Berkut

The scenario is still available for testing. Frank and honest critiques are needed. If you feel up to the job please email me for a copy.

bumping it up one last time. Would really appreciate someone taking this out for a stroll. See if this scenario has got legs or if I should just scrap it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Berkut: I require playtesters to help with the fine tuning of a scenario I have designed. Called Nachut (German for rearguard)it is an attempt to test the viability of a scenario involving the holding of a location allowing units to escape. I am still tinkering with the force levels. My first attempt had the germans too strong. So any critiques would be more than welcome. And please...be gentle...it's my first time regards Berkut<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*bump*

I require playtesters to help with the fine tuning of a scenario I have designed. Called Nachut (German for rearguard)it is an attempt to test the viability of a scenario involving the holding of a location allowing units to escape. I am still tinkering with the force levels. My first attempt had the germans too strong. So any critiques would be more than welcome. And please...be gentle...it's my first time regards Berkut

self indulgent bump

I have tweaked the scneario a little since i posted. Having said that, I need an email address if I am to pass it on to you ------------------ BERKUT <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As always feel free to query, deride, or just nod knowingly<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm the one in the middle ------------------ BERKUT <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As always feel free to query, deride, or just nod knowingly<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is my first attempt at a scenario. Basically a rearguard action against a british recce squadron and infantry. I am worried about disparity in the units i have chosen and wether it can be one by playing any side. Although having said that, the AI does not handle the axis forces very well, and it is probably better if played human vs human. if anyone wants to give it a try please post here or email me. thanks ------------------ BERKUT <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As always feel free to query, deride, or just nod knowingly<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would recommend Camp Colt to Desert Storm by George Hofmann & Donn Starry. University Press of Kentucky It goes into it from ww1 to modern day and is quite informative. Hope this helps a little. ------------------ BERKUT <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As always feel free to query, deride, or just nod knowingly<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not saying that they should stop it, they should not take part. As for the training, we may train their officers, we may train their infantry in basics, but I don't for one minute believe we have been training foreign special forces in our own techniques. We also have to remember that this crap can be watched by terrorists as well. Do you want celebrity spec-op warriors who are in the public eye so often that we know what their kids names are and where they go to school? There's a big difference between dictatorship and a measured commonsense approach. ------------------ BERKUT <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As always feel free to query, deride, or just nod knowingly<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suppose it had to happen at some point, we have had just about every type of reality TV show going. Here in the UK we have had reality TV concerned with the army, from shows concerning the Royal marines, platoon sergeant training, life in the glass house....we even had one where units had to perform combat missions for points, but i cannot remember the name of it. I never felt the need for some of these shows, and was always wondering what the hell was going on with the brass, that they could not tell these producers to take a long walk off a short pier. I would not want army training turned into entertainment, I would not want it on TV at all. I would be appalled at the idea of how our armed forces; including our special forces, conduct certain operations, being broadcast on the goggle box for all to see. There is also the problem with TV execs thinking product placement...it would not suprise me to learn that US version of these events are 'sponsored' by some company. Whats next? Delta force going in with the Nike swoosh on the back of their uniforms. Was it not embarresing enough for the US military command, to have their SEAL teams met on the beach by the worlds press? I think it's time these shows were knocked on the head. I feel that lines should be drawn and TV companies made to understand this. ------------------ BERKUT <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As always feel free to query, deride, or just nod knowingly<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My mistake, although in my defence it was a couple of years since I read it I feel that anyone attempting to write something similar to Shelby Footes narrative [which i have read. very impressive] would be committed to a volume of work far in excess of the three volumes written by shelby. Remember that Shelby tried to cover the political events leading up to, and during the civil war, not just the battles. Any author attempting this for WW2 would be presented with an herculean task. Stirring battles scenes and labyrinthian power politics, covering all the parties involved. Though it would be nice if someone tried As for a book with good battle maps, there was one that i remember the title of, but I'm buggered if i can remember the authors name. "It never snows in September" An excellent book that covers Operation Market Garden, from the german perspective. Once again written by someone in the british armed forces. If anyone hear knows the name of the author I would be grateful...would like to get my hands on it again. regards ------------------ BERKUT <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As always feel free to query, deride, or just nod knowingly<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The book "the Battle for world war 2" by John Keegan throws some light on the lack of a definitive history of ww2. In it, he highlights that the weight of work on the period, outweighs that of any period of conflict in human history..combined. In many ways it can be a disturbing read. Not so much with atrocities or the butchers bill, but the way that it has become increasingly distorted by those who have an agenda. Our views of what happened are constantly being challenged by new documantaries, or by aplogist/revisionist historians who want to present these events in a different light. Coming to a consensus on what would constitute a definitive account of world war 2, would be hard to agree on.

