Rhet

Fionn, reading your setup & battle plan really took me back to the Squad Leader days. It sounded very well thought out. I especially liked the town defense. Better to sit back and slug it out house to house. I think it will soak up plenty of time. We shall see... Good Luck, Von Kelly. Hauptmann Schmidt, Erst Pioniere Kompanie

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>See what happens when Grogs set their sights low?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Great, so now I am suffering from a low self esteem! Thanks Steve... ------------------ Rhet

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Continue until my side wins.. umm I mean, the best side wins<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL Fionn, need an ally? ------------------ Rhet

Charles, An excellent solution! Very simple and yet models the advantages pretty well. I especially like the MG solution. Will the Gerries recieve a better bonus due to the fact that the Lafette mount was specifically designed (utilizing a precision elevating and traversing mechanasim) to provide highly accurate fire for pre-registered targets? ------------------ Rhet [This message has been edited by Rhet (edited 08-18-99).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The preregistered points give no bonus to direct fire weapons because they don't use coordinate systems that would allow such a benefit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Steve, I searched back through old threads because I thought we had covered ranging stakes for MG's. It was brought up but I did not find anything as to incorperation into CM. In defensive situations preregestering direct fire from HMG's greatly improved the weapons effectiveness. Granted there was no coordinate system but there were elevation and traverse tables recorded for the "registered" location of each ranging stake. With ranging stakes, a telescopic sight and a precision traverse/elevation MG mount and you rain down some deadly accurate firepower. Also, if indirect fire recieves a bonus for "pre-registering" will direct fire weapons (AT guns, Tanks, SP guns etc.) get a bonus for bore sighting? Rob, there were some good discussions a while back regarding Arty and spotting rounds etc. I don't know if you caught them before but if you search for "FO" or "spotting round" you should be able to find them. ------------------ Rhet

I too have a copy of Storm Over Arnhem (somewhere). It has been packed up for many years like most of my other bookshelf games. I think I played it twice. The problem is that I more or less stared out with Squad Leader (that is if you do not count Ploy or Feudal). It is good to see other people reminise over past games. I hope that CM will bring about these same type of stories many years from now. I think the appeal of those earlier games lies not only with the time invested in playing it (learning rules, setting up & playing) but also the quality time spent with a friend in friendly competition. ------------------ Rhet

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Can he hear me?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In CM he can! ------------------ Rhet

In driving back from work today I started to think about how the Germans manufactured tapered barrels? It is not only a difficult problem to taper the bore but then how do you rifle it? I can think of a few ways (mandrels, boring bars, etc.) but each is time consuming and very expensive. Does anyone on this board know how these barrels were actually manufactured? I would really like to know. We are getting a 50mm tapered bore AT gun in CM right? ------------------ Rhet [This message has been edited by Rhet (edited 08-13-99).]

The German infantry have different uniforms SS -vs- Heer. Will this apply to the Tommies as well? It would be a nice touch to have the Brittish Parras wearing maroon berets. It would certainly look "in place" for the Arnhem battles. ------------------ Rhet

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hehe,alright,Steve-so any ideas what's going to be on the cover of the manual?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My vote is for the panther they specially comissioned. I think a black and white cover with only the game title and thier company logos in color would look quite stunning. ------------------ Rhet

I am really glad to see that the AI is doing so well. Nothing like a good challenge! I can hardly wait to put the StuG III onto the battle field. Every computer game in the past has underestimated these AFVs. It was the only vehicle the gerries had that could really take on a T-34 or KV-1 for the longest time. BTW, did you guys code it up with or without the saukopf mantlet? ------------------ Rhet

Rick, I have not heard anything about ERA taking out any near by infantry. The steel plates remain intact following their explosive departure from the tank. If they were to fragment, they would not be very useful in dissapating the energy of the HEAT round. So I would not think that shrapnel would be a problem. Still your question makes good sense though, I know that I would not want to be anywhere near by when one of those ERA blocks pops off. ------------------ Rhet

Sorry for the delay in getting back to this topic plus being absent from this board for a while. The reason is long and involves extended travel, presentations and even fractured phalanges. But enough about me... Reactive Armor... The military acronym for this armor is ERA which stands for Explosive Reactive Armor. It is comprised of many brick shaped blocks that cover the tanks armored hull and turret. Each of these blocks is a explosive sandwich. There is a steel plate fitted to both the front side and back side of the explosive brick. When the HEAT shell hits one of these blocks the explosive detonates instantly. This blows the outer plate outwards into the pressure jet. The jet pushes its way through the first plate and it is then presented with a free atmosphere to allow some bleed off of the pressure jet. The plate on the back side of the sandwich rebounds off the tanks armor and meets the oncomming pressure jet. The jet penetrates this second plate and again meets another free atmosphere before it gets to the tanks armor. After the HEAT round has gone through this ERA system it is highly disrupted and does not retain enough energy to penetrate the tanks main armor. ERA works better when it is applied to well sloped surfaces. The slope angle of the explosion helps to throw off and disrupt the pressure jet to a greater degree. My friend said that ERA armor sloped at 60 degrees dissapates about 70% of the jet while the same ERA armor sloped at zero degrees dissipates only about 20%. BTW, I recently found out that the Russian tanks that were examined after the Gulf War did not have the Ceramic layer of their composite armor installed. In its place the Army inspectors found WOOD! It appears that the old bait and switch tactic was used here. ------------------ Rhet

