gredeker

Twiddling my thumbs and trying to stay out of trouble in: Chico, CA - home to the Sierra Nevada Brewery and their world-famous Pale Ale.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai: the actualy damge of a shell the size of a volkswagon mediocre? the guns were crucial in penetrating the heavily fortified city of sevastapol, convetional artillary would not have been able to dent alot of the bunkers there. he damage done from these guns was huge, when deployed.<hr></blockquote> I think the question should be, mediocre in comparison to what? Compared to the number of smaller guns which could have been manned for the same manpower as this gun? Compared to the number of aircraft which could have been flown by equivalent manpower? Compared to the number of marks sunk into the project? Compared to using the steel to create this gun instead of another company of Tigers? (or most importantly)... Compared to the expectations of those who ordered the construction and employment of the gun? I don't think anyone is arguing that a rail gun shell causes less effect than a 150mm shell. The question is what it did in relation to what it was expected to do, and/or what else could have been done with the same amount of time/money/research/manpower.

After much thought, I'd have to say that I'm partial to the SPW 234/3 (75mm AC) for the Germans and 76mm Shermans for the Allies. I've had good success with both of these vehicles lately, and there's a special pleasure that comes from finishing a scenario where your armor has dished out most (or all) of its HE...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JunoReactor: GPS guided shells? Isnt cost a problem?<hr></blockquote> IMHO, cost is a much smaller problem than failing to: make use of existing technology to save friendly lives; increase the efficiency and efficacy of existing inventory; and end conflicts sooner. Just remember, these are Americans we're talking about. We Americans fight wars just like we do everything else - using lots of resources.

I remember seeing in a WWII modeling book how someone had added bedsprings to a T-34/85 model (along with other extensive customizing touches). The article also showed a picture with a caption explaining that the russians had taken to welding steel bedsprings on the sides and rear of their turrets and tanks by the time of the battle for Berlin, as an anti-panzerfaust measure. This should give the modders something to work on once CMBB comes out.

I had no idea this could be done! Looks like I have some testing to do tonight. Does anyone know exactly what the cutoff line is? I.e., what about HMGs? 81mm mortars? Recoilless rifles? HMGs that are down to one man and immobile? This would seem to strengthen the case for putting AT assets in woods or other non-AFV terrain. [ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: redeker ]</p>

Does anyone know what the muzzle velocity of a puppchen is compared to a 'schreck? A puppchen took out one of my armored cars in a recent game at a range of 382m, and it seemed like the round got there faster than a 'schreck round would have.

How about Redeker? It's supposed to mean "roof-thatcher" in German - (can't confirm, I don't speak German).

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh: I think the 20mm vehicles are most useful when combined with the 75mm vehicles with the HE rounds. The 20mm suppresses the enemy infantry to give the 75mm vehicle a non-retreating (and usually) pinned target to shoot at.<hr></blockquote> I'd agree with this. I tend to go with a 50/50 split (20/75mm) when I'm buying units for a QB, and the fact that they're burning vehicle points instead of armor points is a big plus.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by CombinedArms: Just being the designated attacker doesn't tell you much. Often who is on the attack seems to shift more than once in the course of a scenario, and in several cases the defender seems to have stronger forces than the attacker, though the timing of when these arrive makes things complicated. Ack! [ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]<hr></blockquote> I'll strongly second that sentiment, and would add that "Fog of War" is probably more descriptive of the tourney than "Rumblings of War". Hats off to you, Mr. Wilder, for creating such challenging, tension-filled scenarios that keep as guessing as to who is really ahead. P.S. I fully expect a complaint to be filed by the residents of a certain town, although I'm not quite sure why - I'm sure that at least half of their town is still habitable.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42: This brings up the old King Tiger front turret penetration stuff. Here's a pic of how small the front of the turret was. The turret is far smaller than the glacis plate and it would really benefit from hull down. <hr></blockquote> Some would say that a KT is always hull down...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42: This brings up the old King Tiger front turret penetration stuff. Here's a pic of how small the front of the turret was. The turret is far smaller than the glacis plate and it would really benefit from hull down. <hr></blockquote> Some would say that a KT is always hull down...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MikeyD: This doesn't sound like my experience (with the right vehicles). If you've got a JpzIV hull-down on the back slife of a slope the combination of increased armor angle and reduced silhouette makes it just about unbeatable. <hr></blockquote> I'd agree, and the figures above discuss only the percentage chance to hit, not to kill, and make no distinction between HD gained by being behind a wall vs. HD by being on a reverse slope. Having something like a Hetzer on a reverse slope HD position, with an effective armor angle of 70+ degrees, is just about indestructible with a normal (i.e., not a weak point) hit.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MikeyD: This doesn't sound like my experience (with the right vehicles). If you've got a JpzIV hull-down on the back slife of a slope the combination of increased armor angle and reduced silhouette makes it just about unbeatable. <hr></blockquote> I'd agree, and the figures above discuss only the percentage chance to hit, not to kill, and make no distinction between HD gained by being behind a wall vs. HD by being on a reverse slope. Having something like a Hetzer on a reverse slope HD position, with an effective armor angle of 70+ degrees, is just about indestructible with a normal (i.e., not a weak point) hit.

