John Kettler

Black Sabot, Since I've had a terrible time lately finding hotseat opponents and quite simply lack the concentration to play 35-40 turns straight through vs. the AI, perhaps it's time for me to eat the elephant one bite at a time and learn to fight by E-mail. I've played CE (both versions), but deliberately avoided VoT and the spoiler threads associated with it. If you'll tell me how to get started, I'll be glad to give it a shot. I think maybe I should take the defense until I get the hang of this new way of gaming. Please reply to kettler@relaypoint.net with necessary instructions. I'm using an iMac, if that matters any. Regards, John Kettler

I think it might be worthwhile to park all those wonderful site links people keep coming up with in their own dedicated area. I refer to things like armor sites, military museums, map sites, online documents, history resources, online books, etc. It would also be good to have all the book lists and descriptions grouped together. People keep coming up with amazing, really useful stuff, but I'm stuck. I'd drown in bookmarks if I went the bookmarking route, but my short term memory is marginal, so I see things I really like, then usually forget what they were. If we had a place where all the informational discoveries could be placed, it would be a huge help to me and maybe a lot of other people as well. Regards, John Kettler

Since this is apparently my 100th post, I thought I'd raise an intriguing "what if" and rattle your cages all at the same time. It all started when my roomie got an action figure from England of a Japanese WWII infantryman. We have a running gag around here in which I aperiodically move, change weapons on, or reposition a cheap GI Joe which we refitted with a Panzer Grenadier's uniform, complete with StG 44 and Panzerfaust 60. This time what I did was to borrow the Panzerfaust from the ersatz German and put it in firing position in the hands of the Japanese soldier, giving my roomie quite a shock when he saw it. But it also got me to thinking. The Germans were devoted allies to the Japanese, supplying them with such goodies as radar, advanced optical machinery, the Me-163 Komet, the Me-262 and even uranium for what was apparently planned as a radiation-enhanced conventional bomb. We know this because the sub carrying the last item surrendered to the U.S. Navy shortly after VE Day. So, what if the Germans had supplied the Japanese with the means to build Panzerfausts? The Japanese already had the necessary propellant technology, and they had hollow charge munitions in the form of the lunge mine. With those two elements in hand, the rest would've been fairly straightforward engineering. Our armor casualties were bad enough in the Pacific as a result of lunge mines and soldiers crouching in pits with fuzed aerial bombs, hammers in hand ready to detonate them. Imagine how much worse things could've been, and not just for armor either, had the Germans transferred Panzerfaust technology to the Japanese, giving their almost helpless infantry a real standoff attack capability against armor, strongpoints, crew-served weapons, etc. Something to think about, neh? Regards, John Kettler P.S. I'm astounded that no one in this august body of grognards has responded at all to what I thought was a fascinating and disturbing historical possibility. J.J.K. June 10, 2000 [This message has been edited by John Kettler (edited 06-10-2000).]

On 02-24-2000 I asked the following question Topic: The New Smoke's Awesome--Any Hope for Arty Tweaks? John Kettler Junior Member posted 02-24-2000 02:45 AM The new smoke textures are fabulous, and they got me to thinking about other possibilities. I mean improved artillery explosions. I found certain aspects of the new smoke to be applicable to depicting artillery explosions, especially the layering of textures and translucency, though even the solid new white smoke would probably look good with a color change. I did a search and read the prior posts on explosions, but they were some eight months ago. Given that the smoke's been tweaked, does BTS or the mod community see any hope for more realistic looking artillery and mortar bursts? I think such a tweak would greatly add to the game's look. Thanks for all the great work. John Kettler Evidently, the answer was really a resounding yes! Thanks a million, BTS! [This message has been edited by John Kettler (edited 06-08-2000).]

