Rhet

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think it's unfair to imply that German rounds would often land within 30m of the target while US rounds were more likely to land at 150m.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Charles, you are correct, the implication was completely unintentional. I was trying to demonstrate the range estimate thing better. Upon re-reading the post it does have a direct comparison "tone" to it. Again this was purely unintentional. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>then there's no reason those bridges couldn't have been pounded into dust within an hour<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This depends on the type of bridge here. I can see this on a wooden bridge crossing a stream but bridges such as those that cross the Rhine or say the brides at Nijmegen (Waal River) are some pretty stalwart bridges. I have a lot of experience in this area (Civil Engineer in the Highway and Bridge business) as well as a great personal resource. My father was a Combat Engineer for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as well as a Ranger (a slight pause here while my chest swells with pride). In discussions with him on this subject he provided a few professional insites. Normal Arty rounds (8" Howitzer, Karlgerat etc. not included ) do not pack enough explosives or have enough kinetic energy to cause appreciable damage to a steel or reinforced concrete bridge (he said a failure could be caused by this method but it is really inefficient and would take a long time). In Fact it even takes careful placement and packing of multiple Demo charges to effectivly disable a bridge of this sort. The old war movies that show a guy running up and throwing a demo charge onto the bridge deck...a big Kaboom...and the whole bridge drops are laughable. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But you're ignoring the time it takes for the artillery request to be radioed in from the field and passed up the chain of command and/or handled by the artillery unit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Charles, I am not ignoring this I have just classified it as response time. I did this so that the different countries could be compared better (more of an apples to apples thing). I did not want to lump response time into the time it takes to correct fire. You are correct in that Time on target is important but, response time yields no forewarning to the enemy where as spotting rounds do. So the total time from the request to the FFE is considerably shorter for the Amis than the Gerries. With this I agree completely! This really helps if you are in a mobile situation where the enemy is moving through a point you wish to bombard but this doesn't really affect static target situations. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now you could say that's just lightning striking twice, but I'd say it's more likely to be accurate gunnery<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Accurate indeed!(jaw dropping to the floor) Are we sure this howitzer wasn't being utilized in a direct fire mode? Just asking... I don't want to come off as a pest here (it may already be to late ) but I think to say that the American Artillary was superior in every way is a little unfair to others. Even the Russians had an edge...to the Russians Arty was the God of War and a massive and numerous god it was! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Or wait, that's another argument in favor of the amazing accuracy of American artillery!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL! I know I tend to come off a little Teutonically biased but I really try to stay as objective as possible. In my family you are either an engineer or a military officer or both in some cases. My Grandfater and his Brother both fought in WWII for America and I already covered my Dad. The reasons I tend to know more about the Germans is threefold. First I am of German decent (family arrived in America in 1880's). Second, I got tired of learning military history from "Domestically" written history books alone. Finally, and maybe most importantly, as a kid all of my friends on the military bases were older than me and they would not let me play the allies in Squad Leader. So in order to kick their butts I had to learn how to effectivly use the German units. This required learning all about their tactics, weapon systems etc. Just a little background. Charles, I really appreciate this debate, it has been quite a pleasure for me. I hope it has been the same for you and that it has not distracted you from the game too much. ------------------ Rhet

You know Tom I don't think anyone has asked that one yet. Good question indeed. I would think that they have it covered though(they usually do!). ------------------ Rhet

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Prior to D-Day at least, he was of the opinion that the 75mm Sherman was up to the task of cavalry-style armor operations and that was all that was needed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Charles, this is just speculation on my part here but if he based this opinion on the German tanks he went up against in N. Africa he would have been correct. It seems that he should have had reports from the Eastern Front stating that the Gerries had much more nasty stuff in store for him though. ------------------ Rhet

