Simon Fox

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hmmm. I find Rexford’s "proclamations" to be well based. Mysterious 'we' doesn't bother me at all because his/their conclusions are backed up with cold facts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I disagree. Irrespective of the value of the contributions of the conglomerate entity known as Rexford (which I happen to think are excellent) the methodology of presentation is extremely brief. Do you find these "proclamations" to be "well based" because they agree with your opinions based on your knowledge? Certainly they are seldom presented with any supporting evidence, although admittedly with some prompting this can be forthcoming. There is no such thing as "cold facts", merely evidence of one form or the other which may or may not support a point of view depending on the nature of the interpretation. Slapdragon has made some good posts on precisely this subject (though how he came by this knowledge in his professional capacity is incomprehensible to me ). This is precisely why I bumped this thread by kip anderson http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/011166.html which is a great example of a well reasoned, structured and supported argument even if you don't agree with it. Isigny anybody would think it was the only test done or that the results were universally suprising. It is fairly common knowledge that 17lbr APDS was less accurate than APCBC. I was talking about real life in my post not CM. I assumed this was modelled in CM but if it was not it should be. The only problem with this was the incremental improvement in allied sabot rounds through this period which seems fairly poorly documented and therefore difficult to model. Also some sources suggest the British APDS was a little better in this regard than US HVAP. Well dittohead has beat me to it and posted the British data but note also WO 291/762, "Accuracy of APCBC/HV shot and AP/DS when fired from the 6-Pounder Gun mounted in the Churchill IV." My inclination from these and other data is that APDS doesn't suffer to badly vs APCBC in accuracy out to about 500m but beyond that it does. Even so the proviso exists that the date of these tests may be 1943 and it is not entirely clear what "ranging rules" were used. Certainly I have read that APDS is more accurate if bracketing is performed with that round rather than APCBC (if you have enough of course ) The British were well aware of the difficulties the highly sloped Panther hull plates would cause them even with the 17pdr when Soviet reports of this tank prompted them to test at angles greater than 30degrees: WO 185/118, DDG/FV(D) Armour plate experiments. . "...but recent trials have shown that a 75mm plate at 53º can only be holed at point blank range by 17 pdr APC and that the 17 pdr APCBC will not defeat the plate at any range." British postwar data might prove useful in this discussion since they seem to have started to test at up to 60degrees and many of these weapons were still in use. [This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 01-16-2001).]

Nothing wrong with British infantry and their artillery was fantastic, just the officers and their hidebound "Battleschool mentality". But a bit of combat soon knocked that out of them. The thing about the British was that they had spent 5yrs fighting a determined and extremely professional enemy that would severely punish you if you cocked up. A certain amount of caution is not misplaced in such circumstances, in fact it is a positive asset given the German proclivity for counterattacks. It is a common mistake to see such caution as timidity. It would be just as easy to characterise their US allies as gung ho,foolhardy and prone to getting their arses unnecessarily kicked. But I wouldn't do that would I? ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

Firstly Basebal it is your opinion that the current use of tungsten is ahistorical. The successful arguments raised in that discussion are readily accessible by searching and were principally "historical" and "logical" and had very little to do with "evening the balance" up. Therefore I consider your use of it as an example in this thread is entirely spurious. You say you want to settle things down but it seems you are the one with a bee in yer bonnet. Characterising this as some sort of 'pro-Allies' vs 'pro-German' is entirely inappropriate since many people play both equally and yet may also be advocates for more accurate modelling or historical tweaks which you seem to be characterising as an effort to ahistorically modify the game. Thankfully BTS are receptive to properly constructed, reasoned and supported arguments but are not prone to altering the game on whims or flights of fancy. As for the actual topic of this thread I have no problems with Panther131s or others concerns regarding quick battle armour armour point allocations. But before I get all worked up about a putative ahistorical balancing the allies conspiracy I would like to see what BTS say on the subject. I would also be concerned about drawing conclusions from a single example. Is there any randomness in the QB points distribution for combined arms or are the proportions fixed and inviolable? ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual. [This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 01-16-2001).]

Nice post Wisbech_lad. A step in class above some potted AAR efforts that pop up. Interesting observations about British infantry quality. Being an aussie I have no particular love for the poms but as for the Ghoul, your post qualifies as one of the all time pissweak efforts. It's most redeeming feature being that you have now established your credentials as an absolute historical wannabe. [This message has been edited to remove non-international term (wanker) by Simon Fox (edited 01-16-2001).] [This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 01-16-2001).]