Judging from the very high reply count, I at first thought that there were lots of new comments on the real topic--the possibilities of building a terrific Civil War ironclad game based on CM's engine. Unfortunately, my plan has been torpedoed by polemic, rants and Constitutional law debates. This is precisely what this thread doesn't need and what I don't want. If you're going to post to this thread, please stay on topic. Many thanks! John Kettler

Warning!!! Extremely unpleasant topic! Lurker, here is what UNIT 731 says on pages 41-42 about Japanese human testing of a gas gangrene bomb at the Anta Proving Ground, located five hours away by truck from Pingfan, Unit 731's main facility. The source is then chief of Unit 731's Education Division, Lt. Col. Toshihide Nishi. "...an experiment in which I participated was performed in infecting ten Chinese war prisoners with gas gangrene.[Gas gangrene is a wound infection caused by the anaerobic bacteria clostridia.] The object of the experiment was to ascertain whether it was possible to infect people with gas gangrene at a temperature of 20 deg C below zero. This experiment was performed in the following way: ten Chinese war prisoners were tied to stakes at a distance of 10 to 20 metres from a shrapnel bomb that was charged with gas gangrene. To prevent the men from being killed outright, their heads and backs were protected with special metal shields and thick quilted blankets but their legs and buttocks were left unprotected. The bomb was exploded by means of an electric switch and the shrapnel, bearing gas gangrene germs, scattered all over the spot where the experimentees were bound. All the experimentees were wounded in the legs or buttocks, and seven days later they died in great torment." Naturally such a weapon would've had only enough explosive to burst the bomb casing. Otherwise, a typical explosion would have instantly sterilized the gas gangrene at detonation. Am almost ill now, so will close. Regards, John Kettler

Since as a former military analyst I used to deal with this disgusting topic professionally and have read about it extensively privately, I feel compelled to wade into this discussion. True, the Germans did pioneer nerve agents, two in fact. They were Tabun and Sarin, both derived from insecticide related research on organophosphate compounds. Think of them as bug spray for people. They work by disrupting proper functioning of the nervous system, resulting ultimately in respiratory failure from inability to breathe. The best information I've seen indicates that the Germans nearly used them at Stalingrad and at Normandy, but didn't. I'd now like to explain why. The Russians had huge stockpiles, hundreds of thousands of tons, I believe, of war gasses (vesicants (blister agents, like mustard), blood agents (cyanide compounds), Lewisite (arsenicals) and other fun stuff. They had the equipment and real world training to use them en masse with devastating effect on the Germans, who were already fighting outnumbered in the East. No incentive there. The British, by contrast, were essentially sitting ducks to chemical attack and knew it. That was why Churchill authorized the development and testing of anthrax bombs. Had Germany hit the British with chemical munitions, the plan was to reply on major German cities with anthrax. As far as Gruinard Island goes, to my knowledge the island is completely off limits to this day. Anthrax spores have no half life. Hitler's gas issues aside, the best evidence available is that the British neatly sidestepped their own vulnerability through their effectively total control of German agent networks in Britain, under the renowned Double Cross system (see THE DOUBLE CROSS SYSTEM, by J.C. Masterman). When the German controllers queried their agents on British offensive/defensive chemical warfare preparedness, they were given a response totally calculated to make the Germans want to forget the whole subject. It worked beautifully. The Italians used chemical weapons during their invasions of Abysinnia and Ethiopia, but not during WWII that I know of. For info on this, see YELLOW RAIN, by Seagrave and A HIGHER FORM OF KILLING, by Paxman and Harsh. I don't know about any Japanese chemical weapon use in combat, but I can tell you that UNIT 731 (see book of same title by Wallace and Williams, as well as several History Channel programs) used a ghastly array of chemical and biological munitions, including a gangrene bomb, on Chinese civilians, Chinese POWs and Allied POWs during tests and killed tens of thousands of Chinese through large scale biological warfare of the most horrific sort, including deliberately infecting wells. The U.S. was reasonably prepared for chemical warfare and was positioned to respond quickly had the Germans used war gasses. Unfortunately, that led to the disaster at Bari, Libya (?) in which a Liberty ship loaded with mustard gas munitions was hit during a German air raid and sank, filling much of the harbor with mustard, which was not noticed among all the fuel oil floating and which caused terrible casualties to the sailors swimming in it. To cover up the presence of war gas in the theater, the incident was classified Top Secret and buried for decades. I hope this straightens out a few things for all concerned. Sincerely, John Kettler

Sorry about the foul-up. The topic was User's Views of Panzer Elite & Combat Mission. Regards, John Kettler

