ASL Veteran

Interesting comment. The threat of attrition existed prior to the batteries being located in a threatening position because the entire American army was camped outside of Boston and could have attacked, and attrited, the British force at any time. So the threat of attrition alone did not force the evacuation. A 'infamous' example of an attack by attrition would be when Burnsides took over command of the Union Army for his one brief campaign. I forget the name of the battle, but he just kept on sending his troops up this hill and got his army annihilated in an attempt to attrit his enemy. I believe Verdun is a classic case of attack by attrition too. Falkenhayne never intended to break through the French lines. His objective was to kill French troops. I guess it all depends on your definition of attrition. If attrition means both killing the enemy and the threat of killing the enemy, then a battle will always be a case of either attrition or the threat of attrition. Classes in tactics would be pretty simple then because it would consist of one sentence: "kill the enemy. Class dismissed". This seems to be a rather simplistic point of view to me. Perhaps attrition is killing the enemy, and maneuver is putting yourself in the most advantageous position to kill the enemy. Using that rationale, maneuver and attrition coexist as good chums on the battlefield. Neither being effective without the other.

I can't seem to get Steve's quote about convincing the enemy to leave an important location on his own to work on this post, but I wanted to dwell on that thought. I haven't followed the whole thread .. so I am only addressing that point. A good commander can convince the enemy to abandon a defensive position on his own ... and this can be done at CMs level Dr Brian. I actually do it all the time. A not so recent example of how to get a defender to decide to leave a location on his own would be when the Americans got the British out of Boston during the revolution. When Washington placed his batteries on the heights overlooking the bay, these cannons could threaten the British fleet with continuous bombardment (we lacked the powder, but the British didn't know that). The British (after storming Breed's Hill) elected to leave Boston all on their own because of the threat the American batteries posed to the British fleet. Boston did not need to be stormed by a frontal assault. The Americans forced the British out because the British situation became untenable due to the threat to their fleet. Now the British could have elected to stay in Boston, but a commander will normally attempt to preserve his force if staying in a location is clear to be a loser of a proposition (Adolf Hitler excepted of course). Is this maneuver warfare? I don't know. I am only commenting on the idea that direct use of force is not necessary to acheive a military goal. Simply occupying a threatening location can achieve the same thing. This principle can be applied at CMs level, just with individual clumps of trees or houses rather than whole cities or armies. Push one defending squad out of a certain house and the whole defense may be compromised. Conversely, the defender must identify key pieces of terrain when considering his defense. He must also be able to identify the importance that their loss has on their defenses and plan accordingly.

well there really is no such thing as gamey recon in ASL since nothing is hidden anyway. I would recommend that you just e-mail the designer and mention that an increased game length may be appropriate. 22 turns is probably too short for bocage fighting and perhaps a four to one conversion would be more appropriate than a two to one. So you may even double the time from 22 to maybe forty and try it again.

I haven't played that particular scenario and I don't have the original scenario card so I can't comment on the length. A 50% increase in length would probably help though. Airpower in ASL is handled ... similar to the way it is done in CM. Basically, you need to roll a number in order for the aircraft to show up, then a number of aircraft are randomly determined to arrive. Once the aircraft arrive, they are moved around on the map like any other unit only they basically have unlimited movement factors and you just strafe and bomb whatever you want to. If you roll a certain number you have a mistaken air attack and your opponent gets to choose one of your units and conduct an air attack on it.

Personally, I would like it if knocked out tanks were shown with their hatches open. Yes, it is just eye candy, but I think it would be neat. I would also like it if wrecks pushed off a bridge dramatically tumbled down to the ground / water below rather than teleporting. Does it serve a useful purpose? Sure - I would think it looked cool.

There is quite a bit of controversy in the 'converters' community as to the proper 'conversion' rate between ASL turns and CM turns. A straight conversion yields 2 CM turns for each ASL turn, while I have maintained that a 4 to 1 conversion is a little more optimal. Most of the other scenarios on the ASL2CM site use the two for one turns conversion rate so they are very short - too short to me anyway.