Steve, in reading through the preview I noticed that nationality modifiers were not mentioned. Specifically with regards to leadership. Was this left out of the article because ther was no need to go into this detail or was this factor removed from the game system? I remember many threads that discussed this topic and if I remember correctly these nationality traits were going to be included. Just thought I would ask since it has been a while. BTW, I thought it was a good article. Congratulations guys. ------------------ Rhet

Welcome back to as the turret turns... when we left off last time Joe and Tommy were in desperate trouble as Klaus's 88 was targeting their tank... wait, sorry, different thread entirely! Oh yes, modern armor types... Chobham armor is a type of composite armor that was developed to provide a higher level of protection from HEAT weapons. The word "composite" in this case does not mean carbon fiber or any other specific engineered material that this term is commonly used for nowadays. Instead, it simply denotes that an item is made up of more than one distinct type of material. In the case of Chobham armor these materials are steel and ceramics (not the coffee cup kind of ceramic either ). The ceramic material is sandwiched between two plates of hardened steel. Now onto how composite armor behaves when hit by a HEAT round... The steel (being relitivly ductile) on the outside of the composite "sandwich" acts as a shock absorber for the ceramic material. It absorbes the initial impact of the round and starts to dissipate the energy of the pressure jet. This is important because the ceramic is very hard and very brittle. The pressure jet has now reached the ceramic material. Ceramics have a very chaotic molecular structure compared to the very orderly crystaline matrix structure of metals. This chaotic structure does not allow the pressure jet to push the material away in an orderly straight line fashion as it does with the steel. As a result the concentrated force of the jet is broken up and forced to take irregular pathways and/or split into numerous weaker jets. This splitting of the jet is the real key. The law of conservation of energy dictates that the energy of the original jet is equal to the combined total of the smaller jets minus the energy expended to the displace the armor. Basically this means that you now have more jets but they lack the indivdual concentrated force of the original jet (loose any one yet? ). As a result, these weaker jets do not penitrate as far as the original jet. Chobham armor is fitted in flat plates because the ceramic "meat" of the composite armor sandwich is fashoned in a honeycombed structure. It is my understanding that this honeycombed structure cannot be bent, if it is the cells of the honercomb loose their structural rigidity. This has a some benefits, it is lighter which allows the thickness to be increased and the honeycomb allows for the pressure jet to vent along different paths more readily. The Russians can bend their composite armor. I was told that we do not have the technology to do this but I believe that they are not using a honeycombed ceramic so they could just cast the ceramic to the correct curve. This is just my guess though. Stay tuned for the next installment Reactive Armor. Same CM time, Same CM channel. If anyone has questions on chobham I will try to answer them in my next post. ------------------ Rhet

To this I would add that the Allied tanks tried to just run over the Bocage. This was a slow and very conspicuous operation. Following tanks would enter the field through the gap created by the first tank. The Gerries would have an AT gun or PF operators (depending on the size of the field) waiting for this situation. The allies countered with sending troops in first but this would be neutralized by waiting MGs. The Cullin device allowed the allies to come through the hedges with all of their tanks at the same time thus overwhelming the defenders. Oh yeah, Cullin recieved the Medal of Honor (CMH) for this invention. I think he earned it, afterall he probably saved more lives than any other CMH recipient. ------------------ Rhet [This message has been edited by Rhet (edited 07-08-99).]