Wow! Talk about hitting a responsive chord! This will be quick, since I just spent hours on my other posts. First, the copper plating on the U.S.S. Constitution was installed specifically to protect the hull from the dreaded teredo or shipworm. Think of it as a gigantic, voracious termite quite capable of turning a hull into wooden Swiss cheese. Second, the Constitution's hull was made of a very tough, dense wood called live oak, which grows in Southern swamps. The wood was so tough that it wore out tools and caused the deaths, from exhaustion and heat stroke, of some two hundred slaves who had to harvest those mighty trees from which her hull was built. Hope this helps. Regards, John Kettler

Thought I'd let BTS and the troops know that I just got through posting a major piece (read long, highly detailed) comparing and contrasting CM and Panzer Elite. Somebody else started the thread and having played both wargames myself, I couldn't resist the chance to put a war galley's worth of oars into the water. Here's the link www.mo-money.com/AFV-news/cgi_bin/webbs/config.pl?read=1102 Regards, John Kettler

I'm glad that my idea apparently has merit, especially since I myself am an avid player of Ironclad, have played wonderful battles using those rules and the fabulous Thoroughbred 1:600 miniatures belonging to friends, and just received a Confederate gunboat, several armed tugs, barges, even a couple of shore batteries as gifts from my brother, who also included William Davis's excellent and insightful book, THE DUEL BETWEEN THE FIRST IRONCLADS. Babra, I'd LOVE to see you take a crack at building even part of a game of ironclads, but let's see if we can do it with the cooperation of Charles and Steve. I think the possibilities are very exciting. Regards, John Kettler

Some time ago, someone started a thread suggesting that CM's engine be used for the American Civil War. To use a Britishism, that idea is "not on," both for coding reasons and especially because of CMs 2-Infinity, which I totally support. It occurred to me, though, that some enterprising group might be able to build an awesome game of ironclad battles using CM's engine as a springboard. If the game already properly handles limited traverse, recoil forces, rates of fire, armor type, slope and quality, ballistics and terminal ballistics, it would seem to be to be quite capable of handling the far smaller computational demands of ironclads given the vastly lower rates of fire, shorter engagement ranges and far less complex armor. Granted, water modeling and the choking clouds of blackpowder smoke of the period would be major CPU hits, but I fail to see how modeling a few ironclads on a side (let's skip bombardments at Charleston and Mobile Bay for the moment) could possibly be even remotely as complicated as what CM already does. In other words, if in CM my StuG has a pivoting, recoiling, limited traverse gun, then in theory I shouldn't have much trouble modeling an ironclad's casemated pivot gun. If in CM I can have a tank commander pop in and out of the hatch, what's to stop me from using much the same code to open and close gunports? If CM gives me multiple ammo types, then I ought to be able to have shot, shell, grape and maybe incendiary projectiles for my relatively crude muzzleloading cannon. If we have an MG-42, how difficult would it be to depict a shotgun or the common rifled musket? I know the MadMatt's, ColcoolJs and Car12s out there can just as easily build ironclads and wooden-hulled vessels as tanks with fully articulated trackwork and revolving turrets. Some special camera views (sighting through the gunport, view from the pilothouse, etc.) would also be needed, but we could probably afford to lose several from CM's extensive current list. We might also need a narrow field telescope view and a view through field glasses. Roadblocks would become pilings, land mines torpedoes (naval mines, with contact or command detonation), and target reference points would be prezeroed buoys. For some scenarios, there could be heavy mortars in forts or on rafts and schooners, with much cruder fire control than CM has. Naturally, there would need to be a fair amount of research done, flotation modeling would take some real work (computer models routinely used by naval architects) but ironclad technology and warfare are topics which have had many books and studies done on them already, not to mention several wargames. I bounced this idea off a hardcore wargaming friend of mine, and he thought it was a great idea. He said that he was astonished no one had ever issued a computer game on ironclads, a topic he considers a natural choice for a computer wargame. It's fun, challenging, colorful, militarily interesting and historically significant, the birth of nothing less than a naval revolution. And believe me, there are people who are just as well read and savvy about this topic and period as we are concerning World War II. I know several. One's my brother. My friend and I think this could be a great wargame. What say the rest of you? Regards, John Kettler