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Is real life artillery more or less effective than it is in most games?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Rick, it depends upon many things. Mostly on time period and which game. In Napoleonic times cannon balls were used a bowling balls to break legs and the like. It was used to demoralize and break up enemy formations more so than kill people. Modern Artillary (like in the Gulf War) is Deadly with MLRS and Howitzer launched, seeking, anti-tank mines no one is safe. That is why counter battery fire and air superiority is so important nowadays. In all of the wars between the two I mentioned, Artilliary becomes increasingly more effective. From what I have heard the Arty in CM is Modeled very well. The Naval guns are a standout in lethality though. Both in CM and real life. The concussion shock wave of a large caliber Naval gun can kill a man alone! I have the two games you mentioned (I have not played either in over a year though) and in my opinion the modeling of Arty is on the light side (from memory - mostly in the demoralizing aspect). Arty has a very high demoralizing effect on infantry. This is why the term "shell shocked" was coined in WWI. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>the enemy is suppressed where I am attacking<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are using Arty correctly this is why there was such a huge opening bombardment in operation Barbarossa and why the allies developed the advancing barrage. I will also add that Arty is excellent for breaking up attacks as well. If you are taking friendly fire casulties you need to call for the Arty from further away though. This probably has more to do with the deficiencies of those two games (which forces you to call it in to close so it remains effective) rather than an error in your tactics. ------------------ Rhet

Charles, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Respectfully I must disagree with your characterization of American artillery.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's cool, I am no expert, just an amature military historian. I am open to anyones opinion and even more so to those I respect. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What you describe here is a good predictor of how accurate the first shell will be. In other words, the "registration round" may be more accurate when fired from the German surveyed system than the American gridded system<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agreed, and as you mentioned above the FO would use the spotting round to adjust fire. However, the accuracy of the first round is important and I'll provide a little more detail to back up this statement. Rarely was the first round on target, this would mean that the FO would radio back the correction to the battery. This "correction" is a visual estimate of the combined range and deflection error (range generally yielding the greater error of the two). Lets say that the FO was able to see the fall of the inital spotting round. If higher ground is not available and the terrain is not condusive to spotting (ie. forests, bocage, marshes, saturated ground etc.) he could miss the fall and would thence have to request another "initial" spotting round (accuracy importance). But, in this case the FO sees the fall and radios back the estimate for the correction. Here we need to talk about the estimate for a second. It is easier to estimate distances the shorter they are. A correction of 30 meters is going to be a lot more accurate than one of say 150 meters. The battery recieves the correction and if it is a gross correction it will take them longer to make the adjustment. The battery finishes adjusting the guns and fires the second spotting round. Upon observing the fall of this second spotting round the FO now faces a decision. If the round is close to the target he calls "Fire For Effect" or he may call back for another correction. This second correction is not is not normally required but it does occure especially when the initial spotting round was way off. Remember, if the initial spotting round was on target or very close the FO could call FFE immediatly or give the minor adjustment and still order FEE. The above process has to be done for each battery as well. Now FOs' are not the only people on the battlefield watching out for spotting rounds! The above mentioned sequence takes time. A 105mm Howitzer shell fired at medium range would have a flight time in the 13-18 sec range. Extreme ranges could push this time to around the 1/2 minute mark. This does not include the time to determine the required adjustments from the FO's estimate or actually physically adjust the guns. During this time infantry soldiers are looking for cover and vehicle operators are looking for high gear! It is interesting to think about this adjustment time and how it relates to CM's 60 sec. turns. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>(And the American system could be surprisingly accurate, as described in "Hell on Wheels" p.322 where an American Task Force commander calls for fire from an 8-inch gun to knock out a troublesome enemy panzer. Two rounds are fired and the second one destroys the tank with a direct hit).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Charles, I know you gave this as an extreme example but I wouldn't want anyone on this board to take this as anything other that what it is. Blind Luck! Eight inch guns are a different matter but normal (WWII Howitzers) artillary was not used to take out tanks. It takes out infantry, fixed fortifications, disrupts communications and discourages tanks (buttoning up, immobilization, forced withdrawl etc). Charles, you are very much correct in that the American Artillary was the best of the war. No arguement here at all. On the five points you provided in your post: 1. Time on Target - agreed, therefore the excellent rating in response time. This is the time from the Arty request to the time the initial spotting round lands though. 2. Flexibility - agreed, this also improves response time. 3. POZIT fuse - disagree, while this is a devistating improvement to a normally fused shell I believe it is more of a factor of improving weight of fire. In my opinion, it should be considered a force multiplier by improving the shrapnel dispersion on soft targets. 4. Spotting from the Air - agree, this in many cases is better than ground based observations. The observer can better see the fall of the shells, pick out the targets and determine which are the better targets to begin with. This should improve ARTY accuracy for anyone who has it available. Granted in this Theater and time it will be only the allies. I am interested, is this feature going to be included in CM? 5. Supply - agree, I would also include another short period (June 19 through mid July) where supplies were lacking to the Amis as well. This is the time period between the wrecking of the Mulberrys by the channel storm and the time it took to repair the facilities in Cherbourg to a useful state. In fact all offensive operations in the Omaha sector were suspended due to severe shortages of ammo. This is a great discussion and it has really been a pleasure for me! Well all of this typing aside. ------------------ Rhet [This message has been edited by Rhet (edited 06-28-99).]

