an example. Warning you must first agree to not sue the author before reading on! Drive your car (SUV, Truck whatever) up to a speed bump slowly, say at crawling speed (preferably in a shopping mall parking lot while no one is there). Note how drastically the hood pitches as you climb and decend the speed bump. Now try it at say 25 mph. (if your vehicle can take it) You will notice that the car pitches up less than at the slower speed. The suspension system is now working and instead of the vehicle riding "up and over" the speed bump it more or less "takes it in stride". The second factor is hidden in the above example. It is the invisble property of inertia (technically put...the resistance to rate of change of velocity). Inertia is a mass dependent property. Going back to the example above substitute the mass of a 60 ton tank for that of your 1.5 ton car. So a tank with it's MASSIVE amount of inertia is less affected by the bumps of the terrain. I hope that helps, like I said there are other factors but these two are the most relavent. ------------------ Rhet [This message has been edited by Rhet (edited 09-22-99).]

Kip, You forgot the third method employed by the Russians to defeat minefields. Marching an entire penal battalion across the minefield to detonate as many as possible. ------------------ Rhet

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They are, hands down, the single most powerful natural event on the planet.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Pixman, you ain't just whistl'in dixie! I was around during the Andrew aftermath. BTW, the Discovery channel shows a program on that storm. It was called "Storm of the Century" interestingly enough. P.S. I hope the clean up goes quickly for you. ------------------ Rhet

We got lucky down here in Florida. Just a glancing blow this time. It looked bad for a while but as it turned out we only lost power for about 5 hours. Sorry to hear about everbody elses misfortunes. Pixman, everone down here needs to send a Xmas card to the people of NC. You guys have been taking our beatings for us lately. ------------------ Rhet

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>'Grognard' is also slang for someone who likes playing wargames<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This quote came from another web site which I will refrain from mentioning. By this definition aren't we all Grognards? If you only play FPS games then go away! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>..."grognards" who like to blast everything in sight.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Kevin, I just tend to think of these pompus people as rather poor gamers (they usually are and they are usually very poor loosers) and I agree with Steve, if they are wrong, pointing it out is important so that others do not get confused. If they turn nasty then like you say just ignore them. A real grognard is interested in learning information that will help them play better. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Don't worry, there's enough real grognards hanging around here to spot any "wannabes" instantly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yup, and thank God for that! Finally, a few funny tests (1): You might be a grognard if... You ever enrolled in a Continuing Education writing course to improve the quality of your game reviews. (Fionn, Martin how about it? Fess up) There was never any doubt in your mind about the answer to the question, "Do you love those games more than you love me?" You have moved at least once because you needed more gaming room. Cannot easily count the number of times an excuse to the Wife started with; "Well, I had no -idea- it was going to take as long as..." You have scanned vacant football fields looking for a place to play a full game of Jutland advanced combat.. full battle. BTW, basketball courts are better You own 50 plus games boxed or not . Some you have never played...but you never know someday maybe. You take your wife to Aberdean Proving Grounds (to view the tanks) ,slipping into Gettysburg (because its close) all as part of your honeymoon and she loves you so much that doesn't notice and you're in Heaven by day and by night. You have played most of your games solitare...whether of not they were/are solitare games...and sometimes you have enjoyed playing the games solitare MORE. You own multiple copies of Panzer Blitz and Panzer Leader trying to have enough boards and counters to do those division scale battles. substitute Squad Leader or ASL here for me 1. tests courtsy of Web Grognards ------------------ Rhet [This message has been edited by Rhet (edited 09-19-99).]