While I'm gratified to get so many replies, especially the one from Steve, what I'd really like is a response specifically to the tank crew interview whose link I posted. What's given there isn't speculation, nor does it involve artillery. It is a straightforward account by combat veterans of the use of WP in direct fire engagements from a tank. Given the formidable depth and breadth of knowledge (not to mention contacts) the people on this board have, there must be more such accounts and data out there somewhere. Let's find them and talk about our discoveries! A firm believer in digging for the truth, John Kettler

Actually, 109 Gustav, you've got it half right. According to James Michener's account in THE BRIDGE AT ANDAU, what the freedom fighters did was to set earthenware dinner plates out in the street, facedown. To the oncoming tank crew, these looked just like antitank mines, causing the driver to brake violently in order to avoid them. Unfortunately for the Russians, the Hungarians had thoughtfully lubed the patch of pavement in front of the "mines"with detergent, exactly where the tank had to hit its brakes. This caused the tank to lose traction, skid out of control and slam into/through a building. It was while the crew was stunned, disorganized, even hurt from this smash-up that the doughty freedom fighters would run out, climb quickly aboard the tank, place the Hungarian freedom fighter flag atop it, then dash away. The next Russian tank coming around the corner saw a captured tank. The result was almost as much fun as dropping Molotov cocktails into BTR-152s from the rooftops, and it didn't require any ammo expenditure--just guts! Regards, John Kettler

First, let me say that I'm well aware of BTS's official position on why WP (white phosphorous, incendiary smoke) isn't in CM. I am also aware that one of the objections to its inclusion was the lack of accounts of its use in tanks. Well, last night I found not one but two such accounts at www.tankbooks.com/giffdarp.htm One account describes the results of hitting a German tank with WP, the other the fate of an antitank gun and crew dug into a building. The firing tank was a 76mm Sherman. I'd love some feedback from BTS and the troops on this one, please. Also, if you haven't been to www.tankbooks.com either lately or ever, then you are missing out on a tremendous information resource and scenario development treasure trove. Today, I found an account of a battle in Germany (Battle of Forsbach) as seen by a U.S. combat engineer. Mines, booby traps, bangalore torpedoes--all are here and then some. If you're German and tired of being Hector Quesada's personal target drone, you can read about what the Americans thought of being attacked by several dozen Me-109s. Then there's the use of sheets as field expedient winter camouflage for American tanks during the Battle of the Bulge and a young soldier's account of what it was like fighting German pillboxes. These are merely to tantalize you and are found in the numerous interviews and stories. TANKS FOR THE MEMORIES is a must read. Happy reading and research! May it give you much to ponder. John Kettler

The armor ID quiz was tough. Considering I had only one bad reference image (Milsom, RUSSIAN TANKS 1917-1970) each of the SMK and nearly identical T-100, and since they were both frontal aspect photos, I don't feel too upset over missing that one. I must, however, say that I'm baffled by the T-25. Not only is it not in Milsom, which is a standard reference on Russian tanks, but I couldn't even find a mention of it at the generally awesome Russian Military Zone (www.history.enjoy.ru) either. So, tss, where did you learn about this previously unknown to most of us experimental tank? My best references had zero on it. Regards, John Kettler P.S. This quiz is a cakewalk compared to the murderous one Valera Potapov has up right now at the Russian Military Zone. Might even give Fionn a migraine! P.P.S. That thing babra posted is a T-26 tank glider, but I don't know the actual aircraft designation. The idea was to tow the glider to the landing zone, let it glide to a landing, then detach the wings and tail assembly. Presto! Armor support for the parachute troops. [This message has been edited by John Kettler (edited 05-26-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tss: Here are pictures of four tanks. The question is, can you identify them? I suppose that most of you can name the countries but it'll take a true expert to identify all models. (Hopefully the urls will come through intact). Let's start with an easy (and relatively common) tank: Tank 1: The second picture is a very rare one, as far as I know there exists only three pictures of this model (all taken from this specimen). Note that even most printed sources (at least, most of those that I've seen) get this tank wrong. For extra credit name the place and date. Also, you could try to identify the tank on the left behind the standing soldier. Tank 2: The next one is a familiar model, but this particular specimen is in quite poor condition. For extra credit, guess what destroyed it. Tank 3 The final tank is probably the most difficult one as it didn't see any combat. Tank 4 - Tommi<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Tommi, I'm clueless on the last one for now (will do more digging), but the first three are Soviet 1. T-50 2. T-100 3. KV-II (thoroughly destroyed) Regards, John Kettler P.S. Von Lucke posted the Tsar Tank. P.P.S. After much digging, I believe Tank 4 is a British Cruiser Mk V Covenanter. [This message has been edited by John Kettler (edited 05-25-2000).] [This message has been edited by John Kettler (edited 05-25-2000).]