I remember reading an account from a cromwell crew, that may shed some light on useful tactics... "We knew that the cromwell was built for speed, so whenever we went into battle we always positioned ourselves in reverse. The idea was that the engine would add some extra protection, and if we had to get out of there in a hurry, we were facing in the right direction" hope this helps ------------------ BERKUT <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As always feel free to query, deride, or just nod knowingly<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't often get the chance to pull up one of the designers, so i taking full advantage. I never ran the tests with the ammo values tweaked, I only did that once when Vanir mentioned it. I ran a check of ten tests for each variant FF vs KT FF vs JT Archer vs KT and so on, with normal loads and one tank versus the other. Each time I saw the same results. Would it be presumptious of me to ask you to conduct a similar test with single tanks? with ammo loads given only in a typical scenario? I think you might see the results which we were speaking of. After all how many times would you have to face six Jagdtigers? I did not place this post because i am a troublemaker, but because I had observed erratic behaviour and that bothers me. I would hate to lose a game because of this. ps: I use version 1.1 regards ------------------ BERKUT <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As always feel free to query, deride, or just nod knowingly<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I conducted a couple of other tests, using an "easy 8" and and M18. They would not use tungsten agianst the Jagdtiger, but would use it against the KT (but at extreme ranges they would only use the tungsten round once...see my original post). The archer again was the only vehicle that would employ tungsten despite having AP rounds less than 35, i think it had around 28 ap 7 tungsten. If it is not AI scripted behaviour, and I can't think it is, looking at the frsh results, then we must look at this erratic behaviour as some form of bug, and the powers that be should be looking into to it. I think we should keep bumping it up until one of them decides to have a look regards ------------------ BERKUT <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As always feel free to query, deride, or just nod knowingly<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I conducted another series of fire tests, this time with the archer and sherman firefly. The distribution of tungsten to AP is similar to the firefly[without tweaking in the editor and using regular crews]I found although the FF again did not employ it's tungsten rounds the archer fired all of it's tungsten rounds against the Jagdtiger before employing AP rounds. I must admit to being very confused about this one. The theory put forward that it is down to levels of ammo [the crews think they are short and are trying to conserve it]is not borne out by these new tests. So at least TD's like the archer have Jagdtigers up there with the king tiger in their high threat rating regards ------------------ BERKUT <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As always feel free to query, deride, or just nod knowingly<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't worry, i never took the comments seriously at all, i'm too old a bunny to get worked up about it. I was not aware of the running gags as I have not posted here in quite a while. The last time was during the epic 88mm thread, were we agreed to disagree about ap shell vs ap shot ) I seriously hope some does examine this and sort it out. ------------------ BERKUT <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As always feel free to query, deride, or just nod knowingly<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It seems you are right. It must be some script in the AI concerning ammunition use. But since I observed that no matter how much they have, they will unload all their tungsten into the KT, making me think there must be another AI script that puts the KT at the top of the threat list.