Dear Basebal351, You seem very confused. As far as I can see almost all changes which have been made are on the basis of "historically-proven tweaks". Leaving aside the issue of QB points distribution what makes you think "an ABUNDANT amount of tungsten" was given to allied tanks? Get a grip on yourself man! Wipe that foam of your chops! "And THAT'S why so many Allied players CLAMORED for the tungsten." That's your interpretation of their rationale for clamouring? Oh I always thought they were clamouring for their tanks to use more readily the exceedingly small number of tungsten rounds they already had, silly me!

So perhaps all you physics gurus may like to explain why a tank firing uphill is more accurate, especially at long range. ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A 3 to 1 ratio is way to big.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, a 3 to 1 ratio is way too big. Which is why it isn't. ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

Hey Jon great to see you online It is hard to avoid the impression that those who are dismissing this as rare are doing so on the basis of feeling that the 'every German gun is an 88' syndrome is operating here. I am sorry but I just don't buy it. We are not talking about it operating in the AT role here. Certainly the impression that every AT gun was an 88 is real enough when you read accounts but what we are talking about is German guns firing high-velocity shells with airbursts without trees to set them off. So what other logical conclusion could the observer come too? Personally I don't think this is a high priority issue but I do think it was a real, possible and not uncommon practise, and probably a little easier to accomplish than some people seem to think. There are absolutely bucketloads of accounts of this from all participants which can't be glibly dismissed as isolated 'anecdotes' or cases of 'enemy exaggeration' especially as all nationalities are not universally prone to this phenomenon. A good one for CM2 with it's probably greater scale. ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

The British have the RAM Kangaroo which is the best APC in the game by a country mile.

Yea, right Olle, and British sub-calibre ammunition was not 'the same' as HVAP in fact it was much better which is reflected in the latest patch as they are not shatter prone. Certainly APDS rounds are less accurate at longer ranges due to problems with the sabot but I can't see this affecting penetration since they are unlikely to hit the target. I am happy to be convinced but the exceedingly condensed proclamations of the mysterious 'we' are falling a wee bit short so far. Maybe I should insist that BTS model the plugging effect of non-penetrating hits on face hardened armour causing catastrophic internal damage to the vehicle and it's occupants. Or even the increasing chance of penetration under certain circumstances when the projectile shatters. ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

bump To answer the last post, no AFAIK 6pdr and 17pdr ammo was of British manufacture though 75 QF ammo was US but modified for British use. Finally, although the 17pdr APCBC seems to be "fixed" what is the story with 6pdr. A possible explanation why US 76mm APC ammo was substandard where 57mm APC was only slightly may be that the technical demands of effective heat treatment of the latter were more easily met whereas the 76mm took lonfer to perfect. ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

Now Lewis, been taking the wrong pills again have we? You know what that means don't you? A consultation with Dr Slappy and you know how much you love that don't you? Leaving aside the joys of Lewis's delightful personal style I think it is unlikely that something other than an 88 has been misidentified as such in these accounts. Sure just about every German AT gun was an 88 but by all accounts the 88 had a fairly distinctive sound. The Germans were firing airburst with their 88s against the Aussies in the desert in 1941 so I would say it was a well established practise. Sydney Jary describes German high velocity guns (ie88s) firing airburst shells to interdict a crossroads his company were holding during Market Garden. Given the Germans generally defensive posture it is hardly suprising that they could preregister such targets. So airbursts from 88s on TRPs is not such a bad idea. ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

Thankyou Ben ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Less 2 inch mortars and more HMGs methinks. Thanks again for the answers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Interestingly the British prewar organisation had organic MMGs (no such thing as a Brit HMG) in the battalion but they were removed. I don't know why but something to do with mobility I suspect. As for the 2" mortars I think they may have been used a little more for screening than we see in CM (ie more smoke). Even so I quite like them though I wish you could fit more than 1 2 man team (PIAT or mortar) in a carrier. BTW thanks jshandorf for making this thread accessible to the rest of the planet. ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

The lowest of the low just got lower hehe ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

I'm a little confused here as you (rexford) appear to contradict yourself. First you say: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Filling the HE burster in 75 APCBC adds about 10% to the penetration.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Your rationale for this seems reasonable to me: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>APCBC with an HE burster loses penetration because the HE burster opening weakens the projectile structure so that it absorbs impact energy during hits, which lowers penetration compared to solid shot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yet you now say: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If we assume that Brits used sand filler to maintain same exact weight, then 75mmL40 APCBC penetrates the same whether Brit or U.S.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Can I take it that you initial assumption was based on a metal filler and your latest upon sand? Finally while the spaced PzIII armour was a factor in preference for solid APCBC by the Brits my understanding is that the principal ratinale was that the internal damage to the vehicle as a result of penetration was more than adequate for projectiles over 50mm.