Titus, I have a Gen One Bondi Blue 233 MHz iMac which has 64 MB of RAM and a whopping 2 MB of VRAM on an ATI RAGE IIC board, running under ATI video accelerator 4.2.2. OS is 8.6, and I have the latest Game Sprocket as of several months back. (Couldn't find it listed in System Profiler.) I have 65 MB allocated to virtual memory and a 2 MB disk cache. My display is set to 800x600, but the Gold demo automatically defaults to 640x480. This makes the screen look blurry, since the Beta demo ran fine at 800x600 and that's the display resolution I'm used to, but the game runs fine, albeit without transparent smoke and related goodies. Your iMac should be able to run the Gold demo. I highly recommend that you do download the recommended drivers for your video card, check your settings, and be sure to get a current Game Sprocket. Best of luck! John Kettler P.S. If after you follow the recommendations CM's running but you still don't have sound, try toggling Shift S on and off. That's what turns sound on and off in the game. Yours may be set to OFF. This and a host of other commands are found in the Hotkeys section at the bottom of the screen. [This message has been edited by John Kettler (edited 05-23-2000).]

I recently read a post which stated that the 15cm s.I.G. 33 would only be allowed direct fire if on the board in CM. This odd assertion triggered a search by me which turned up this thread. I would like to ask Fionn et al. why a weapon supposedly designed primarily for direct fire would, according to ordnance expert and former Master Gunner in the Royal Artillery Ian Hogg, come equipped with no less than a six-part (six propellant increment) charge, a separate loading case and be able to elevate to 73 degrees? Source: Ian V. Hogg, THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF INFANTRY WEAPONS OF WORLD WAR II, Thomas Y. Crowell Company Inc., page 138. Are not multiple charge increments and high elevation capability the very hallmark of indirect fire systems, since they allow all kinds of projectile delivery trajectories simply unavailable to high velocity, direct fire guns? It seems to me that a weapon designed for direct fire would logically employ a fixed case, thus minimizing both production expense and system complexity, while increasing rate of fire over the far slower separate loading, powder incremented system. There is also the matter of where the weapon fit into the German TO&E. According to Hogg (op cit., p. 138) it formed "part of the equipment of the Heavy Gun Company of the Infantry Regiment." Restated, the s.I.G. 33, firing a whopping 83.6 lb. HE shell almost six inches in diameter, was the major punch in the regimental commander's fire support arsenal. It was organic to his force, as close as his field phone or even a star cluster, not way up there in division where it might or might not be available when he needed it. With a muzzle velocity of 790 ft/sec, about that of an M1911 .45 semiautomatic pistol, and a max range of only 5140 yards, it stands to reason that the minimum range (on reduced charge) in indirect fire should be well within CM board size limits. So how about it? Why not return to the Germans an important tactical option and give the Allies still more things to blow up? Regards, John Kettler [This message has been edited by John Kettler (edited 05-22-2000).] [This message has been edited by John Kettler (edited 05-22-2000).]

I meant to ask this quite a while ago, but I forgot. Will the CM release version offer more detail on the end of game screen than we saw in the Beta and Gold demos? I refer particularly to the total lack of any detail on vehicle kills. Three vehicles destroyed could be three Kubels or three Panthers; presently there's no way of knowing from the screen. Also, will there be any point breakout for instant battles and related DYO combat? Regards, John Kettler

