c3k

Hunter, How will different capabilities be represented between German and Soviet artillery parks? Beyond the mere shell weight and range; organizational flexibility, mobility, mapping, ranging, counterbattery, etc.? Thanks, Ken

Hunter, Thanks! Ken

MikeyD, Yes, quite right. I posted the 10kg figure to bring the higher mass to John D. Salt's attention, not to try to prove that he was wrong. I do find it interesting that the smaller bore 120mm gun fires a higher mass penetrator than the 125mm gun. Any idea on the 125mm muzzle velocity? Thanks, Ken

Hmmm, Isn't the Abram's penetrator in the 10kg range? (Questioning the 125mm bore, 3.6kg, in the earlier post; 120mm, 10kg after sabot separation.) Regards, Ken

Gents, The translation of the German term was "zero radius turning gear". "Gear" referring to the actual gears in the transmission, as opposed to the looser definition of "gear" meaning "stuff". The Tiger (I for sure, possible II) and the Panther are explicitly mentioned as having the zero radius turning ability. This is a "pivot in place" ability. This differed from the Allied tanks in that one track was driven forward while, simultaneously, the other track was reversed. Both tracks moved, which reduced or eliminated all the problems inherent in skidding one track. (Also, skidding one track still resulted in a lateral movement of the tank's center of mass.) The two tracks' speeds were synchronized such that the center of the tank pivoted over the same spot in the ground. Obviously, the tactical payoff could be quite worth the high technical cost of such a capability. Regards, Ken (Edited to clarify the differences in tank pivoting.) [ June 19, 2006, 05:41 AM: Message edited by: c3k ]

Hmm, The guidance package is critical. If a ground team calls for support due to, say, tanks behind a building, here's what could happen: the ground team pulls back, radios the map grid and target type back up the chain. Aerial assets are assigned. Call it some Apache D's, Longbow equipped. They get targeting on T-72's, ID'd by their radar. No LOS from the ground team. No LOS by the Apaches due to dust or fog or somesuch. Some hellfires come off the rails, and a bunch of T-72 scrap metal comes raining down. No LOS, but the targets are destroyed. Will that be modelled? Or, using your B-52 example: what if they have sensor fuzed weapons? Again, no need for LOS. GPS guidance? Buddy lasing by one aircraft for another? There a many cases in which the ground units do not need LOS to a target in order to cause its destruction. As well, the aircraft, in certain cases, do not need the ability to have a LOS to the target, or the visibility to see the target. Regards, Ken

Kingfish, This is an undocumented feature of CMBB which simulates a real Soviet innovation. In order to keep their men warm in extreme winter conditions, Soviet units would have their men all grip a rope. They would then "wrap" themselves around the first man. He would be warmest. The inner layers would retain heat. The outer layer, of course, would be cold. Every so often they would unwrap, change positions, and rewrap. In this manner the entire unit would endure what would have been man-killing temperatures. Obviously, your unit was practicing, even though it isn't winter. This shows excellent leadership skills. Carry on. Regards, Ken

Hey, anyone else notice that BF.C TOTALLY screwed up the thickness of the space lobsters' shells? They need to address that in a patch...right now!! Ken

Winecape, thanks for taking the initiative on this! If you'd like some volunteers to help, just say the word... Regards, Ken

Ahh, allow me to poke. (Hey, it's fun...) JasonC, where is the temperature rise being measured? It seems to me (and I could very well be misinterpreting your postings) that you keep on using the earth's oceans as the only possible heat sink. Is this so? My earlier posting questioned a model which ignores all the land mass. Obviously, there is little land mass circulation. But the land does absorb heat. How much and how deeply and how it radiates it seems to be a non-trivial part of any model. Likewise the gaseous envelope. My use of the meteorite impact was to show that a localized energetic event could have a much greater impact (pun!) than would seem likely. Assume every bit of a meteorite's energy is transferred as heat (no momentum transfer). How much energy is that? How does that compare to a year's worth of solar energy? Yet, that relatively minor event (my assumption, not having worked out the energy comparison) is believed to have caused a drastic climactic change. Comments? Regards, Ken

Guys, Fighter combat is VERY different than ground combat. I'll leave it as an exercise for someone else to get the hard numbers, but the VAST majority of fighter victories were the result of one combatant seeing and engaging an unaware opponent. By VAST, it's on the order of 90%. It is quite difficult to close with and destroy an enemy who is aware of your approach. Put a Soviet unit in the air. Destroy the leader who has the only transmitter. Put a flight of four Germans against the survivors. Allow the Germans to coordinate their attacks. They can team up against selected Soviets at will. Skill has little to do with that fight. It comes down to coordination. Regards, Ken

Finally, one more thought on this. JasonC's model uses energy input and output to model temperature changes and highlight the overall robustness of the planet's heat balance. I submit the following question to perform a rough check on the model's assumptions. What is the energy input to the system (planetary heating) of a meteorite which impacts the earth? Assume typical asteroidal body velocity, density, and a size of a few miles diameter. My point being that the energy of that body relative to the overall energy inputs to the earth may be quite small. (I don't know. Would someone kindly do the maths? Thank you.) Yet, a widely accepted theory holds that a body such as that could have severe climatalogicol repercussions. If the energy comparison shows the impact to be negligable - purely from a relative analysis - that would show that severe localized phenomena may have a larger impact than a generalized uniform body model would show. (This would be the appropriate point for someone to mention chaos theory...) Regards, Ken

