John Kettler

Hullo, Digger! I believe I have discovered the source of your loss. You have confused your attacking force by issuing an equine halt order(Whoa!) when what you wanted your force to do was inflict woe on your opponent, presumably by destroying the opponent's men and equipment. Armed with this new information, you can now return to the fray safe in the knowledge that you are now firmly in the mechanized era and thus free to wreak havoc on the foe. Yours for better strife, John Kettler

PaK 40, It stands for Royal Armoured Service Corps, I think. I believe its function is logistical support to the RAC, Royal Armoured Corps. Another branch handles mechanical repairs. Hope this helps. John Kettler

Fenris, My suggestions would be: 1) try eBay; several copies were recently reported on offer there; 2) post your request directly on the Panzer Elite General Discussion Board (www.wingssimulations.com); 3) see if you can find an American who has PX privileges, since PE was reported still available there, even when all the other stores were out or backordered. Hope this helps. John Kettler

I'm astonished that no one has posted any kind of response. The pictures of the Jagdpanzer IV/L70(V) are worth several all by themselves. Maybe the title was too restrictive? Regards, John Kettler

Ghengis Jim, Technically speaking, there are two types of indirect fire: observed (FO eyeballing target, making adjustments as needed before firing for effect) and unobserved or map fire (crossroads, artillery positions, troop concentrations, etc.). In CM, an FO can bring down fire anywhere his guns can reach simply by hitting the Target or Target Wide command and dropping his aimpoint where he wants it, regardless of blocked LOS. That's the good news. The bad news is that it takes at least twice as long and the pattern is not tight, because this is fire based solely on the goodness of the map, meteorological conditions, and the individual biases of the guns and projectiles, with no successive adjustments before fire for effect. The real solution to the timeliness problem is a TRP, target reference point. This is an area on which the guns have been registered (prezeroed) before the battle in anticipation of a need. "We expect AT fire from that ridge. Make that Concentration 1." "There's a wooded valley we can't see into that would make a perfect enemy assembly area. Better put a concentration there." TRPs can be purchased for 30 points each if you buy your troops but are otherwise assigned in the scenario. I'm trying to get more TRPs into the game, especially dug-in defensive situations where the defender would've walked the ground, registered multiple defensive concentrations, etc., before the battle. This is both realistic and somewhat offsets the fact that MGs can't fire through smoke. Hope this helps. John Kettler

Claymore, I believe you mean a Lahti, a Finnish antitank rifle. Those of you who'd like to see one should rent Thunderbolt and Lightfoot. Regards, John Kettler

Banshee, Von Luck's book is a must read. We should be grateful that he was categorically forbidden to attack, since he had his panzer force cranked up and ready to roll on D-Day. He's also the guy who gave a Luftwaffe Flak 88 battery commander a choice between glorious combat and instant death at Bourgebous Ridge. Those guns stopped the British. Regards, John Kettler

Greetings! While at the AFV News Discussion Board I found a long thread on the T-8 and related vehicles.From what I can tell, the Americans made two. The Brits and Canadians seemed to have something similar, but most of them were reworked M-3 types. Particularly recommend this thread to Fionn. www.mo-money.com/AFV-news/cgi_bin/webbbs/config.pl?read=4971 The other treasure is something I found in the new online issue of AFV INTERIORS www.kithobbyist.com/AFVInteriors In it you'll find some fabulous pictures of the JgdPz IV/L70(V), several in stunning color, with lots of detail on sighting arrangements, periscopes, etc. The vehicle shown now apparently belongs to the Patton Museum, at Fort Knox, Kentucky. Speaking of which, are the Germans credited with use of scissor optics like this vehicle, the StuG, etc. had? They could be used without exposing the TCs head, either through a special small hatch or with the special and main hatches open,but the TC's head down. I'd also like to offer my thoughts on the soon-to-be implemented bow MG. Having looked at the mount for the bow MG in the pictures, I wouldn't be too worried unless under massed MG fires or similar. The MG fills the lower hole, and the upper is an aperture for sighting. I think the likelihood of hitting such a small opening is about the same as scoring a direct hit on the optics of the gunner's telescope, and I think it would be a serious mistake to limit the weapon to medium and long engagement brackets only. ROF on the main gun isn't all that high, and I can't imagine any sane commander giving up his only other defense against infantry, especially close-in, simply because a bullet, fragment, etc,. MIGHT get in. Ferdinand crews at Kursk were so concerned they fired MGs down the 88s'barrels with the breech open and no round loaded, an unsatisfactory method which led to the later installation of a proper bow MG mount on the survivors. Generally speaking, I'd let the player decide, but I have no idea how to code such a thing. The entire installation smacks of ruthless late war production streamlining in an effort to get powerful, if imperfectly implemented, armor out the door, rather than go through the extra steps to put in a complicated, expensive, armored ball mount. Let me know what you all think. Regards, John Kettler