Okay, here is a cross section of Soviet guns as taken from “Russian Tanks and Armored Vehicles 1917 – 1945” by Wolfgang Fleischer. 152mm Tank Howitzer 1938/40 Barrel Length: L/24 Breech: Screw Ammunition: Separate, with cartridge case Weight & Velocity: AP 40kg @ 508 m/s; HE 51.07kg @ 432 m/s Targeting: targeting scope T-5 152mm M.38 and Panoramic scope PT-5 76mm 1940 and 1942 Tank Gun (F-34) Barrel Length: L/41.5 Breech: Semi-Automatic vertical wedge Ammunition: Cartridges Weight & Velocity: AP 6.3kg (BR-350 A) @ 662 m/s; HE 6.2kg (CF-350) 680 m/s Targeting: targeting scope TOD-7; Panoramic scope PT-7 76mm 1939 Tank Gun (L-11) Barrel Length: L/30.5 Breech: Semi-automatic vertical wedge Ammunition: Cartridges Weight & Velocity: AP 6.3kg @ 612 m/s; HE 6.21kg @ 610-635 m/s Targeting: targeting scope I O II-6; Panoramic scope F.-6 76mm 1938/39 Tank Gun (L-10) Barrel Length: L/30/5 Breech: Semi-automatic vertical wedge Ammunition: cartridges Weight & Velocity: AP 6.3kg @ 612 m/s; HE 6.2kg @ 555-635 m/s Targeting: no data 76mm 1927/32 Tank Gun (KT-28) Barrel Length: L/16.5 Breech: Screw with tension trigger and cartridge sealing Ammunition: Cartridges Weight & Velocity: AP 6.5kg @ 370 m/s; HE 6.2kg @ 381-387 m/s Targeting: targeting scope 1930; Panoramic scope 1932 45mm 1938 Tank Gun Barrel Length: L/46 Breech: Semi-automatic vertical wedge Ammunition: Cartridges Weight & Velocity: AP 1.43kg @ 760 m/s; HE 2.15kg @ 335 m/s Targeting: TOD 1932 or TOL tank aiming scope with stabilizer; PT-1 panoramic scope 122mm 1943 Tank Gun (D-25 T) Barrel Length: L/43 Breech: Semi-Automatic vertical wedge Ammunition: Separate, with cartridge case Weight & Velocity: AP 24.9kg @ 781 m/s; HE 24.9kg @ 800 m/s; HEAT 13.2kg @ 550 m/s Targeting: Tsch-17 tank telescope hinged targeting scope. 85mm 1944 Tank Gun (ZIS-S-53) Barrel Length: L/54.6 Breech: Semi-automatic vertical wedge Ammunition: Cartridges Weigth & Velocity: AP 9.02kg @ 792 m/s; HE 9.2kg @ 792 m/s Targeting: Tsch-16 tank targeting scope (16-degree field of vision, fourfold magnification)

Grenades are actually categorized into two types; Offensive grenades and Defensive grenades. Offensive grenades generally have little fragmentation effect and rely on the explosive power of the grenade to stun the enemy. Defensive grenades are what you would describe as 'Frags' because they rely on the fragmentation effect more than the explosive effect. The Germans, for example, had the stick grenade (Defensive) and the egg grenade (offensive). They also developed a rather interesting little stick grenade called the 'Nipolite' (sp?) grenade. This grenade was developed by creating this ... plastic type material from old powder the Germans had. It was found that this gunpowder/plastic stuff could be machined so the Germans just made the whole stick grenade out of the Nipolite stuff with no other material at all. Just a naked lump of explosives formed into a stick. Pretty ingenious I think. I am not in front of my sources right now so I can't give more detail than that.

I believe that the problem with the way Lewis is tackling this issue is that he is using 'area target' and 'point target' using a strict definition of each - which he sticks by to the point of ridiculousness. 'Point target' to Lewis is a bunker or a tank, 'Area target' is an infantry squad since it takes up a wide area if they are all dispersed at 5 meter intervals. Strictly adhering to these definitions, Rexford's description of a squad being fired upon as a 'point target' comes out as nonsense because a squad isn't a point target - it is an area target. Lewis can't (or is unwilling to) get past this point, so all the calculations that Rexford has made about trajectory and accuracy become nonsense since - according to Lewis - Rexford can't even define the target correctly. Of course, since Rexford's analysis deals with whether a target is a vertical target or a horizontal target and that the definition Lewis is using is irrelevant to Rexford's mathematics, they can't communicate effectively with each other. However, this is not the first 'issue' that Lewis got hung up on. There were other issues as well - equally ridiculous - and I am coming to the conclusion that Lewis is arguing for the sake of arguing and he probably enjoys all the attention that he is getting from someone who obviously has a great deal of knowledge on the subject. Lewis may feel that he is raising valid objections and important concerns about the data Rexford is presenting - unfortunately these objections and concerns come across as something other than important. I have some interesting (to me anyway) data about Soviet velocities and shell weights which I may share later on if it is of interest. The Germans seem (to me anyway) to have made a conscious decision to make HE shells lighter and slower than their AP cousins from the same gun, but the Soviets do not seem to have shared that design philosophy. Sometimes their HE is the same velocity but heavier, and sometimes even heavier and faster. In fact, their HE weights and velocities are all over the map (possibly in both weights and velocities and perhaps in where they land too).