It's also important to realize the value of absolute vs. relative percentages. I'm sure any mathematicians or statisticians on the board can give a better example, but consider the following: <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Fangorn: I ran a few extra tests. The results of the 90 mm AA gun and the 76 mm and 57 mm gun are placed together due minimum variation of its results. Check this out: 600 m Hull down Panzer IVG / Hetzer / Stug IV / Panther G 90/76/57 - 28 - 30 - 36 - 31 40 AA g -- 64 - 66 - 74 - 69 105 how. - 18 - 19 - 23 - 20 In the open: 90/76/57 - 44 - 38 - 43 - 52 40 AA g -- 82 - 75 - 81 - 88 105 how. - 30 - 25 - 29 - 36 Difference: 90/76/57 - 16 - 08 - 07 - 21 40 AA g -- 18 - 09 - 07 - 19 105 how. - 12 - 06 - 06 - 16 <hr></blockquote> According to these figures, a HD PanzerIV at 600 meters being shot at by a 90/76/57mm gun is going to be hit 28% of the time, whereas one that is not HD will be hit 44% of the time. The difference is 16%. However, the relative change in the hit percentage is going to be 16/44, or 36% - this is the true percentage reduction in the chance of being hit vs. not being hit. A PzIV being shot at by a 105 gains an even bigger advantage by being HD - 18% chance of being hit HD, 30% chance of being hit in the open, absolute difference of 12%, relative difference of 40%. And as Fangorn's other figures show, the relative percentage in most cases increases as range increases. That's my $0.02.

It's also important to realize the value of absolute vs. relative percentages. I'm sure any mathematicians or statisticians on the board can give a better example, but consider the following: <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Fangorn: I ran a few extra tests. The results of the 90 mm AA gun and the 76 mm and 57 mm gun are placed together due minimum variation of its results. Check this out: 600 m Hull down Panzer IVG / Hetzer / Stug IV / Panther G 90/76/57 - 28 - 30 - 36 - 31 40 AA g -- 64 - 66 - 74 - 69 105 how. - 18 - 19 - 23 - 20 In the open: 90/76/57 - 44 - 38 - 43 - 52 40 AA g -- 82 - 75 - 81 - 88 105 how. - 30 - 25 - 29 - 36 Difference: 90/76/57 - 16 - 08 - 07 - 21 40 AA g -- 18 - 09 - 07 - 19 105 how. - 12 - 06 - 06 - 16 <hr></blockquote> According to these figures, a HD PanzerIV at 600 meters being shot at by a 90/76/57mm gun is going to be hit 28% of the time, whereas one that is not HD will be hit 44% of the time. The difference is 16%. However, the relative change in the hit percentage is going to be 16/44, or 36% - this is the true percentage reduction in the chance of being hit vs. not being hit. A PzIV being shot at by a 105 gains an even bigger advantage by being HD - 18% chance of being hit HD, 30% chance of being hit in the open, absolute difference of 12%, relative difference of 40%. And as Fangorn's other figures show, the relative percentage in most cases increases as range increases. That's my $0.02.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by History Buff: Nah, Churchill was the best at come backs. For example we should all know this one. Old Lady: I despise what you are doing to our country. (Something along those lines), If I was your wife I'd poison your tea. Churchill: If I was your husband I'd gladly drink it. Still a classic <hr></blockquote> And don't forget: Old lady: You, sir, are drunk. Churchill: And you, madam, are ugly. But in the morning, I shall be sober.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andymann: how can anti tank weapons miss from 10 yards...<hr></blockquote> All too easily, my friend... All too easily.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JonS: I did just now.<hr></blockquote> Cool. It'll be coming back at ya within the next hour.

Jon, Totally off-topic, but did you send me a turn in our game? I'll be heading home (where my CM-laden computer is) for lunch shortly. Greg [ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: redeker ]</p>

IMHO, this is a good idea in theory, but it would make some tactical situations unplayable. Imagine an infantry force advancing through woods at night, when they're hit with a heavy arty barrage. I can just see the squads running every which way, scurrying for cover like cockroaches running from the light, right before they all start firing at each other in a disoriented fragfest of destruction... ten seconds later, the Combat Mission CD is removed from the drive, broken in two, then flung across the room... It'd be realistic, but on the fun-o-meter it ranks right up there with getting a root canal. (at least for those of us who tend toward the control freak end of the scale)

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges: High morale is a double edged sword. On the one hand, the troops won't cower and reduce their firepower. On the other hand, if they are facing overwhelming firepower, the troops will often stay and die when lesser troops would have lived to fight another day.<hr></blockquote> I'll second this sentiment. After getting burned by troops who bravely stood their ground to the last man, I now try to play with troops no better than veteran quality, with the majority being regular quality.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42: Perhaps if they threw the shell at the vehicle.<hr></blockquote> If it's good enough for Matt Damon, it's good enough for me...

The Japanese "knee mortar" was a 50mm mortar with a nasty recoil. For some reason, GI's in the Pacific thought that the curved baseplate enabled the mortar to be braced against the leg and then fired. Doing so always caused major injury, however, due to the aforementioned recoil (with a broken femur being the most likely injury). Not the best to do, unless you're looking for a ride to the hospital...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by jshandorf: Moot point. The Daisy Cutter descent is controled by a parachute. <hr></blockquote> Ummm, we had kind of wandered off topic and were talking about Barnes Wallis' 22,000 lb Grand Slam bomb, which has a supersonic rate of descent. I think everyone agrees that a Daisy Cutter gives you enough time to bend over and kiss your @ss goodbye...