WARPIG101st, If possible, please provide a full set of dimensions for this shell fragment, some description of its shape, and its weight. A photo or photos (w/ visual scale in frame) would be most useful. Also, please clarify what you said concerning what that recovered fragment did to the M-60. Are you saying that this fragment had so much kinetic energy that it pierced the turret of an M-60? If so, what part of the turret was pierced? Was the tank buttoned at the time? Any details would be most welcome. Thanks much! This is precisely the kind of response I was looking for. Anyone else? John Kettler

In light of the burgeoning discussion on this topic, it would be great to hear from current/former artillery types about the range of artillery fragment sizes and weights for common HE artillery rounds (75mm/105mm/155mm or similar) and mortar rounds (60mm/81mm/107/120). I believe this would be a big help to many in understanding what we're trying to describe in this thread. Can anyone put some real numbers to our hypothetical discussion? Sincerely, John Kettler

Warning! Long post! Shandorf, The short answer is yes, it can. To understand why, you need to know something about explosion dynamics. Though a typical artillery shell generates a formidable blast effect, blast falls off dramatically as range decreases (forget the exact mathematical expression, though). Blast is therefore not the primary kill mechanism. Shell fragments (what some people wrongly persist in calling shrapnel) perform that function. When a shell detonates, what happens is that the casing almost instantaneously expands and stretches, much like blowing up a long, thin balloon. The shell bulges the most in the relatively unsupported middle, tapering toward the nose and base of the shell. When the elastic limits of the shell casing are exceeded, the shell shatters into a multitude of very high velocity jagged, burning hot metal shards, shards of widely varying weight and size. We live in a time when shell casings are prescored and hand grenades are filled are filled with tightly wound notched square section wire, all in pursuit of uniform fragmentation. It wasn't like that during WW II. Even those lovely pineapple grenades didn't fragment the way they looked like they would. The grooving has to be toward the explosive for that to work. Therefore, we're left with the somewhat haphazard process in which on average a shell can cause some level of damage out to a specified range, but you may well get a heavy chunk (a flier) which carries much farther. To illustrate this, I'm looking at page 131 of the 1975 edition of BRASSEY'S INFANTRY WEAPONS OF THE WORLD, in which there is a photograph of the fin assembly from a Spanish 120mm mortar shell. That assembly is surrounded in successive circles by the recovered shell fragments, with the lightest ones on the inner ring and the heaviest ones on the outer ring. There are at least twenty distinct fragment sizes there, with the largest (total 92) being about the size of one of the fins and the smallest about the size of a BB. That's for a modern shell. Thinking back to my days as a military analyst, I seem to recall that a Self-Forging Fragment (a kind of inverted shaped charge that fires the liner, used in standoff weapons against armor) comes roaring out at something like 8000 fps. Now imagine the kinetic energy in a chunk of steel, say, an inch on a side and maybe 1/4" thick, traveling at better than twice the muzzle velocity of an M-1 rifle bullet. Do you really think that mild steel (road wheels, possibly lower hull, tracks, etc.) can take that kind of punishment without at least the possibility of trouble? It doesn't take much to make a tank throw a track, and I assure you that a .50 cal in the running gear, especially in this period, was a real threat. We're talking about something at least as heavy as that which is going twice as fast. The kinetic energy is enormous and is quite capable of going through an appreciable amount of unarmored steel. There is an entire volume devoted precisely to this kind of calculation called Project Thor or the Thor Equations, investigating the effects of fragment shape, size and velocity on penetration of steel plate. I know this because I got stuck running some calculations of this sort while working on a blast/frag warhead analysis for a Maverick missile version for shipping strike. Let me put it this way: the Air Force, which owned the target vessel, a decommissioned minesweeper, was most put out when the target ship sank after only one hit. What happened was that the Maverick plunged into the ship, the warhead