Harold, you dog! Thanks for your post. I am a great believer of "you learn something new every day". I had read many books that talked about the "flame jet" developed by HEAT rounds so I was suprised by your post. It prompted me to do a lot of research on HEAT weapons and armor. I even called a friend (mechanical engineer) who works for the Army in weapons R&D (Abrams Projects). I will go over a few things that were brought up during this thread in hopes to provide a little more clarity to this issue. This maybe a little long but if you bear with me there is some cool stuff he told me about. First things first, a HEAT round... upon detonation of the round the cone shaped explosive deforms a malable metal liner. The liner which is basically turned inside out, heated and compressed forms a pressure jet which is what strikes aginst the armor. This jet is made up of solid metal (from the liner) but it behaves as a liquid due the the emense pressure of the explosive charge. The velocity of this jet in modern rounds is around 31,000 feet per second (approx. 21,000 mph!). He said that the velocities of the WWII HEAT rounds would probably be a little lower due to slower burning explosives that were employed. This fluid like metallic jet does not actually "punch" through the armor but pushes the metal out of its path. Imagine blowing real hard into a bowl of pudding. This is why the metal around the point of penetration appears to be melted. It is infact not melted it has just deformed in a fluid like manor. I imagine it is this aspect which leads people to believe that it burns its way through the armor (myself included). As to the standoff distance and the focusing of the jet. Modern HEAT rounds actually have a stand off tube called a "spike" which allows the jet to stabilize (reduces tubulance within the jet stream) before it comes in contact with the target. The PIAT which was developed and fielded by the Tommies and the panzerschreck (Gerries) had such a device but it was not as effective as modern "spikes". The others such as PFs', wurfmines, AT grenades and'zookas did not use this tube system to stabilize the jet. So there is no real "focus" distance for the HEAT round just a jet improving device. Modern rounds depend on this so that they can penitrate as much armor as possible with the charge that is carried (sort of a more with less thing but I won't get into that again ). My friend said that the earlier warheads (without spikes) would have had the geometry of the round (internal & external) optimized so that the jet would be properly formed by the time it impacts the armor face. Or optimized as far as their sliderules could take them. To my relief, he said that the physics that I described in my earlier posts were essentially sound. If the jet is contained in a channel such as the standoff spike or the tunnel it is creating in the armor it remains powerful. If the jet is able to vent to a free environment the pressure dissipates from the jet and reduces its effectiveness. I questioned him about the HEAT rounds -vs- Sandbags. He first chuckeled... then said that they would have only a marginal effect if not neglegable. The velocities and pressures involved are far to great for them to reduce penetration by an appreciable amount. This is getting kind of long so if anyone wants me to go into Chobham and Reactive armor systems just let me know and I will add another post covering these. BTW I told him "of course my Physics were correct, I got better grades in it than you did". To this he retorted, "yeah but I kicked your Ass in Dynamics and Thermodynamics" Who said engineers are not competitive. P.S. thanks Dano6 for bringing this topic up, it has been a great learning experience. Maybe Steve or Charles can code up a sandbagged Sherman as sort of a tribute to this thread. It has the same protection of the non-sandbagged Sherman but costs an additional point to purchase. Call it a beauty tax. ------------------ Rhet [This message has been edited by Rhet (edited 07-08-99).]

John (and any one else who is interested), check this link out http://www4.army.mil/cmh-pg/104-13.HTM It is a really good analysis of airborne operations during the war. ------------------ Rhet

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As to the commonality of the sandbag armor, you are completely wrong to say that it was not common.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Dano6, it appears so. In my defence though, I went back and looked at the footage (only footage I have that is definatly after 10/44)and it could be clearly seen that the sandbags were not applied to all of the tanks in the column. The footage is from the Ardennes so it could be Pattons tanks, and as you said not applied to all his tanks. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for the effectiveness of the sandbags, it was primarily against HEAT weapons. This was due to the standoff capability of the hard sandbags.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The best way to defeat HEAT weapons is to disrupt or dissipate the flame jet that is created by the shaped charge. This is the principle that spaced armor (meaning armor plate mounted in a standoff fashion) was developed by. The flame jet upon burning through the outer plate dissipates in the "free atmosphere" that is between the outer plate and the armor of the tanks hull or turret. Even this method, which I believe was the most effective method of the war, was not 100% successful. Modern reactive armor uses a counter explosion to disrupt the flame jet and is the most effective defence from HEAT weapons to date. Since I do not have empiricle data or a computer model for the following I would like to stress thatwhat follows is based on imagineering only! The "cemented bags" are not filled with high strength reinforced concrete they are for a lack of a better term filled with poor quality brick mortar. They would indeed withstand the initial impact and explosive blast of the HEAT round better than the non-cemented sandbags. But, I believe that the cemented bags would confine the flame jet (instead of allowing it to disperse) and thus allow the heat energy of the jet to be maintained and thus delivered more directly to the tanks armor. In my earlier post I was talking about the explosive energy released by the HEAT round not the flame jet. More "standoff" can indeed be provided by laying more layers of either type of bag but this will reduce the tanks reliability and cross country performance which I believe was one of the real assets of the Shermans. Note: one layer of "dry" sandbags/concrete sandbags (est. 4" thick) on the front and top of the hull only would add approximatley 2.75/3.5 tons to the weight of the tank respectivley. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There are critics of the sandbag armor that say that it was totally ineffective.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am not one of these guys! I am just saying that the benefits would appear to be marginal with this method. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Wondering if this could be added to the game?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The guys at BTS are very much into modeling the real aspects of the vehicles of the war. You have provided proof that enough tanks were up armored in this fashion that they should take this into account. I have seen many types of application of the bags. It ranged from what appeared to be one layer of bags on the front slope and top of the hull to welded racks on the front and sides that looked like they held two bags deep (the latter shown in World War Two tanks, George Forty, p148). The variation of these applications, I believe, will make the modeling of this "uparmoring" more of a composite thing though. I don't think they will develope a new vehicle "sandbaged Sherman" for the vehicle list though. Respectfully, Rhet

