Matthew_Ridgeway

Just curious as to the Urgency of this thread. The CM artillery model isn’t too bad. It’s both elegant and simple. In its present form it is reasonably realistic without drowning the player in the nitty gritty of indirect fire. If anything it already allows the player way more control than is probably justifiable. I disagree that additional control is warranted. Let's take an example of when most guys would like to have a fire mission. You are advancing and a pesky AT gun or infantry squad is in a building or dug in along a tree line. WWII maps and those of today have a scale of 1 meter = 50,000 meters. A 1,000-meter by 1,000-meter grid square is thus represented by only 2.5 cm by 2.5 cm area on an FO’s map. On these maps the village you are attacking is a few black dots that denote the village and individual building representation is in most cases an impossibility. Your FO, if he sees the target, swags a grid to the mission and calls for fire. The battalion fire direction center processes the mission (again, do you have priority of fire or is A Company over on your left the main effort?) Once the CFF is processed, it goes to a battery or the battalion. An adjusting round is fired (time of flight about 30 seconds to one minute). Repeat this process until the round gets within 50 meters of the target -- if you are lucky, but that's the standard. A fire for effect mission then is fired with, say, a battery 3 rounds, or 12 rounds in WWII. Elapsed time, anywhere from 5 to 10 minutes IF YOU AND THE GUNS ARE REALLY GOOD, and has satisfied all of the other requirements (good grid, FO with radio, priority of fire, etc). Having said that, danger close for 105mm is (as I recall) about 300 meters, for 155 it is 400 meters. This should give you an idea of the probable error that can occur in indirect fire. I recall reading pre-registered fires used by the British in WWI would walk barrages in front of advancing infantry by about 100 meters. However this was shrapnel type ordnance and was being delivered by 18-pounders (75mm-80mm…something like that). While that is not to say that fire missions closer to friendlies cannot be done, it requires some extra care for the artillerymen, FOs, and ground units in contact. Applied to the game, the fact that "what one sees, we all see" makes the use of FA in the game even more tricky to model. How does the sniper observer in contact talk with the FO? If the FO cannot see the target or get a reliable grid coordinate, then calling for fire is indeed much more of a challenge. On board mortars need a little tweaking in that they should be allowed some form on indirect fire capability. Presently the game is a bit odd and in many cases really pushes the player into using these weapons primarily in a direct fire mode. But this is another story.

Speaking of fruitless discourse how about we throw this particular thread into the ring. I see candidate USer continues to lobby for votes in the upcoming village dolt election. LeWIs: Can I offer you a piece of free advice? It may save you a great deal of hard work. You’re the only candidate running for village simpleton. I see you’re also in need of a lecture on plunging fire. It would seem the concept is beyond the expertise of a "static engineer" like yourself. Poor ol’ LeWIS. He wants so much to be thought of as an expert on small arms. It’s really sort of sad you know.

UsEr: REPEAT: Is this a hard concept for you matty? Does every thread you get into turn into fruitless discourses? Insofar as I typically only post to threads to which you insist upon regularly placing your “shredded” feet into your large mouth, I can honestly say that the threads I post to typically end up in “fruitless discourses”. In spite of your – ahem – first hand knowledge of the subject at hand, if you will cease and desist from posting on this thread I’m sure it will rapidly return to a “fruitful discourse”. However, I suspect you will carry on in your usual mode, and continue to misconstrue, misrepresent, miscomprehend, and vehemently pursue the forums honorary title of village simpleton. At Ease “Static Engineer” LeWIs. Do carry on with your static engineering duties.

Thanks for the clarification. I figured from the way you were spouting off about the combat merits of various weapons that perhaps you thought you actually knew something about them.

UsEr: I served with combat vets ( ) They discussed their experiences. So the information you are presenting is pretty much second or third hand information. “I heard this one guy talking about his brother who fought in Vietnam and he said….” Your discourse on the subject at hand is anecdotal at best. Mumbo jumbo. But you are certainly entitled to your – uhmm -- opinion.

UsER: Since it was a engineering unit, we had a static mission, we only went on long marches infrequently. You mean “We went on long marches infrequently”? Or We infrequently went on long marches? Or how about: Long marches were infrequent for my unit. USeR: Guys feet would be torn to shreds. whaaa…you were in the 82nd Airborne? uSer: I am making a point that being in the service is not the same as combat and that weapons appreciation would hinge on going against other weapons. If you haven’t been in combat how would you really know?