exploded, and the resulting heavy fragments turned the bottom of the hull and several successive bulkheads into a metal sieve, completely wrecking watertight integrity. The ship didn't sink right away, but she definitely sank. She was there after the test, but wasn't there the next morning. You might also be interested to know that the mujahideen in Afghanistan discovered that a close-in shot to the mild steel lower side of the driver's compartment of a BTR-60 (8-wheeled armored personnel carrier) using an AK-47 and ball ammo would pierce the compartment, kill the driver, and immobilize the vehicle. Of course, figuring out what happened and why in your case is, in reality, a complex problem, getting into such things as shell orientation at detonation, shell standoff from the running gear, shell fragment density (number of fragments per solid angle; this is a 3-D problem, after all); presented area of mobility related components (including engine compartment items)/vulnerable area = chance of mobility kill given a sufficiently powerful hit. Another thing you need to remember is that whatever gets hit won't be uniformly stressed. This causes intense forces at the point of impact, forces which tend to bend and distort what they hit, such as shear loads to track links. Bend that pin far enough that holds two links together, and you've got a track which won't work even if it doesn't break outright. Or consider what happens when our fragment slams into nested Panther roadwheels. It might pierce the outer one leaving a ragged egress hole which jams the inner wheel. Imagine what effect that same fragment might have on a wheel bearing. If you doubt this, think about what would happen to your car if you went out and sledge hammered a chisel into your car's wheel bearing. That would be only a tiny fraction of the energy we're discussing applying. Paradoxically, given a low, close airburst it seems that your tank's mobility is at greater risk than it would be if the shell simply landed on the ground nearby. This is because the shell tends to bury itself at least partially before detonating. That allows the ground to reduce the blast effects and absorb/slow down the shell fragments. The airburst produces unhindered blast and fragments slowed only by obstacles and air drag. Summing up, although it's not likely that an airburst would immobilize your tank, Shandorf, I see no reason whatever that it couldn't. Indeed, the attack geometry you describe could easily yield such a result, though I would expect it to happen more often if hit by large (4.2" up) mortars or 155s, since the fragments would be considerably larger and heavier. By the way, field artillery shells have to withstand some 100,000 Gs of acceleration, hence are machined from high grade steel. Mortars can get away with even wrought iron projectiles, though I believe we used steel, simply because the launch stresses are far lower. Finally, there is at least one case in which a Sherman was completely disabled using only small arms. Apparently an isolated tank wound up the target of an entire German rifle company. The immense fusillade cracked all the vision blocks, destroyed the weapon sights and even jammed the treads, completely immobilizing, blinding, and defanging the hapless Sherman. All this with projectiles a mere 7.92mm in diameter! Hope this helps. Sincerely, John Kettler [This message has been edited by John Kettler (edited 08-19-2000).]

While it's good to know I'm not imagining things, it's even better to read that the problem's been identified and corrected. Thanks one and all! John Kettler

I've now seen the entire series. Frankly, as fascinating and informative as it was, I feel as though I was invited to the banquet and only allowed a few savory snacks. For a program billing itself as The War of the Century, I saw very little of the war proper. Episode 1 Barbarossa-Battle of Moscow Episode 2 Partisan/Counterpartisan Ops Episode 3 Stalingrad Campaign Episode 4 Bagration ('44)-Victory I don't know whether some dingdong flubbed contract writing, the History Channel couldn't afford the whole series or what. I do know that we only got to see the beginning and the end of the Eastern Front campaign and that we saw nothing of such minor events as the Destruction of Army Group Center and that nothing armored engagement called Kursk. We learned nothing of the development of Russian offensive tactics, nothing about armored warfare, were lucky to even see Tiger tanks. Where is the meat of the war we were promised? Oops! Someone forgot to include it. Maybe it was edited out? Sign me "Bitterly Disappointed." John Kettler