Care to elaborate on the rationale behind the 10% difference? and bumpity bump

That Manieri really is a queer fellow: point out his glaring inadequacies and poof he gaily resorts to previous form. Though it was more ironic when he called himself Capt. ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

Fox: "Bastardables I order you to send me that turn." Delay: 1209600 sec Fox: "Cripes!" ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

Well the thread title you chose may be a little wide and provocative but I agree there might be a case for 'withdraw' order for armour.

Bas, I agree they would be different. But, the difference is probably so small as to be not worth incorporating. I would be interested if the two gun systems had different accuracies though. Rexford, What's 'close range'? And as Bas points out the APCBC was used exclusively AFAIK except no HE in the British round (I beleive the US eventually saw sense on this too). ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

The relative effectiveness of HE rounds is not always intuitively obvious as indicated by some of the comments here. Many factors other than merely velocity and projectile size (charge) seem to be involved and generally comparisons often seem to be qualitative in nature. For example the British 25 pdr was considered to have really good killing power for it's size. They considered it superior to the US 105mm even though it was larger and hence it was one reason for the switch to Sextons ASAP. Aussie units who used Italian 75mm and 100mm howitzers as well as 25 pdrs found the latter were much more effective (by a very wide margin). I have read that the 17pdr HE was not as good as the 75mm and my impression was that the difference was noticeable which isn't really so in CM. Even so I have also read the 17pdr HE was very good for "bunker-busting" and used for that purpose frequently. These anecdotal but widely remarked differences aren't necessarily found in CM because BTS probably just used the basic features of the shell/gun to determine such things. There are some good Brit studies too on artillery lethality (for Tigers benefit they used sheep and dummies) and fragment dispersal patterns and density etc. These could be useful. For example IIRC they found the German 81mm mortar had better accuracy and range than the 3in but the latter had greater 'lethality'. ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

Nice sig Babs Now her engines had ceased to turn, but still the shells came pouring Till with a roar her boilers burst, and the white steam went soaring Away to the sky. Her back was broken, and sheh was settling fast, And the fire blazed, and the smoke-pall brooded like a banyan vast, But still the torn Ensign flew from the black stump mast, And the after gun was firing still and asking no quarter When the hot barrel hissed into the wild grey water. So ended the fight of the Scheer and the Jervis Bay That for twenty vital minutes drew the raider's fire that day, When of the convoy's thirty-seven, thirty-two went safe away And home at last to England came, without the Jervis Bay. But now thick night was over the sea, and a wind from the west blew keen, And the hopeless waters tossed their heads where the Jervis Bay had been, And the raider was lost in the rain and the night, and low clouds hid the seas, But high above the sea and storm and cloud appeared the galaxies, The Bear, Orion, myriad stars came out across the heaving deep, And they shone bright over the good shepherd of sheep. The Jervis Bay

I really think this 5 for 1 ratio causes tremendous confusion. It is not a tactically derived ratio it is an operationally derived ratio. It is not arrived at in some sort of armour only analysis either it factors in all means of tank loss not just to other tanks. From my reading I think that it is less a feature of the relative quality of allied and german tanks than the nature of the combat. A number of armour commanders I have read remarked that generally when attacking they had a 5 to 1 loss ratio and when defending they had a 1 to 5 loss ratio (this is British), but who was doing the attacking in NWE eh?. This doesn't mean enemy tanks took out those 5, in fact ATk guns, mines, SP guns and infantry AT weapons were all significant contributors in any combined arms battle. In the German counteroffensives which followed Epsom the Germans suffered crippling tank losses, most of which were claimed by British ATk guns and SP guns. In this regard the British always benefitted from some powerful and effective ATk guns in contrast to the US and so their perspective on the problems of attack is different. Conversely the 88 did stirling work for the Germans. What am I trying to say? At CMs scale you should not need 5 allied tanks to overcome 1 German. You may also notice that the point allocation you get never allows you this luxury anyway hehe.

Good info there cyrano and spot on from my reading. It's a pity you can't dismount the Brens and Vickers from the carriers as they would have historically as it restricts your flexibility somewhat. A three man British Bren team would have been a possible compromise since you are right about the local defense for ATk guns too. Like everyone else I use them mainly for transport as they are great for zipping your PIATs, mortars, FOs or Coy COs around. The only problem with this is the limitations of the engine which mean you can only load 1PIAT team at a time (2guys) though you can load a HQ (4+) or a half squad (5) though I haven't tried the latter. The MMG carriers can easily suppress a German HMG even if the model is wrong