Herr Oberst, this was Rommel's quote. He was referring to the Amis in North Africa. The only two exceptions I would venture would be the breakout from Normandy and the Italian campaign. It seems the Amis never really learned how to effectivly overcome a structured defence in unfavorable terrain. Atleast not without plowing up some serious real estate! ------------------ Rhet

Good call Lokesa! I hope that idea gets implemented. ------------------ Rhet

Brian sorry it took awhile to get back to this post. I'll try to explain the differences in the systems used by the various countries. I will explain a little about the three factors I quoted and major differences used by the combatents. Response time is improved by reducing calculations. These being geometry (elevation differences, angles, balistic trajectories etc.), type of shell, weather/wind conditions etc. All three of these countries had charts for these but the Amis & Brits did not have as many factors or detail in the charts as the Gerries. This more simple system allowed the Allies to put a shell on its way sooner. The American system was further boosted by the fact that a FO could call in fire from any battery within range thus selecting closer batteries. The British and German FO's were limited to the use of their own batteries. The more "calculations" that the Gerries did helped them in the next factor... Accuracy is enhanced by 1) knowing exactly where the Battery is and exactly where the shell is supposed to land and 2) having an accurate flight model for the shell (calculations). The Gerries had the Allies beat in this area. This was a result of the afore mentioned calculations and that they used surveying equipment to set up the battery and the registration points that were used by the FO. The Amis and Brits relied soley on gridded maps for registration of the Battery and the FO. This works well but it is not as accurate as the survey method. It is really hard to set up in the field and say we are exactly on the grid lines of X1,Y1. The Amis edged the brits in this area by having a better map system and that the batteries tended to take more care as to where they set up. The Brits relied on the FO to make more corrections for accuracy. Finally weight of fire, this comes from simply having more guns firing at the target. The differences between loading rates and explosive content of the shell between the combatents is really neglegable in comparison. The Allies had so much Artillary (material schlagt) this is why they enjoy this advantage. The Amis edge out the Brits here again due to the ability to call in more batteries when needed. If some of this is still unclear just let me know. Charles, I think the American accuracy was historically over estimated. I believe this was because when the Amis called in a barrage it was usually one hell of a barrage . They wiped out every thing in the area of the target, even stuff they didn't want to hit . I was talking more about how many shells fall in the pickle barrel. I think this may have been a misunder standing generated by me and my vague post earlier. Apologies. I think your right on the money for the Russians. Fionn, the reasons you quoted could only have helped. A good stab. Any one know anything about carpel tunnel syndrome? ------------------ Rhet [This message has been edited by Rhet (edited 06-25-99).]