Oh yeah, mines... The first misconception about mines is that they are designed to kill enemy troops. They are actually intended to deny or delay access of a specific area to the enemy. If you were just trying to kill people there would be no need for minefield warning signs. Also the leathality of mines are toned down to reinforce this. A soldier that has had his legs blown off yells and moans thereby further reinforcing to his commrads that they are in a place that they shouldn't be in (Wounded soldiers also require more resource expenditure to the enemy than dead ones, sort of a side benefit if you could call it that ). I brought this up because Brians post sort of indicated that the mine fields were covered with fire to keep the enemy from defeating the mine field. In fact it is the other way around. The mine fields are there to allow a fewer number of defenders to hold a location. He may have not meant it this way but it came out that way to me atleast, I could be wrong about his intentions and I apologise if I am. Uncontested (undefended) mine fields are also sewn. These are usually used in retrograde movements or withdrawls. They are a very cheap way to slow (delay) the advance of the enemy. Combat engineers are elite units! They require a lot of training and as a result armys just don't throw them into meat grinders. Like anything there are exceptions to the rule, but in this case they are usually extrordinary situations in which without engineers the position would be unobtainable or two expensive to be worth taking. DDay was such an exception, without the engineers the number of men left on the beach would have atleast been doubled. Like Steve said, these situations (almost always massive assaults on prepared positions) were larger than battalion level and thus outside CM's scope. As a side note... on the Eastern front the Russian sappers sent mine raiding parties out at night to remove German mines. They did this not to clear the fields but to steal the mines! Russian mines were very unstable and did not take to being repositioned kindly so they would rather risk their lives gathering German made mines than laying their own. Rhet [This message has been edited by Rhet (edited 09-19-99).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>An engineer will tell you guys just how long WW2 engineers took to build a bridge . It's a lot longer than you thought I'm sure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Fionn, you are a prophetic one aren't you. I just so happen to know an engineer that was in the Army and had errected many baileys. I decided to keep it simple, I asked him how many men and how long it would take to erect and launch a bailey that would span 100'(this is a short distance). Furthermore, he could use the existing abutments from the downed bridge (this decreases the required span considerably). He said that if the bridge was already on site and if he wasn't working under harrasing fire (light mortar or sporadic artillary fire) it would take 2 to 3 hours. The one hour range was allowance for other site conditions such as a short or tight assembly and launch area on the friendly side of the river. The manpower requirement would be about a platoon of engineers. In the end you would have what they call a double single bailey bridge (two lanes wide and one truss thick). This is about the minimum you would need to get tanks across. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'll look up some books to see what the Germans thought of river-crossing and pass on any hard data I find.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There is an excellent description of German bridging operations on pg. 507 paragraph 2 of the HGMF. I'll sum up for those that don't have a copy yet. First stage; use assault rafts or storm boats to secure the bridgehead. Continue to ferry troops on the boats or rafts to reinforce the lodgement. Second stage; build a "light" (pedestrian) bridge out of timber to bring further troops across. Third stage; build the vehicular bridge to allow for vehicular passage. These vehicular bridges were delivered from the divisional level. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Those damned engineers !<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry Fionn, I couldn't get to this thread sooner because I was slamming a new video card into my computer. ------------------ Rhet [This message has been edited by Rhet (edited 09-19-99).]

Ken, not a bad try, The clearance was set so that a Minuteman ICBM could be transported to and from silos. All line of sight considerations are based upon passenger vehicles for our highways so no dice there but, many of our highways were built with shielded communication lines buried in the median area. The Florida's Turnpike has this feature. It was constructed so that should the missles fly from Cuba we could still communicate with South Florida. SGT Rock, I'll second your vote for Floridians being the worst drivers. For the same reason . I only got to design one road in VA and that was VA route 250 in Charlottesville. All of the other roads I have designed, or improved are all down here in Florida. In most states it is illegal to operate a vehicle at the same time you are using a cell phone. For that matter it is also against the law in most states to eat or drink while driving. The problem is that these laws are not enforced. ------------------ Rhet

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Could say Gerry Blow a bridge?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Only if he knows it very well No seriously, you have to set up charges in effective positions to drop a major structure. You just can't throw a demo pack onto a major bridge and expect it to turn into rubble. You have to locate the charges at locations that will cause severe structural damage (eg. bearing pads). for this reason I think dropping major structures is outside of CM's scope. However you could design a scenario that if the allies did not have control of both ends of the bridge by a set turn they would loose. Minor bridges could be brought down or damaged to a point where they are unsafe for vehicular traffic (by use of demo charges). This could be done in that you could order a squad to run up to the bridge and spend a minute or two on the bridge then have them run to cover. A short time later kaboom. I think they have engineers (pioneers)in CM but I can't say for sure. I know it has been brought up before. Things like building bridges and removing mines are like you say out of CM's scope but blowing a road block or removing wire should be in there Ah ha! found this quote by Steve in an earlier post on barbed wire <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No banglores, but engineers do have satchel charges<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So it appears that Engineers are definatly in. ------------------ Rhet [This message has been edited by Rhet (edited 09-17-99).]

I am just going to chip in on this tall bridges thing. Now where is that damn short club...oh here it is... the chipping wedge. He sets, he swings, its... up on the green and in the hole! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We are still swearing at the Dutch engineers that came up with that bloody bridge design, or Monty for making such a big deal over it<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Steve, I am sure those engineers are still swearing at the Germans and the Brittish for wrecking their bridge! I know I would. Dar, the Arnhem bridge was indeed a special case and like Steve said it had to be done. An Arnhem scenario would be useless with out this type of bridge. In Arnhem two main streets pass under the bridge near the river. These two streets are the only way to cross the main roadway that more or less splits the town into two seperate parts. You can cross over this road further into town but you would not be able to shift forces from one side of the bridge to the other in a timely fashon. Simply put, you could not have an Arnhem battle with out one. There were many battles that revolved around "Tall Bridges". This is simply because major bridge structures span major obstacles. Heavy vehicles and supply trains require stable bridges to get to where the are needed. Also it is a logistics nightmare to span a major river with a pontoon bridge and temporary structures (eg. bailey bridges)are impractical. Therefore, major bridges are of great strategic importance. Many battles were fought over these "tall bridges" and the ability to pass under one pays off not only for Arnhem but also for others. I imagine that if units can pass under them then you must be able to shoot under them also. This will be important in river assault scenarios. I am not sure if river assaults are in CM now but I think I remember that they were atleast added to the list. I have also heard that river currents will be modeled in the next module of CM. BTW Dar, when you get the scenario of the billy goats and the troll all sorted out, I will play the billy goats if you need an opponent. ------------------ Rhet [This message has been edited by Rhet (edited 09-16-99).]