Mark IV, I said that I'd had NO sound contacts whatsoever. The German Crosses were generated as last known locations for fleeing units. Pillar, let's say the original range when I called the map fire mission in was 250m. This is what the line running from my FO to the planned target area showed. What I'm saying is that in using the LOS tool from the FO's position to the individual cross locations, I'm now seeing, say, 350m to one unit, 368 to another, and so forth. To me, this is information which I had NO way of obtaining, particularly since the units in question, based on cross locations, are supposedly at or close to each other in distance from my FO. I hope this additional explanation clarifies what I'm trying to convey. Somehow, I now magically know that the targets have moved back some 100m, but I never had them in LOS after they became crosses, nor did I ever get a contact report based on sound. So, where's this information coming from? Regards, John Kettler

I discovered something interesting and disturbing in a recent game of CM. The scenario's called "Relieving the Rangers." The nature of the problem is not a spoiler. What's happened is that my opponent assaulted my position, but was repelled by indirect fires. The survivors beat feet out of LOS, becoming German Crosses as a result. Later,I decided to annoy them further and plotted some map fire on them. While checking LOS as I waited for the slow-in-coming fire support, I got quite a shock. Checking each cross reconfirmed the identity of the unit, but also showed the new range to the target, a piece of information I must have acquired telepathically, since I never had direct LOS or a sound contact. If these "reports" are to be believed, my foe has pulled back quite a ways, in blocking terrain, yet I know about it to the meter. I decided this was ridiculous and scrubbed the fire mission. I'll wait for targets I'm sure of. Has anyone else encountered this problem? Regards, John Kettler

Wally's World, Many thanks for the link! I passed it on to family and friends alike. Regards, John Kettler

While out and about today, I hit Barnes & Noble. There I found some real treasures, such as LIVE FIRING GERMAN AUTOMATIC WEAPONS (extremely juicy, with all the standards and some special ones--fabulous fully equipped reenactor photography); A TOUR OF ARNHEM BATTLEFIELD (lots of pictures, many WW II vintage, plus participant accounts); SPEARHEADING D-DAY (all about special units leading the assault, their equipment and training; honker of a book brimming with photos, paintings, beach layouts and properly togged reenactors). There were many other military books as well, but I thought the troops should particularly be informed about these. Make the trip. You'll be glad you did, Sincerely, John Kettler

Guys, I've been pushing for this and much more in terms of tiles and models. If you search under my name you should find a thread roughly titled "New Tiles I'd Love to See." If you post your want list there, maybe BTS will see it and respond, especially since posting there will kick the thread to the top where it's got a better chance to be seen and read. I like the grass tonedown, and I,too, really want craters in a range of sizes. Regards, John Kettler

Wild Bill, The original problem has been resolved. My missing reinforcements have now been located--via flaming datum! Don't know whether your E-mail address problem has been fixed, though. Regards, John Kettler

Thanks one and all! I look into your suggestions. Sincerely, John Kettler

Please E-mail me your correct E-mail address. The message I sent you based on the Scenario Depot link bounced, and I have a fairly urgent question about one of your scenarios. My E-mail address is in my profile. Thanks! John Kettler

Madmatt, Aside from fighting down my envy of you and everyone else I know who's been to Europe and seen the great military sites and museums, I wanted to welcome you back, thank you for all your good work, and ask that, once you have gotten over your jet lag, if you would please do something about making the CM scenarios at the Depot Mac readable? The ZIP format is PC native, not Mac native. Macs use Stuffit. The only reason I'm able to play Wild Bill's personally suggested Rescuing the Rangers is because my opponent, Black Sabot, downloaded the file to his PC, unzipped it, then sent it to me. It seems odd to me that CM is ballyhooed in terms of "we'll never abandon the Mac," but all the scenarios at the CM Depot are PC only, unless you have special software. Many thanks! Sincerely, John Kettler