I don't believe that dispersion is Rexford's theory - dispersion is something that is already established and recognized in various field manuals and range tests. Could your disagreement be in the way that Rexford is applying dispersion? If so, in what way is Rexford misapplying dispersion to his calculations?

Germanboy is correct in that this command would mostly apply to infantry assaults vs AFVs (although it could be used against enemy infantry in forested areas for example to keep them from getting out of your LOS between orders phases). The main problem is that a real squad that is close assaulting an AFV would 'see' what the AFV is doing and would react accordingly. In CM, the squad will move to where you tell them to move to, and will then remain there regardless of whether the AFV is still there or not. In CM, in order to close assault an AFV under the current 'rules' (for lack of a better term) you pretty much need to anticipate what the AFV will be doing when you are plotting the orders for your infantry. If you are off by a few meters, they will be helpless targets accomplishing nothing. I have had numerous opportunities to close assault enemy AFVs in CM, but hesitated for fear of guessing wrong as to what the opposing player would do with his AFV. If the opportunity exists though, a command would be handy. One example, I played one of the scenarios from the CD where US Paratroopers are defending a bridge against a bunch of French tanks and some Kraut infantry. I just happened to have a Paratrooper squad hiding in some trees next to the road on the causeway. Opponent has decided to drive his tanks down the causeway with no infantry support. Tank stops a mere 20 meters away from my squad. I send my squad sneaking up to the tank, but the tank (unaware of my presence) decides to back up ten meters putting my squad on the roadside in front of the tank (rather than behind it and assaulting it). I ended up getting the tank in the end, but it was a frustrating game of guess where the tank will be next? An assault command would eliminate the guesswork. I just order the squad to assault the tank and they do it. No guessing, just target and go. What if the tank drives off? I cancel the order in the next orders phase if I choose so I don't need to chase the tank to Berlin. Could I have done a coordinated platoon assault on the tank? No, the other squads from the platoon were located further up the causeway - this was a target of opportunity. Tank was close, I decided to take it out. Is the command limited to a few specific situations - maybe one or two of which may appear in a typical game? Yes, the command is very limited. Would it be desirable to have? Yes. Is it worth the coding effort? For me, yes. For others - no. Will BTS implement it? Probably not, but I don't really mind. Perhaps they can include something like that in the future. Lets have it added to the wish list and air our ideas.

Oh, well I figured that you were posting that in a vain attempt to 'prove' that the 75L24 was nearly identical to the 75L48 when it came to firing HE. So what you were really doing was posting a comparison of two identical guns in an attempt to show ... what ... that they were identical? Ah, now I completely understand the relevance of that post.