I thought I had come across an unusual bug, and decided to run a few fire tests to check it out, rather than rant away like some demented fool. I did the tests, after observing a sherman firefly fail to use tungsten ammo in three fights with german sp's[it lost the third being taken out by pzIV 70]. I thought this odd and ran the tests. I did observe a reluctance to use tungsten ammo against the sp's including the jagdtiger. I ran other tests and observed that the only time allied tanks fired tungsten until they achieved a kill was against the King Tiger I don't know about jasper, but I would be very frustrated at this, especially if i lost tanks to this bug/TAC AI quirk. HAs anyone else observed this or should i be [as jasper would like to see] clubbed to death? ------------------ BERKUT <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As always feel free to query, deride, or just nod knowingly<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just out of curiosity I decided to run a series of fairly straightforward fire-tests, using a number of german panzers vs a sherman easy-eight and a firefly VC. At ranges of 600 mtrs I found that both allied tanks scored hits on a King Tiger at a fairly constant rate[this was aginst the front armour of the king tiger, I observed hits on the turret and upper/lower slope of the front glacis]. It would kill the KG on the third shot 60% of the time. And the allied tanks would employ tungsten every time they fired at it. At ranges in excess of 600 mtrs and up to 1000mtrs the allied tanks would fire tungsten once and would revert to standard AP rounds. I put this down to the degraded accuracy of the guns at these ranges, and (an example of the improved AI at work)the tanks crews not wishing to waste precious tungsten rounds. I then ran the tests versus SP's and TD's like the JagdTiger. I noticed everytime regardless of range, the allied armour never fired a tungsten round against these targets. While AP rounds were good against stugs & pzIV/70's they were pretty useless against the heavier TDs in the german armoury. Does the AI regard all Sp's and turretless vehicles as not worth the expense of tungsten? or is this some sort of bug? ------------------ BERKUT <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As always feel free to query, deride, or just nod knowingly<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read this thread with interest, and have to add my pennies worth. With all the talk about german armour being made more vulnerable, I am playing a QB and have observed one of my fireflys getting the crap shot out of it by a PzIV/70. The Firefly (veteran crew) did not use any of it's tungsten rounds against the german AFV. In the next turn, I fully expect the firefly who has taken three hits (Gun damaged, immobilised, penetration through front glacis) to be taken out. Is the AI determining the use of tungsten against a threat rating for a certain kind of vehicle? ------------------ BERKUT <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As always feel free to query, deride, or just nod knowingly<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Markus You are quite right I did quote the ammunition statistics for the PzGr40/43. But that is a completely different type of projectile from the PzGr40. The PzGr40 employed a tungsten carbide core, and was employed in combat, but was withdrawn due to shortages of the ore in 1943. The PzGr40/43, I believe, is an AP shell rather than AP shot. My comment regarding the Tigers main gun employing the same ammunition as the pak 43/1 and 40/41 forgot to mention that the projectiles, not the cartridge cases, were the same as those employed by the Flak41. A different cartridge case would give a completely different weight. As for the increased penetration of these shells. It is not only affected by the length of the barrel, but the fact that the germans would have had to rely more on the use of AP shells, rather than conventional AP solid shot. The AP shell, like the AP shot has an inner core with a hardened tip, but the rear is bored out and filled with explosive and sealed off with a base fuse. When shell hits, you get penetration (hopefully) of the armour by the hardened tip, the fuse initiates due to the shock of deacceleration and finally detonation occurs as it passes through the plate. Or thats the theory according to Mr Hogg. The reason that i have brought this up, is when reading the previous posts I thought that maybe some of us had forgotten that there was a difference. Or have I been stating the obvious? ------------------ BERKUT <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As always feel free to query, deride, or just nod knowingly<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The King Tigers main gun used the same ammunition as the Flak 43/1 and the 43/41. These AP shells weighed around the same, 7.3 kilograms. All german ap shells of 5cm or more had piercing caps, and a 8.8cm shell would also require a ballistic cap. It's HE rounds would weigh in at 9.5kilograms. The muzzle velocity of the ap round was around 1,130 metres per second and would penetrate 153mm of homogeneous armour at 30 degrees from vertical at a range of 2,000 metres. Which was well within the limitations of it's monocular gun sight. sources The 88, chris ellis with peter chamberlain Encyclopedia of German tanks, Peter chamberlain and hilary doyle. Tank killing, Ian V Hogg ------------------ BERKUT <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As always feel free to query, deride, or just nod knowingly<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>