This topic is kind of near and dear to my heart. As a Highway Engineer it has always amazed me that the safer you design and build a road the more people think it is a race track or a demoliton derby. I have often wondered if the State governments of the U.S.A. just staple a drivers licence to every birth certificate or emmigration card they issue. The problem lies with the way we allow subpar drivers (and vehicles) to roam freely on this nations highways. We really need stricter standards to determine if a vehicle is roadworthy or not and driver testing should be done bi-annualy. This testing should be difficult and should encompass inclement weather techniques and emergency avoidence situations. I used to rip around on public roads with my cars when one day I was invited to race them on a track. I soon realized that the race track was the appropriate place to drive aggressivly and that driving aggressivily on public roads only hurts people that really don't deserve it. I am not saying that speeding is amoral. Far from it! Just do it safely and responsibly (like on an open road with no one around). Sorry for the rant. This comes from growing up in Northern Virginia (17 years) and 13 years of trying to keep the same problems from happening down here in Florida. Now if I could only steer this thread back twoards WWII.... Did anyone here know that the Interstates in the U.S. were modeled after the Autobahnns in Germany. Yup, Eisenhour saw how well they helped Germanys war effort and started the National Defense Highway Act. Soon highways were streaching out all over this country. Today they are the biggest factor in our economy. Ok here is the $1,000,000 question... Why is the minimum vertical clearence for bridges on our Interstates 16 feet? Any guesses? ------------------ Rhet [This message has been edited by Rhet (edited 09-16-99).]

This isn't my favorite quote nor is it complete but here goes anyway (any help from the peanut gallery is appreciated). A. Lincoln after being asked about General Grants Drinking problem... "find out what he is drinking and send a case to each of my other generals" ------------------ Rhet [This message has been edited by Rhet (edited 09-16-99).]

Lee, I was as suprised to read that it was deployed on the Western front as Steve was! I was looking up info for the Eastern Front when I happened upon it. Any way this is a direct quote out of The Encyclopedia of Weapons of WWII. (Steve already knows of this book if he doesn't have it already) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The production Hs 129B-1 series became operational on the Eastern front, where the type was used most widely, although it served also in North Africa, Italy, and in France after the DDay landings.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have a feeling that the author obtained info on some of the ragtag units that were thrown together in defence of the reich. The Germans used many different aircraft for close air support (infact they are almost to numerous to list). The Germans were notorius for trying to design, develope and modify planes so that they could be used to do everything. I have even read stories of them using Fw 189's in the ground attack role. This plane had more glass in it than a window factory for Gods sake! The Hs 129 was a cool plane, but you can always tell when an idea just doesn't pan out. When you resort to "upgrading" the firepower of a tank busting aircraft by stuffing a 75mm cannon into it there is something amiss. Anyway, I don't think it would be worth it to include it in CM but, in the Eastern Front expansion it deserves a place. ------------------ Rhet

Very cool! I agree with Fionn, the Tiger E texture is really nice. ------------------ Rhet

Steve, may I ask to what part you were refering to? I am glad that the smoke graphic will be tweaked to match the LOS boundary. It will help the player determine the LOS boundaries more quickly. ------------------ Rhet

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also remember that what you are looking at, graphically, is a smoke column with its base being about 5m diameter. I think smoke effects are about twice that area?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This sounds pretty good for a smoke projector off an AFV but the area affected by a smoke shell seems that it should be larger. Just judging by the weight of the smoke shell (approx. 85 lbs) vs the AFV smoke grenades (approx. 5 lbs) it appears that the affected area should be atleast twice that area (say on the order of 20 to 25 meters dia.). Could a smoke texture be developed for the shell explosions? If so, you could use a 150mm smoke textured explosion to represent the area affected by a smoke shell and a small morter explosion say 60mm could be used for smoke projectors. Of course the expansion of the cloud would have to be slowed down to make it look right. Just a suggestion... Pixman, smoke from a German AFV smoke projector was designed to last from 4 to 7 minutes. Its just a guess but I would suspect a 105mm smoke shell would last around 8 to 12 minutes. BTW, I think the duration of effective smoke should be randomly determined since wind effects are not currently modeled in CM. Charles has probably coded something like this up already. ------------------ Rhet