I carefully searched under "rangefinder" and "rangefinders," finding a whopping two threads listed. One mentioned big rangefinders on battleships. The other had to do with laser rangefinders on modern tanks. Neither is pertinent to what I'd like to discuss here. After reading the extensive thread on CM's treatment of tank gunnery, I found myself wondering whether CM modeled rangefinders for the 88mm, 37mm and 20mm flak guns (towed and SP), as well as towed 88s configured specifically for antitank use (don't recall nomenclators right now). Rangefinders were standard equipment for flak guns (provided target height, range, thus fuze setting needed for the 88 vs. aircraft, also showed whether target was in range for light flak) and in CM terms should greatly reduce both time required and rounds needed to put effective fire on the target, especially for the dreaded 88. I seem to recall that other antitank units (PAK 40) also used rangefinders, but maybe theirs were scrounged. Given the enormous effort which evidently went into modeling gunnery in CM, I would really love to know whether the appropriate German units are modeled as being rangefinder equipped, and if so, how this is handled in CM? If not,why not? I'd ask the same questions about Allied equivalent units, but I simply don't know enough about them to properly ask the question. Logic would suggest that they had rangefinders as well. So CM mavens of BTS, what's the answer to these surprisingly unasked until now technical questions? Respectfully and inquisitively yours, John Kettler

Would the webmaster or whoever handles such things please reformat this thread so that it displays properly in a standard window? At least one page is in some bizarre oversize format, making it hard to read. Thanks! John Kettler

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bullethead: Tommi said: I just read a book called "Panzerjager," by William Folkestad, which is the memoirs of a German ATG gunner named Bernhard Averbeck. Among other interesting tidbits is something that might have bearing on the above quote. ATGs were designed with as low a silouhette as possible, but this came with a price. According to Averbeck, because the muzzle was so close to the ground, each firing kicked up a big cloud of dust. This totally blocked the gunner's LOS so that he couldn't see where his shot went. Thus, the usual practice was to have one of the crew out just in front of the gun to observe the fall of shot and yell back corrections to the gunner. This was apparently even necessary with 37mm PAKs, and was usually the job given to (expendable) newbies on the crew. Anyway, it sounds like your diary writer was the observer in this situation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Bullethead, Your comments about the dust cloud thrown up by the antitank gun's muzzle blast are correct, but there are some other aspects which figure in. First of all, that cloud tends to reveal the antitank gun's position--decidedly unhealthy for the crew. Second, measures were employed specifically to combat this problem, especially in ambushes and prepared defenses. The most common one was pouring used motor oil on the ground in front of the muzzle. This effectively suppressed the dust. Water could be used if available, just as it is used to this day on construction sites to hold down the dust. Another simple, effective approach was to simply stake down a tarp in front of the gun. All of these would get the job done and greatly increase the survivability of the antitank gun and crew, especially when combined with emplacements and camouflage. Of course, the muzzle blast dust cloud was a nonissue after a rain and at certain times of year. Regards, John Kettler [This message has been edited by John Kettler (edited 05-17-2000).]

KiwiJoe, Short answer--airbursts. The reason for this is that there is no masking of blast or shell fragments (NOT shrapnel, as some mistakenly think) by partial burial of the shell in the ground. Also, airbursts, whether incidental from shells going off in the trees overhead or deliberately caused by use of mechanical time (MT,clockwork) or variable time (VT, radar proximity) fuzes tends to negate defensive terrain, such as field fortifications, craters, ditches, walls, open top AFVs, etc., while maximizing wound potential against the head and vital organs. In other words, airbursts make shells more efficient at killing and wounding than they would otherwise be. Ugly, gruesome to be true, but you asked! You might also search under MT,VT, fuses (because some people can't spell properly) and fuzes (the right spelling). Hope this helps. John Kettler Formerly a military analyst for Hughes and Rockwell International.

Patrick, Like you, I'm running on a relatively weak machine. Mine's a Gen One iMac (233 MHz w/ 64 MBs RAM and 2 MB VRAM on stock ATI RAGE board), under OS 8.6. Unlike you, I took a calculated risk and did a unitary download. The thing self-extracted, but didn't install properly (had no MG fire and no troop voices, but did have irritating electronic chatter instead). I then dumped the extracted folder and contents and reextracted. The problem remained, but was cleared up by turning sound on and off (shift "S") several times in the game. I strongly suggest that you scrap what you have, do a unitary download, and make sure that you have the latest drivers for your video board. Search under "drivers" for the ATI site address. I know it's been posted before. Hope this helps. John Kettler