Now I understand. I was associating unit quality with unit type. What you guys have developed is better, it lends more flexibility to the game system. Does this mean that I can have an elite volkssturm unit though? ------------------ Rhet

Steve, a few more questions on the screen shots. Screen shot: German bunker line in the woods The wire looks great! the coils seem pretty random. Is the wire a "place holder" as well? is a different texture going to be put on it (like a silver color)? The trees look so good! reminds me of model railroads. Screen shot: Spreading out to take a small village Is the U.S. unit on the far right surrendering? It sure looks like it with his hands up. very cool! I think this is the first time you have shown a surrendered unit. Screen shot: Overhead view of US attack Regarding the lines extending from the platoon HQ, they are shown in brown. Does the color mean anything? It would be helpful to the player if they changed color depending on the command delay that is incurred between the HQ and its units. I'll give a for instance. Say the halftrack moves 200 meters further to the right to cover a flank position. It would be very helpful if say that line changed from brown through orange to red as the unit got progressivly further away. The brown would indicate a minimal delay, orange would mean moderate and red would represent a delay of over say 40 sec. This would allow the player to account for the relative command delay when issuing orders during the planning phase. BTW, can I send you the bill from the optometrist? ------------------ Rhet [This message has been edited by Rhet (edited 06-23-99).]

Pixman, as I understand it you can review the movie as much as you like during the action phase but, during the planning phase you you can't go back and review the previous turns movie to see if you missed anything. ------------------ Rhet

(Totally embarrassed) I wish I could blame it on poor typing. ------------------ Rhet [This message has been edited by Rhet (edited 06-23-99).]

Cool...BTW nice job on the PzKw IV mit shurzen. ------------------ Rhet

Speeking on this subject, I imagine that Arty is another facet of CM that requires a degree of abstraction. After all there really is no need to track individual shells here. My question is what kind of Nationality type modifiers are applied to the abstraction? I read an article that covered the +'s and -'s of the American, German and Brittish Arty systems. The readers digest version was: American - Excellent response time, Good accuracy and excellent weight of fire. German - Fair response time, Excellent accuracy and average weight of fire. Brittish - Good response time, Fair accuracy and good wieght of fire. These qualitative assesments were explained as properties of battery registration and coordination and that it had little to do with equipment. If anyone is interested, I can explain this in more detail. ------------------ Rhet

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The rest, the vast majority from all nations, were caught up in events larger than themselves. There is plenty of blame and guilt to go around, but certainly soldiers from each nation should not be painted with the same brush (good or bad).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I certainly agree with this...be it Joe, Fritz, Tommy or Tony the vast majority of the soldiers were fighting for their country and/or what they believe in and for this they have my admiration and respect. ------------------ Rhet

Steve, I have a really good source for Mauser bolt action rifles by Ludwig Olsen. The differences in his book are as follows: K98 - Weight=9.1 lbs. barrel length= 23.62" G.33/40 - Weight=7.9 lbs. barrel length= 19.29" (a portion of these guns were made with folding stocks) You were right though, the length of the rifle was intentionally shortened as much as practical so that it was easier to use in mountainous terrain and to reduce the pack load & bulk on the troops. The wieght difference of about a pound is no great amount by itself but this would be part of a reduced weight pack to ease the strain on the man carring it. Fionn & Steve maybe I placed a little to much emphasis on the lightened pack but, I still think that Mountain troops should get fatigued at a lower rate than normal infantry units. I base this mostly on the fact that these are specialized units that were specially trained & conditioned for the additional physical rigors of alpine combat. I could be wrong here but I was led to believe that the GB troops were not only "special forces" but were volenteers as well. This would indicate to me that they not only got better training and conditioning the were also more motivated than the average foot soldier in the Heer. ------------------ Rhet [This message has been edited by Rhet (edited 06-23-99).]