The history of battle, a commander’s experience, and the wisdom of military philosophers all confirm the direct correlation between training and victory in war. Successful combat units train as they intend to fight and fight as they were trained. Modern Armies base their future success on the battlefield on this philosophy. ----------------------- Good tactics depend upon sound technical skills. These are the techniques and procedures which enable us to move, shoot, and communicate. We achieve technical competence through training. We build skills through repetition. Training also instills confidence in weapons and equipment. It develops the specialized skills essential to functioning in combat. ------------------------------ The purpose of all training is to develop forces that can win in combat. Training is the key to combat effectiveness and therefore is the main effort of a peacetime military. ----------------------- “The definition of military training is success in battle. In my opinion, that is the only objective of military training. It wouldn’t make any sense to have a military organization on the backs of the American taxpayers with any other definition. I’ve believed that ever since I’ve been a Marine.” LtGen Lewis B. “Chesty” Puller ---------------------------- “You are either in contact, moving to contact, or training!“ LTC ”Chips“ Catalone, USMC

USeR: ”I wouldnt be caught dead firing anything british though.” RonS: In addition to the M119/L119 the US purchased, were you aware that the M68 105mm/51cal tank gun mounted in the M48A5, the M60A1 and -A3, and in the M1/IPM1 was a British design, aka the L7? ========= US Army was also trying to squeeze 100 or so Sherman Fireflys out of the British toward the latter period of the campaign in Northwest Europe. Throw in the US Army employed the British 4.5 inch howitzer as well. But than I think we have had a disscusion on the 4.5” before. UsEr: “The US also issued german ATG to towed tank destroyer units. These werent just ad hoc but issued equipment that was supplied with ammo and carried on the TOE.” Type of equipment issued? Units issued to? Numbers issued? Oh and how about a non-internet based reference please.

Get a job USeR.

After painfully reading through USeR’s and Slapdragon’s discourse I was struck by the correlation this thread has to Alice and Wonderland and the disjointed conversations between Tweedledee and Tweedledum. The daughter loves this story. Tweedledum and Tweedledee Agreed to have a battle! For Tweedledum said Tweedledee Had spoiled his nice new rattle. Just then flew down a monstrous crow, As black as a tar-barrel! Which frightened both the heroes so, They quite forgot their quarrel.' `I know what you're thinking about,' said Tweedledum; `but it isn't so, nohow.' `Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'

I think you guys have been spendin' a wee bit to much time at the local Sci-Fi convention. Take your Klingon garb off now and reinsert yourself into reality.

uhhh..huh huh...uhhhh...got any Metalica? uhhh...what did you juss say?

Scipio: Perfection is in the eyes of the beholder. One man’s trash is another’s treasure. Insert favorite cliché here_____________. I guess I would recommend picking up a field manual on artillery gunnery or mortar gunnery so you can better articulate what the beef is you have with CM artillery. I am not saying CMbO artillery\FO is perfect, but as yet, I also see little validity in the points you are attempting to make regarding an error in CmBO.

Scipio: First Artillery, now mines? Your certainly determined to find some earth shattering flaw in CM.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why i the AI so stupid I have tried time and time again to make a battle where the AI has a chance. To no avaial the AI always chooses a route to self destruction. If it is not doing a suicide charge toward the flag it is doing some other suicide strategy. Once it starts a strategy it doesn't deviate. The programmer should make the game somewhat more challenging for the private gamer and design the AI with enough intellegence so scenarios can be tested. The current AI is useless.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why is it that people who can't be bothered with proof reading their thread title -- let alone their actual post -- always come off sounding so stupid. [ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: Matthew_Ridgeway ]

Hey Michael! Didn’t you read the sign when you logged into this forum. It clearly says don’t feed the monkeys.

Of interest is the M48 Patton Tank was still employing the T33 APBC-T round well into the 1960’s. The round was standardized as M318 AP-T by this time. But it is the same mono-bloc penetrator design with a ballistic cap as shown in Hunnicutt’s “Pershing”. The ballistic reticule for the 90mm M41 gunner’s primary sight was calibrated on right side of scope for M318 (T33). The M36 90mm gun employed on the M47 Patton tank had almost the same reticule layout, with M318 clearly designated on the right side of scope picture. Settings were provided on the ballistic computer for M318 super-elevation. M318/T33 had a relatively long service life.

You know USeR I have always been curious as to weather English is a second language for you? You seem quite adept at gibberish or perhaps it’s mumbo-jumbo. I can’t quite place the origins of your dialect.

