Andreas

You mean you STILL are? No wonder things are going increasingly downhill here in France. </font>

I doubt their artillery would be up to the job, even assuming they get the ranging system right, which is a heroic assumption. US artillery seems to be heavily relying on MLRS for CB work, to balance out lack of ranging precision with blanketing of fire. The Syrians can not do that. The US can just PUFO their artillery somewhat after firing, since all of it is mobile. It is also fully armoured, again reducing the effectiveness of CB - i.e. you pretty much need a close hit to do serious damage. Pre-positioning is only doing so much, too. If the US artillery happens to be outside the firing arc of the Syrian towed guns, they will likely not be able to adjust quickly enough to engage before the target has PUFO'd. Syrian CB will have some successes, but it is unlikely to be more than a speedbump, in my view. Also remember that if the system worked, the US could just turn off GPS, or scramble it in the region. They can then rely on radar CB, which the Syrians can not (any CB radar will be in HARM's way, if you excuse the pun). All the best Andreas

Of course they are. You must be too young to remember the scoop. All the best AndreaS

Are you still in Paris? If so, email me. All the best Andreas (Germanboy)

From Globalsecurity.org The most survivable weapons systems will be the 2s3 Akatsiya and the 2s1 Gvodzika systems. In any case, Syrian artillery would be at a severe disadvantage to US artillery due to the US forces' ability to combine air/ground strikes for CB work. This to me means that the only lasting support would be for forces that can call on the SP systems linked to above. A force calling on a towed system will have one strike in support, and can then expect to have the towed system wiped out. This also may get them a brief window in which the US player will lose arty support on the battlefield because it will be busy combating Syrian arty. So if the sacrifice is made at the right moment, it could be interesting. Higher quality Syrian forces with access to SP armoured artillery could expect more strikes, maybe with delays for PUFOs. In general I would expect the US side to have a vastly superior artillery support, but the Syrian side to be able to offer a nasty surprise now and then, especially if the US player gets to sure of himself. Look for info on the 1991 Gulf War, such as this: http://www.defencejournal.com/dec99/field-artillery.htm The below is from Nigel Evans'RA in WW2 site: What this means is that you don't need your CB chaps up front anymore, they can be a bit behind, and you have a dedicated strike weapon at the ready to engage any artillery foolish enough to open up. As a general rule, I would expect any towed Syrian piece to get as many rounds off as it can in the time it takes for rounds coming back by the CB strike to reach it. SP may do better, if they are smart. I have no way of telling whether they are. All the best Andreas

Why does this image remind me of Grog Dorosh so much? </font>

This seems relevant: http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8655676&fsrc=nwl All the best Andreas

You don't know me, so if I were you, I'd be more hesitant to tell me what I would do in real life. If in a conversation I am party to one of the persons was telling another one off based on a misunderstanding, and then labelled all that person contributed as useless out of spite, even though he is wrong to do so, I would say something. My original comment was not uninformative, since it informed you of something you were willing to dismiss because you had an issue with an inappropriate remark by fk. "A low velocity artillery piece would have real problems obtaining that sort of shot group..." The 25-pdr was not a low-velocity field-piece, as shown by fk's link, either together with existing knowledge about the MV of other field pieces, or a quick google search. "25 pdr doesn't have solid shot. " The 25-pdr did have solid shot, as shown by fk's link. fk provided this info. It was not right for him to link your argument to ex cathedra, but it is equally wrong to dismiss it because of his fault, which is not related to the content. That's all what compelled me to make my useless remark. Nigel Evan's site can not be linked often enough. All the best Andreas

DaF - density is higher than what you posted there: Density in 61st GRD sector per kilometer of frontage: Rifle battalions 6.0 Guns/mortars 234 Tanks and assault guns 18 Density in 333rd RD sector per kilometer of frontage: Rifle battalions 4.5 Guns/mortars 231 Tanks and assault guns 18 All the best Andreas

The unit history of the US 18th Infantry "American Iliad" is a good read, with a long treatment of Tunisia. I have heard good things about "An Army at Dawn". All the best Andreas

Of course not. You are obviously the most brilliant person posting on this board, and nobody can possibly add to a discussion by correcting false statements you made, since you don't make any. Sorry I forgot about that, won't happen again. All the best Andreas

Regarding MV, I think it is important to note that, depending on the charge;, the 25-pdr could get to over 600 m/s with AP Shot, which I think is considerably higher than other field guns pressed into AT service, and comparable to the Sherman 75mm gun. All the best Andreas

You are welcome to explain what "Anti_Tank Shot (20lbs)" from his second link could be, other than Anti Tank Shot. Before you struggle trying to weasle your way out of it, I suggest reading this page of his linked site: http://members.tripod.com/~nigelef/ammo.htm In particular this sentence: "Technically, projectiles were classed as either 'shot' or 'shell'. The former was solid and restricted to anti-tank and some training natures. " Your original statement was based on bad reasoning, and that reasoning was corrected by fk. That it is correct was by accident, not because of the force of your reasoning. If you want to have a private discussion, don't conduct it on a public forum. All the best Andreas