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This was very common and I feel it was fairly effective in standoff protection against HEAT weapons depending on the depth of the sandbags.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As for the commonality of this ad hoc armor modification, I have seen original war footage of Shermans with sandbags on them and they are usually rolling along in column with other Shermans that do not have sandbags on them. I have also looked in the books and found in most pictures of Shermans after 10/44 they do not have the sand bags on them. This may be because the war photographers did not want to take pictures of the less graceful looking sandbagged tanks though, I do not know. It seems to me that if this "upgrade" was as effective as you say the Army would have issued general orders for the rest of their tanks to be so modified. This is not to mention the word of mouth endorsement "hey Bob, Joe's tank got hit yesterday by a Panzerfaust, right in the old sandbags, and he survived!" "Really? that's great, I'm going to tell the whole platoon to start stacking sandbags right now!". I would bet that this was looked upon more like "what ever brings you luck". I would guess that it was marginally effective at best and that is why it was applied to the tanks in a rather haphazard manner. It is just a guess here but I would tend to think that the non-cemented sand bags would be more effective in that they would distribute the energy of the explosion to more individual pieces rather than the cemented bags which would tend to shatter into a relitivly few pieces. In Vietnam they used sandbags (non-cemented) in and on the APC's and the Tanks. These were applied not as extra armor against RPG's but as mine protection for the crew and the soldiers that ride on top of them. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Most pictures look like top hits from windows and buildings.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Boy this would be a brave PF operator! If the infantry supporting the tanks had swept the tanks avenue of approach properly, stuff like this would not happen. German standard practice for using the PF would be to try to get a side shot before firing. The PF could take out a Sherman from the front but who is going to wait there while a Sherman advances with it's guns (MGs included) pointing at you. ------------------ Rhet

I thought only the French have language police. ------------------ Rhet

Are foxholes visable before they are spotted? Are they terrain features which show on the map all of the time regardless of enemy LOS or are they like bunkers that have to be spotted to be seen? If they are terrain features the attacking player could look over the map prior to deployment and more or less determine potential strongholds set up by the defence. This would apply to wire, roadblocks, etc... well basically all fortifications. Shellholes are a different matter in my opinion, they should be a terrain feature (visable always) since there would be no effort provided by the defense to make their location as discrete as possible. ------------------ Rhet

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ach, Gott in Himmel! Schmidt hat der Bucket gekicked!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nein, Herr Schmidt hat der bucket gekicked nicht. Wovon sprechen Sie? ------------------ Rhet

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm afraid I will have to bow out of this line of reasoning. My 19th Century history is now about 12 years old and not used much since school I seem to remember that there were battles against the German states, principally Prussia, by French, or French backed, forces during the wars in 1848. But I can't say for sure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> and... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I wasn't aware of any attacks by France on Prussia before Sedan, in 1870.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yea I'm a bit rusty here too but, I find it interesting to note that between 1675 and 1813 France invaded Prussia/Germany no less than 14 times. That is kind of hard to forget. It is this that was the major impetus for the unification of the German state. I had to do a little digging in my library to get this right but... here is a quote from the French Military Attache' in Berlin who wrote back to his government in August 1869 "Prussia has no intention of attacking France; she does not seek war and will do all she can to avoid it. But Prussia is farsighted enough to see that the war she does not wish will assuredly breakout, and she is, therefore, doing all she can to avoid being suprised when the fatal accident occures" Kinda says alot don't it. Man I must have been sleeping to miss out on this thread earlier. I am pleased to see that there are people that have a "real" grasp on world history. Atleast more so than the misleading crap they teach in schools. ------------------ Rhet

Hey!...What the... Doug, check your quote...I did not say that. I believe that was Mr. Rick. I have seen pictures of the Fortifications at Normandy as well as read a few accounts of these direct hits. Three meters of reinforced concrete is a tough nut to crack for just about any gun! The guys in those fortifications were in no shape to take up fighting immediately after though. I bet they were bleeding from the ears and nose at a minimum. The sound and concussion of the impact plays hell with eardrums and small blood vessels. ------------------ Rhet [This message has been edited by Rhet (edited 06-29-99).]