Okay, since there seems to be some conflicting information on the actual guns themselves I figured I would post some data from “The Encyclopedia of Infantry Weapons of WW2” by Ian Hogg. These are not tank guns, but various guns used by infantry - AT and IG guns. Unfortunately all the data is in pounds and inches, but I’m sure the great minds on this board can convert this to metric if necessary. 7.5cm Leichte Infanterie Geschutz 18: Barrel length: 35.43 inches Breech mechanism: Shotgun, percussion firing Projectile & Weight: HE, 13.2lbs Propelling charge: Five-part; brass-coated steel case Muzzle velocity: 690 ft per second 7.5cm Infanterie Geschutz 37: Barrel length: 70.75in with muzzle brake Breech mechanism: Vertical sliding block, semi automatic, percussion Projectile & Weight: HE 13.2lbs Propelling charge: Six part charge, separate loading, brass case Muzzle Velocity: 918 ft per second 7.5cm Infanterie Geschutz 42 nA: Barrel length: 70.75inches Breech mechanism: Vertical sliding block, semi automatic, percussion Projectile & Weight: HE, 13.2lbs Propelling charge: Six part, separate loading, brass case Muzzle velocity: 918ft per second 7.5cm Infanterie Kanone 290®: Barrel length: 49.5inches Breech mechanism: Interrupted screw, percussion firing Projectile & Weight: HE, 13.75lb Propelling charge: 18oz, fixed, brass case Muzzle velocity: 1270ft per second 7.5cm Panzerabwehrkanone 40: Barrel length: 145.75inches Breech mechanism: Horizontal sliding block, semi automatic, percussion Projectiles & Weight: AP 15lb; APCR 7.04lbs; HE 12.8lbs; HEAT 10.1lbs Propelling charge: Steel case, lacquered. Fixed round Muzzle velocity: AP 2600ft per second; APCR 3250 ft per second; HE 1800 ft per second 7.5cm Panzerabwehrkanone 41: Barrel length: 170inches Breech mechanism: Horizontal sliding block, semi automatic, percussion Projectile & Weight: APCNR 5.72lbs Propelling charge: 5.71lb, steel case, fixed round Muzzle velocity: 3700ft per second 8cm Panzerabwehrwerfer 600 (also PAW 8H63): Barrel length: 116.2inches Breech mechanism: Vertical sliding block, electric firing Projectile & Weight: HEAT 5.94lbs; HE 9.59lbs Propelling charge: Steel spirally wrapped case with venturi plate Muzzle velocity: HEAT 1700ft per second; HE 1375ft per second 8.8 cm PAK 43: Barrel length: 260.225inches Breech mechanism: Vertical sliding block, semi automatic, electric firing Projectile & Weight: AP 22.9lb; APCR 16lb; HE 20.3lb Propelling charge: Lacquered steel case, fixed round Muzzle velocity: AP 3282ft per second; APCR 3710ft per second; HE 20.3lb

Here's my secret. If I want to scout enemy positions on a bocage map, I can place a full squad right up against the bocage, use the split squad command, and have the half squad pop out on the other side of the bocage so he can quickly scout ahead without the need to actually pass through the bocage the original squad was hiding behind!

I think a 'close assault' command would be a nice addition. Something that went along the lines of maybe 'targeting' an enemy vehicle / infantry unit with the 'close assault' command and then having the unit conducting that attack attempt to stay within 10 meters of the target for the duration of the command. The command could automatically cancel if the 'target' of the close assault moved more than 30 to 40 meters from the units conducting the assault. The automatic cancellation would prevent the 'close assault' command from becoming a 'pursue all the way to Berlin' command by only allowing the command to be selected when your troops are in close proximity to the target.

I think your memory may not have it 100% correct. As I recall, troops firing down over a cliff against an adjacent hex are doubled like normal, but units firing up over a cliff to an adjacent hex have their firepower halved since they can't throw grenades up the cliff.

Ummmm Lewis, the Panzer IV originally had a low velocity 75 in it when it was first introduced. The longer 75 is a different gun than what was originally equipped on the Pz IV and I am sure that the passage you are quoting is in reference to the 'earlier' Panzer IV gun not the 'later' Panzer IV gun. The 1939 - 41 Panzer IV may have even been equipped with the 75L24 itself. I think your passage can be regarded as misleading and not placed in the correct context, unless you are not familiar with the history of the PzIV. By the way, if the weight of the HE in the shell is different, I'm not sure how they can be the same shell. Count me among the many who have no clue what your point is.

