c3k

BigDuke6, I'm certainly not swaggering into the midst of this, mostly, civil thread, but I disagree with some of your assumptions in an earlier post. Your contention was that a force of undisciplined fighters would gradually gain experience as the fight continued. As well, the disciplined platoon would lose a man here, another there, gradually being attrited. In that manner, the undisciplined mob with cheap, inaccurate AK-47's will win over the highly trained, small numbered platoon with expensive, accurate M-16's. You assume the following: there are survivors from the undisciplined force. They learn something. This knowledge is transmitted to others. These others understand, value and use that knowledge. That is a LARGE number of assumptions. Equally, you assume the attrition of the highly trained side will NOT be replaced by equally highly trained substitutes. That there is a limit to the number and/or quality of replacements. Let me postulate a campaign slightly different than yours. In mine, a large number of undisciplined troops engage in attacks and are wiped out, to a man, every time. No survivors. Ever. The highly trained unit DOES take casualties. They are rotated out of action, substitutes are filled in, the unit achieves high cohesion, then is rotated back into action. The combatant portion of the highly trained force is always at 100% manpower. In that case, the AK-47 is of no grater use than a sharpened stick. (Okay, an exaggeration.) The main element here, with which I think you'll agree, is that the training of the individual soldier is MUCH more important than the weapon. Just wanted to poke holes in a theory with underlying assumptions. So, feel free to shoot me down with your 7.62mm, 5.56mm, or 5.45mm bullet. Regards, Ken

Gents, If we're to model WIA/KIA on the battlefield, well, let's do it all out! I want to be able to stack the dead in front of my men so the living are protected. I want to stack the enemy dead on top of demo charges set on a bridge so I don't have to transport tamping material (the Green Berets in Vietnam ). I want to be able to stake out the enemy WIA, just out of small arms range, so the enemy can hear their pleadings and suffer a morale penalty. I want individual first aid kit use tracked so one squad member cannot apply more than one dressing. I want the "miracle" medicines such as penicillin modelled so the allied WIA can get back in the fight that much sooner. I want to zoom in and see where on the soldier the bullet hits so that a blood splatter effect splashes my monitor. I want to model cannibilism in POW camps in the Soviet Union so the Italian POW morale is accurate. (Yes, this happened. I salute the bravery and fortitude of the Italians who survived the Soviet atrocities.) Gentlemen, all I want is a fun game about COMBAT. Thank you. Ken

The assumption underlying these arguments is that any industrial resources applied towards these weapons could've been appliew with near-equal efficiency to the production of the "better proven" (e.g. Panther) weapon. Is this a valid assumption? Regards, Ken

Hmmmm, It seems that Moon is a mean drunk. You know, the kind of happy guy who, once the alcohol gets in him, becomes some sort of fight provoking sadist. I imagine him reading these forums while drinking a cocktail of his choice. It can't be beer. That's not enough. It has to be a mean spirit. Something like cheap tequila, or cut-rate vodka. Mixed with something sweet, to get the benefit of a sugar fueled hangover the next day. Anyway, there he is, swilling his margaritas or martinis, and, honing in on this thread decides to have some twisted fun. Well, HE thinks it's fun... Ken

Wow. I'm not sure what to say. It seems some of you are being deliberately obtuse. That, at least, would be the most charitable description to use. Let me re-emphasize a key detail: in ALL experiments regarding LOW altitude drops with no parachute, there was some sort of protective sled, roll cage, sledge, or other device used. Additionally, no one, to my knowledge, experimented from anywhere higher than 20'. (Even that required a great deal of energy absorbing material.) Finally, a small point of physics: the starting velocity, in the vertical direction, would have a significant, um, impact on the final velocity at landing. If you jump from 50' you accelerate at 32 feet/sec/sec. If you fall at a constant velocity to 50', then free fall, you will land faster than someone who stepped off a stable platform. (The USAF T-38 ejection seat was capable of survivable ejections from the ground at 100 knots - yeah, you'd be messed up, but you'd live. Yet, that same seat would be unable to save you if you ejected from 1,500 feet, 180 knots, 45 degree bank in a decent to landing. That's the impact of starting velocity.) Anyone who says that any force experimented with dropping from airplanes with no protective devices is wrong. There _were_ experiments with NO parachutes. I'll stop contributing to this thread. Regards, Ken

Urban Shocker, Yeah, I'd like a (well executed) game like that, too. Regards, Ken