USeR Said: “If you look at the website above, you will see that its only the angle that is changing. They compare a 105mm shell at two different angles. Why you must always mix everything up in your rambling style amazes me.” Careful USER, your ignorance is showing again. Remember now yellow = HE.

ooophs. sorry forgot the smiley

tero asked: “Lets try a little riddle: 0ºC is how many º F ?” Slapdragon said: “273.15 degrees.” Here is why. If the thread gets the idea that 273.15 degrees F is equal to 0ºC instead of out of the ball park once in the lifetime temperature, then we are looking forward to a hundred threads that propose to make this or that temperature, or all temperatures more hot, or able to heat at much higher temperatures, and less likely to cool, etc. People already tend to take the extremes in things like Kelvin and Celsius, Fahrenheit, personal bravery of thermometers, and hold them up as norms. Then when CM, which is based on norms and not extremes is played, they are dismayed when degrees Celsius kills a Degrees Fahrenheit, their air conditioners retreat in confusion, and their refrigerators bounces one off a ice cube tray. So when people hold up an extreme that is 5 degree hotter from the normal temperature of boiling water, it is important to disabuse people who will take this fact uncritically. This is especially important since there would be a dozen threads following this one complaining about thermometers and calling May-Tag repairmen a bunch of satan worshipers and calling for the massive increase in a degrees Fahrenheit’s ability because "I read 0 degrees Celsius equals 273.15 degree Fahrenheit." Better to present the facts out right now rather than let it simmer.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>ASL Veteran: Optics aside, I am of the opinion that if dispersion, trajectory analysis, and test range data are not included in the basic accuracy 'model' then the accuracy numbers are already being pulled out of your ... ummm ... shorts<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I’d say that is about as succinct a summation of this thread as is possible. Excellent point Veteran.

Slapdragon Said: “An integral is one part of a bisected or divided circle (or I think for other figures also so a square could have an integral with equal facility). A secant is a line that divides a circle, so the question asks what is the area to either side of that line defined by trigonomic substitution (u)du. If you want a deeper math lesson may I suggest Triola "Advanced Statistics". I am beginning to understand why there is a certain belief that what is being discussed here involves a bit of mysticism and is “unquantifiable”. Just curios, but, why would you recommend a textbook on advanced statistics for a simple exercise in integration?

Slapdragon: What is the integral of secant(u)du

I am guessing that the 2-second rule may be related to first round hit probability. Ranges beyond 1000 meters for 1943 – 1945ish weapons typically involved bracketing ones target with successive long and short rounds until a gunner was able to hone the initial range estimation down toward actual range to target. There is a certain amount of apples and oranges being mixed with regard to laser range finders and the ability of tanks to hit targets at such and such a range. Obviously a laser range finder does a very efficient job of getting an accurate range to target. No mystery here. However, all the accuracy in the world in range estimation will not help an inherently inaccurate weapon hit its target. Inherent accuracy of a weapon is to a very large degree a function of systematic dispersion. If a number of rounds of ammunition of the same caliber, lot, and charge are fired from the same position with identical settings, the rounds will not all impact on a single point but will fall in a scattered pattern around the aiming point. Typically firing tables will establish lateral and vertical dispersion relative to range. This is true of US ARMY firing tables, German Army Tables, British tables and Red Army tables. They all work from the same basic sheet of notes. Dispersion is determined on a firing range. Fire numerous rounds at a target at various ranges and determine size of the shot pattern. If systematic dispersion gets big enough relative to range, than you can assume a gunner will not have much chance of success via aimed fire. He may beat the odds with a lucky shot, but such a shot would have little to do with the gunners aiming skills, or optics (5X or 10X or 50X) or laser range finders. The FLAK 88 firing Pz.gr. (MV = 810 m/s) @ 1500 meters range has the following 50% zone: 1.1m height and 0.6m width (firing table from TM E9-369A). That’s a relatively tight dispersal pattern if one considers a tank sized target like a head-on Sherman M4A1's dimensions are approx. 2.7m high and 2.65m wide. This implies that a fair amount of slop can occur in aim and range estimation and a gunner will still have a reasonable chance of hitting his mark. Firing tables are not irrelevant to a discussion on accuracy. I guess I would have to ask how are accuracy functions for any weapon determined without them? An artillerist relies heavily on firing tables in order to determine: Elevations of round relative to range (one has to shot over intervening terrain at times) Fork Time of flight Fuze settings Size of impact pattern relative to range (dispersion\probable error) Adjustment in range for tail wind, head wind, cross wind Etc. He doesn’t simply cast this stuff aside because someone thinks “training” isn’t like “combat”.