First wargame: Wooden Ships and Iron Men First computer game: Battles of Napoleon LOL, Starship troopers was fun ... I always managed to get my Special Talent turned into slag right after landing on the surface. Those nuclear mines were hell too. Luftwaffe ... German planes form one giant stack and make repeated passes over the struggling American bombers. We call it: "Luftwaffe, the game with the massive flaw"

I guess we can now surmise that the basic 75mm Sherman may have a greater chance of hitting an infantry target than an armored target? I also gather that when firing at an armored target, a 75L24 would be less accurate than a 75L70 initially, but that the increase in accuracy from bracketing would be more dramatic? Taking this to the comparison with the 88 Flak, the 88s first shot accuracy would be much higher than the 75L24 at ... say 700 meters, but after three or four bracketing shots, the 75L24 would match the 88s accuracy at that range so that the increase in accuracy between bracketing shots would be higher with the 75L24. With an infantry target, the lower the velocity the better, so that the 75L24 would have a higher initial accuracy than the 88, and that the 75L24 would remain more accurate throughout. Of course, the 88s HE round would probably be lighter and fired at a lower velocity than its AP round, so how much accuracy would be lost? This may be a good place to tie in Germanboys comment about the use of fused shells for the 88 Flak. Maybe it would be easier for the crew of the 88 Flak to fire a fused shell that would burst when arriving at the target rather than an HE shell that needs to impact the ground where the infantry were located? If the 88s HE round were of a high enough velocity it may be inaccurate because of it. Just a thought ....unfortunately, I don't believe that there is any way to test the accuracy of HE vs infantry in CM between the various guns because you don't get a 'to hit' percentage with the target line - only exposure.

I’ve been lurking on this accuracy thread, and now that we have Rexford here I want to bring up two questions that I got stuck on in the original accuracy thread. There was a lot of talk by Tom and others that seemed to lean towards the equation of high velocity = greater accuracy. This would also seem to be demonstrated with the “TigerFibel” training chart thing. However, I noticed that in Jentz’s book “Tank Battles in North Africa” the accuracy of the 75L24 is almost identical to the 88 Flak out to 1500 meters, beyond which there is no more data for the 75L24. This would seem to indicate that higher velocity does not necessarily = greater accuracy. This lead me to explore the issue a little further. I began to notice that HE shells are lighter than AP shells, but that they always travel at a lower velocity. Heavy shells at high velocity, light shells at low velocity. I would guess that the HE shells would travel at a lower velocity because they don’t need to penetrate armor .. you just need to get the shell on target. So here is the first question – IF a light shell is traveling at a lower velocity than a heavier shell, THEN does that necessarily mean that the heavier shell at the higher velocity is inherently more accurate than the lighter one at the lower velocity. To complicate matters, an APCR round is a very light shell at a super fast velocity – if velocity were a direct function of accuracy, then it would follow that an APCR round would be more accurate than either an AP round or an HE round. However, Ian Hogg in “The Encyclopedia of Infantry Weapons of WW 2” says, referring to the PAK 38s APCR round, “due to the light weight of the composit rigid shot, its ballistic coefficient (best visualized as staying power or carrying power) was poor, and at longer ranges the improvement became marginal.” He was referring to penetration in that specific quote, but it can be inferred that accuracy was reduced as well at longer ranges. Here is the second question: It seems to me that accuracy would not necessarily be strictly a function of velocity, but of the weight of the projectile as well. The ‘Ballistic Coefficient’ seems to be a rather important item towards accuracy and I was curious to know if Rexford has tackled Ballistic Coefficients at all.

Oops, double post [This message has been edited by ASL Veteran (edited 01-18-2001).]

better be careful Jeff, Steve roasted and toasted me in the 'big' accuracy thread for stating nearly the same exact same thing you just said. Of course, that was right after the big (and possibly infamous) mega flame war in the German optics thread, so maybe Steve was under a little duress at the time.

Like any site with scenarios there are going to be good ones and bad ones. Play balancing is always tough too because of varied styles of play and other factors. Many ASL scenarios are unbalanced in ASL but balanced in CM, while others are balanced in ASL and unbalanced in CM. I think this all goes to feedback and the general lack thereof. Not enough people e-mail a scenario designer or "converter" (in the case of ASL stuff) and give them some feedback. I try to convert scenarios that are interesting to my friends and I and I don't really put much thought into the conversion other than to make it as true to the original as possible. It's mostly a case of my friend handing me a scenario card and some boards and saying "This one looks interesting ... convert that one and I'll take you on" and I will agree or disagree. I only give them to the ASL site so others can try them as they wish.

I have to say that I like them all .... but I'm probably a little biased

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tiger: I suggest the book entitled "German Automatic Weapons of WWII" by Robert Bruce. They do present-day live fire tests of many weapons with commentary; field stripping, and histories. john<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Would that be Robert the Bruce from Scotland? Where is Mel Gibson when you need him!