An on-topic question: JasonC has expostulated a model using a uniform column of water 2km in height (depth?) to represent the heat absorption dynamics of the earth. What about land mass? Ignoring 30% (plus or minus) of the surface area of a sphere (most of which is nearer the equator than the poles, granting a larger relative proportion of the irradiated zones) is a large assumption. The land mass would create many localized hot-zones or, in the case of the polar caps, cold-zones. (Is the Sahara expanding? Does biomass have an effect? Do biological cycles extract heat? Polar albedo? Etc.) Additionally, since the focus is on trace gas reflectivity in the atmosphere, how does the atmosphere act? Is it a heat-sink? What of the water vapor cycle? How much energy would it take to create complete cloud cover? Etc, etc. Thanks, Ken

Egads!! BigDog944, a LARGE body of opinion holds that the American media does NOT represent American public opinion. Rather, it (the media) represents the radical ideology of the liberal (American political usage) wing. As such, it leads opinion, shaping it, rather than reflecting it. CNN is an egregious example (as is "60 Minutes".). The Fox News Network would be the counterpoint which proves the generality. Now, I don't want this thread to dissolve into a liberal versus conservative debate. The point of my paragraph, above, is to wave a large red "Danger" flag to highlight the vast gap between U.S. media outlets and accepted science. Regards, Ken

Yes, looking for critical errors in the model: the assumption that the energy influx into the column of water gets averaged instantly throughout the entire volume is a large assumption. How would the model change using thermodynamics to model the heat dissipation? The first meter of the 2 km column of water would have a significant temperature difference than the final meter. How does that variation effect the model? Regards, Ken

What about changing albedo?

Okay, approaching with a 10.5' pole (since I wouldn't touch this with a mere 10' pole); I would be hesitant to equate neo-nazi sympathies to a scenario heavily in favor of the Germans. It is very easy to be lured into the trap of creating scenarios which reward German forces. (Mercedes still trades on the "German engineering" mystique.) Panthers ARE sexier than T-34's. Now, add in some Jagdpanthers, etc., and a belief that every German AFV is able to destroy 20 to 30 times their number of Soviet units and you have "fan boy" scenarios. Sure, it can be a fun form of target practice, but that's about it. (Perhaps there's a utility to such scenarios so those who are unfamiliar with the plethora of German armor can play with them and find out which each of them are.) Regards, Ken

Hmmm, Obviously, we need to differentiate the COVER aspects of ferns (little to none) from the CONCEALMENT aspect (very high). This being the obverse of the aforementioned "trunk zone" extending from 1 to 3-5 meters above the ground; high COVER, low CONCEALMENT. Modelling the various calibers' penetration of various species of trees would be quite important. How does an M-4/M-16's 5.56 round penetrate a pine? How does that compare to, say, a pistachio trunk? What of the various Syrian rounds? How do we apply the uniform rows of a man-made orchard? If the firer and target are in the same orchard lane, it would be wide open. If they are separated by a few lanes, then angular differences would be critical. One lane apart, at a range of 1,000 trees, would seem to be total COVER and total CONCEALMENT. Yet, one lane apart at a range of 10 trees would be much less. Now, what of 10 lanes apart, but firer and target are at 90 degrees to the axis of the lanes? Hmmm, has anyone thought of irrigation systems? Regards, Ken

Wow, Here I was, in my ignorance, assuming all this M1117 clamor was just another type Hummer. How does this thing compare size-wise with a BRDM? Thanks, Ken

WineCape, Oooh, sounds good! Please count me in... Thanks, Ken

MikeyD, Agreed, there IS a difference between a "soldier steadfastly doing his job and a soldier carcking and going 'Rambo' on the enemy's arse." I think the fanatacism benefit primarily reflects the steadfastness. For a simulation of a 'Rambo' action, the term "Berserk" (thank you to ASL) seems to be more appropriate. I would welcome a simulation of both. So, I do NOT think fanatacism inherently means going 'Rambo'. (It could, if there is no other game methodology which embodies that behavior.) Regards, Ken

Different era?!? Fanatacism should not be considered to represent a suicidal gleam in one's eye. Rather, a commitment to fight. To fight to the end, regardless of consequences, odds, or what one's sister units may be doing. As such, it is a timeless characteristic of soldiers. Now, for an example, let's look to OIF and Thunder Run. There is a picture of a battalion First Sergeant who is firing across the back of an M1 Abrams, seemingly as cool as if he were on a firing range, while another soldier is dressing the bullet wound in the sergeant's leg! That, to me, represents fanaticism. A tendency to hold to training and duty, despite any and all distractions. This type of interpretation of in-game fanatacism could also be regarded as ignoring any morale loss. No pinning, no routing, no cowering, etc. Obviously, to successfully drive a car-bomb into a checkpoint while under fire would also require the ability to ignore those same distractions. The almost requisite fanatacism of suicide attackers should not corrupt the meaning of fanatacism. Regards, Ken

Hunter, What are you doing?!?!? You're wasting valuable coding, debugging and playtesting time!!! Stop browsing the forums, and get back to work! Now. Thanks, Ken

Peter Cairns, Your criticism of the V-22 is based on cost. Not an invalid basis for a criticism, but certainly not the only facet that needs to be examined. What will the V-22 replace? Now, let's compare cost, range, sorties per day, time on station, time to arrive on station, maintenance man hours per flight hour, payload, availability rates, deck requirements (for shipboard ops), suitability for integration with other assets, etc. I mention these facets because they are so obviously missing from your calculation. If I may be so bold as to draw an analogy, a Sherman would be more suitable for current combat ops than an Abrams. Just look at the cost. Both can kill terrorists. Regards, Ken

Yes, and THANK YOU for your work, GJK (and anyone else who contributed). Regards, Ken