One small addition here if I remember correctly, the Gibergsjager rifle was the Gew 33/40. Essentially the same as a K98 but it had a shorter barrel and a significant reduction in weight (a good quality when humping it up the side of a mountain ). The main point here which I'm sure has already been thought of is this, Mountain troops (irregardless of nationality) should realize a reduced fatigue modifier due to better physical conditioning and a focus on lightened combat equipment and loadouts. ------------------ Rhet

A little Deja vu here In scrutinizing the "Fighting in among the hedgerows" screen shot I have a few questions/ observations. First, the grey unidentified (spotted?) German tank to far right is very cool! Is that what took out the highlighted Stewart? On this same subject what Amis unit is spotting that unit so that it is still visible to the Allied player? Second, could you tell us about the "V" flag in the background? Is this how an unoccupied victory location is dipicted now? Final observation, it took me a little while to figure out what the black blob in the road was. I noticed that the Tanks were going around it so it must be a road block, right? Maybe a timber or two sticking out of it may make it a bit more recognizable. This is not critical ...just a suggestion. I really liked all of the screenshots and the textures on the vehicles are great now. Good job guys! ------------------ Rhet

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Unteroffizier Schmidt<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Damn! demoted again I was hoping for Hauptmann of a pioneer company. ------------------ Rhet

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>All depends on how the commander handles them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Amen, John That is the real point of my earlier post. And yes, that is blasphemy! your pennence shall be to read "Janes Encyclopedia on the Worlds Fighting Vehicles" cover to cover. ------------------ Rhet [This message has been edited by Rhet (edited 06-08-99).]

I knew generalization would get me in trouble! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Well the Russians proved Heinz Guderian wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> John, you have to be careful here. Guderian wanted to press on to Moscow and this, considering the political situation in Russia at the time, would have probably won the war on the Eastern front. It was poor leadership in Germany that held back vital supplies and eventually diverted troops and armor away from taking Moscow that allowed the Russians to recover. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I know he was a good General, but how much of his success can be attributed to attacking countries that weren't ready for war?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well not much. France at the time of invasion had much better tanks than the Germans and much, much more of them (not to mention many more troops as well). Also to say that they were not prepared for war is incorrect. Both the French troops and Brits were in place and ready for the German attack. The success the Germans had in France is attributable to the following factors: Better tactics, leadership and training. France fell mainly due to the poor employment (WWI tactics) of its numerically superior army. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>problem is that this strategy lost the war for the Germans<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Steve, do you think this was a failing of their strategy or more of a failing of their ability to wage a war against the economic and natural resources of the U.S., U.S.S.R. & the UK? I think it was more of the latter. I like the more with less with more doctrine. - clever ------------------ Rhet

The tough part is trying to stay away from generalizations but here goes... Give me quality over quantity any day! I have to go along with Heinz Guderian when it comes to the employment of armor. Give me the best equipment and men and let me decide when and where to fight and I will show you how a smaller force can completly overwhelm a numerically superior force. Both Rommel (who started out as an Infantry Officer interestingly enough) and Patton were great students of Guderian and look at their exploits. The military buzzword nowadays is "force multipliers". This basically boils down to how can I do more with less? I'll tell you a little secret... a Commander that knows how to effectivly employ his forces is the greatest force multiplier there is. ------------------ Rhet

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Since we are simulating real world physics and vehicle stuff<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>-BF Sure you are... you guys are keeping all the good stuff to yourselves. I have info that Steve has coded up an M29 Weasel that has 250mm of face hardened armor all the way around (sloped at 60 degrees), a 120mm smooth bore main gun and even a TOW missle launcher. Curriously it does not show up on the vehicle list though.

Yeah, I know but "from" sounded much better than "in". P.S. I am... If you count back 4 generations or about 100 years.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't want anyone here to worry. Moon and I hurl abuse at each other every so often just for the fun of it<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmm... someone from the Commonwealth hurling abuse at someone from Germany, where have I seen that before? You know, I just can't put my finger on it. ------------------ Rhet