Funny, since he is the one who vastly expanded your knowledge about the 25-pdr, regarding direct sights and solid shot, and it's use as an ATG. All the best Andreas

Time to link 'that' thread again: How to Attack like a Russian Rifle Corps in 1944 All the best Andreas

The Kilt. All the best Andreas

The IDF failed at getting past the defenses thrown up by Hizbollah. The Americans are still in Bagdad. Strategically, both were half-assed adventures. Operationally, only the IDF went in half-assed, while the US had a sound plan that worked. Tactically, they both knew what they were doing and had the edge, but the IDF came off looking the worse for wear more often than the US Army on its way to Bagdad. That's my simplistic comparison based on no in-depth analysis at all. All the best Andreas [ February 02, 2007, 01:23 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

No I did not - so please accept my apologies. I read it as sarcasm, which goes to tell that the old saying 'Man soll nicht immer von sich selbst auf andere schliessen', is correct. Alles Gute Andreas

I explained my logic. How about you explain yours instead of useless bitchy comments? All the best Andreas

If you do not see the difference, then you do not want to see the difference, in my humble opinion.</font>

What's the difference? Note, I am talking about in-game attacks of this kind on the US forces, not attacks on civilians. All the best Andreas

I think another distinction is required - suicide bombing attacks against civilians are something different from suicide attacks against a military force. The latter have been documented I don't know how many times in I don't know how many wars, and if observed by the right person would land you a VC or Ritterkreuz, posthumously. Japanese soldiers with 500kg bombs and a hammer sitting in a hole waiting for a tank to roll over them are clearly a suicide IED, in modern terms. So to not include this would also remove an element of the simulation that is clearly important also in a WW2 context. Suicidal attacks against an enemy military force (such as e.g. someone blocking a bunker firing slit with his body, or going straight for a MG nest) are, and have always been, a part of warfare, regardless of whether or not the attacker or the attacked had an advantage in capabilities. With one-to-one representation, it will become more relevant to consider simulating this. All the best Andreas

They're just numbers I made up, personally I'd be happy with X, y, and Z, since I do not lay claim to a shred of expertise on fragment generation, other than having looked at armour plate with shot stuck in it once or twice. All the best Andreas

Then this should be borne out by comparative crew loss numbers. From having looked at Goodwood, where far better APHE than 37mm was used (admittedly against better armoured tanks, but on the whole the advantage had shifted towards the gun), I don't think the simple conclusion that APHE puts the crew out of commission stands. Loss figures in the ar,oured regiments don't support it, IIRC. All the best Andreas

Here's what it should look like Jeff: The equation therefore looks something more akin to: 2-pdr AP-solid shot generates “X” number of fragments during plate perforation . It’s behind armor fragmentation therefore equals X. It's chance of penetration multiplier = 1-6 on a D6, i.e. we assume that at a given distance, it will achieve a penetration (this is highly simplified). 2-pdr AP-HE generates “X-y” number of fragments during perforation where -y = the number of fragments lost due to loss of kinetic energy, this could be as high as X if no penetration is achieved due to the loss of kinetic energy. If it penetrates, in addition it will generate “Z” number of fragments by the bursting charge. it's chance of penetration is 2-6 on a D6. It’s behind armor fragmentation is therefore: = X -y + Z 37mm pzgr AP-HE generates “X - y1” number of fragments during perforation, but it generates 1.5 to 1.6 times Z fragments from the bursting charge because it uses PETN instead of Picric Acid (note there is not accounting here for the larger 37mm pzgr bursting charge). It's chance of penetration is 3-6 on a D6. 37mm pzgr AP-HE behind armor fragmentation = X -y1 + (1.5Z) For giggles lets put some arbitrary numbers to this cause' some folks don’t like “X’s” and “Y’s”, and "Zs". Lets say plate perforation generated fragments “X” = 100 effective fragments. Lets say bursting charge generated fragments for 2pdr APHE “Z” =100 effective fragments. Let's say we lose 20 fragments as -y due to lower penetration performance. 2pdr Solid Shot therefore introduces 100 effective fragments into the crew compartment 2pdr APHE introduces 100 -20 + 100 = 180 effective fragments into the crew compartment Let's say for the 37mm pzgr APHE we lose -y = 50 fragments. It therefore introduces 100 - 50 + (1.5 x 100) = 200 effective fragments into the crew compartment Ok – quiz time: If you wish to maximize kill probability against a tank from firing any of these projectiles, does it make more sense to: a) Introduce 100 fragments into the crew compartment; or Introduce 180 effective fragments into the crew compartment while risking a 17% probability of no damage; or c) Introduce 200 effective fragments into the crew compartment while risking a 33% probability of no damage. Answers on a postcard. All the best Andreas