In hunting the other day through the CM manual, I discovered a curious set of omissions concerning grenades. The index has no entry for "grenades," no entry for "hand grenades," but it does have one for "rifle grenades" (See "Special Equipment.") Recourse to page 43 (Special Equipment) told me that rifle grenades are basically for killing tanks, but it failed to tell me how much armor rifle grenades could pierce and how far away they could effectively be shot. Nor could I find this vital info in the unit screen. Please provide this info to the player. I launched several searches under logical keywords and finally found a rifle grenade thread. If I properly understood it, the U.S. rifle grenade can be fired some 200 meters, but that same thread also said something about the AI deciding what the grenade type was and when to fire. This leaves me confused. The unit screen graphic for a rifle grenade is clearly an M9 type AT rifle grenade, which is wholly consistent with what the manual says. Your reply, though. indicates that just because the graphic looks like an AT grenade it may not be one. Apparently, it might be antipersonnel. Which is correct? If the rifle grenade graphic is in fact generic, would it be possible to either caption it as to type or maybe produce a modified second graphic to show a gun launched hand grenade, so the player knows his weapon inventory ahead of time? Now for my Panzerfaust questions. Given the ubiquity of this weapon in the time period of the game, why is it that the scales of issue are so minuscule, the weapons themselves usually the weaker versions (the kleine and such), even relatively late in the war, and why do platoon (and higher) HQs have none at all? I've seen lots of footage where virtually every man in squad after squad has one (sometimes mixed types within a squad) and stills of dug-in infantry where each man has several immediately in front of his foxhole. But somehow when I play CM I consistently see fresh squads armed with only one or two Panzerfausts. I'm not sure I've even seen a Panzerfaust 100; usually, even in a certain highly fortified scenario, it's the confounded kleine, which has such poor range as to be almost useless in all but very close terrain. As for the HQs, they face the same threat as the line squads, are usually preferentially targeted, but are practically helpless against armor attack. Frankly, I can't imagine any sane commander who wouldn't insist on having at least one Panzerfaust in his command group--just in case. I know I'd insist on having at least one at HQ if I were in charge. I look forward to your responses. Sincerely, John Kettler

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Marty: I just couldn't pass up this chance to throw in another one of those U.S. Army Combat Lessons from the 1945 publication... Quote: From the Twelfth Army Group, ETO: "An infantry regiment has found that the 60-mm mortar shell HE may be fired from the M1 rifle by means of the grenade launcher M7 and the fragmentation-grenade projection adapter M1. Six inches of wire per shell and a pair of pliers are the only additional materials needed. PREPARATION - First remove the increments from the mortar shell. Bend outward the finger of the grenade adapter that is designed to receive the handle of the fragmentation grenade. Then insert the fins of the mortar shell into the fingers of the grenade adapter. Finally, tie a piece of wire around the tips of the fingers of the grenade adapter, thus securing the shell to the adapter. METHOD OF FIRING - The rifle normally is fired from the kneeling position with butt resting on the ground. An angle of 45 degrees will give a maximum range of 100 to 110 yards; 60 degrees will give 85 yards range; 70 degrees will five 60 yards range. Low-angle fire can also be used and is especially effective when firing into thick hedgerow foliage to produce tree bursts. CAUTION - Grenadier must pull safety pin before firing! ...It should not be fired over the heads of friendly troops. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Marty, My recently deceased uncle George served in a Navy unit called Boat Two with Patton. Boat Two drove M-26 tank retrievers carrying one LCM (Landing Craft, Mechanized) per retriever and used the LCMs to move troops and tanks across rivers during the advance. According to my uncle, it was also possible to unscrew the hollow charge warhead from a bazooka rocket and replace it with a 60mm mortar warhead. Apparently, they had the same thread. The resulting round was then used in streetfighting by firing it into a window or other opening. Upon hitting a wall or other interior surface, the round would detonate, much to the detriment of any room occupants. Regards, John Kettler

Ski, While lots of us would love to see wind included, the grim reality is that modeling such complex phenomena as wind takes a Cray or massively parallel processor, and even then it's still problematic. Wind modeling is a devastating CPU hit, completely defeating the design goal of making CM run on typical mass market PCs. Hope this helps. John Kettler