Gents, There seems to be a melding of ideas here, resulting in erroneous "information" being passed on. Soviet EXPERIMENTS in dropping without parachutes involved the following: sledges or other protective enclosures designed to various capacities; very low speed - at aircraft approach speeds ~100 kts or less; very low altitudes ~ 10 feet or less, i.e., landing gear just above touchdown. The physics involved were simple. Reduce the drop height and you can do without a parachute. The goal would be to reduce unit dispersion on landing. The problems were the requirement for very specific landing zone criteria (long enough approaches and flat enough terrain to simulate a landing). Plus, the aircraft are MUCH more vulnerable in that situation. The Soviet operational thought and equipment experimentation were VERY advanced for the time (late '30's). They were not stupid or wasteful. No one was thinking of dropping soldiers from altitude without parachutes. The U.S. has continued that early Soviet technique, and termed it "LAPES": Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System. The most common footage shows C-130's about 5' or less over a runway, at 130 knots, cargo doors open, making a run. The large cargo gets extracted by its chute and skids along the smooth ground, RIGHT where it's needed. Experiments were done with sledges for people, but abandoned due to safety concerns. Regards, Ken

Kill Ewoks? I'd pay whatever you charge... Ken

Of course, based on Steve's statement, I predict it will be "Sticks and Stones: The Epic Struggle of Cro-Magnon versus Neanderthal". BF.C will then release updates in chronological order...

Icejon, I seem to recall some EXPERIMENTS in dropping Soviet troops at low altitude. Sledges or something similar were used. Otherwise, I'd venture that the vast majority of Soviet paratroopers went into combat on trucks, tanks, or on foot. (Distastrous jumps into the Dnieper loop notwithstanding.) In a related note, many years ago I read a book on German paratroopers. A commander (regiment or battalion level?) was experimenting with lower and lower drops in order to maximize post-landing cohesion. He found an altitude at which most companies suffered 10% fractures at a reliable rate (100'?). He then went back up to the previous altitude (200'?). (Okay, one more aside - this commander was bothered by the long turn times necessitated by repacking the chutes by trained technicians. He had each man repack his own. He commented that most of the technicians' folds and techniques, "were mere fussiness." It would usually work no matter how you packed it.) He was somewhat more mission oriented than most. Regards, Ken (Edited because even apostrophes need friends.)

Yeah, I'm guessing France '44 as well. Mainly for mass appeal (hey, we save the ungrateful french - AGAIN!), everyone knows the name Patton, Sherman, Caen, Falaise Gap, er, okay, only the first few. Plus, the venue has been thoroughly analyzed by BF.C. Hmm, it seems like such an easy choice, it'll be funny to see how far off it is. Ken

Steve, Hey, I don't care WHAT those whingers say, I like the deeper, more frequent, game module idea. (Of course, as a forum member I have to add my two cents and hope that ALL modules can be linked together. Forever.) Glad to see that you seem to be keeping a good sense of humor about the responses. Thanks for keeping the dialogue going. Regards, Ken

Steve, Hey, I don't care WHAT those whingers say, I like the deeper, more frequent, game module idea. (Of course, as a forum member I have to add my two cents and hope that ALL modules can be linked together. Forever.) Glad to see that you seem to be keeping a good sense of humor about the responses. Thanks for keeping the dialogue going. Regards, Ken

Steve, How long until the "German Rare Vehicles" module will be released? I'd like to be able to surprise my opponent with vehicles he's never seen... Ken

Steve, How long until the "German Rare Vehicles" module will be released? I'd like to be able to surprise my opponent with vehicles he's never seen... Ken

Steve, Thanks for noticing my post, and commenting on it. To be a grasping, demanding, whining type of customer, let me expand further.... Being able to note which scenario has been played would be a great boon. Obviously, there's a difference between starting a scenario and completing one. Should that be differentiated in the scenario roster? How about tracking which SIDE you played in a scenario? How about tracking your highest win/loss percentage in a given scenario? Instead of tracking information, why not present it? Each scenario is FULL of information: time, setting, forces, attack/defend options, units, etc. Allow us to SEARCH the scenario database. (I tip my hat to "The Scenario Depot" for this idea.) Okay, more ideas: make the scenario roster similar to a webpage. Each scenario listing is akin to a web-link. Selecting a scenario ports you to a page with more detailed information. I know that's too nuts and bolts, so I'll stop here. The games you guys have created are great. The gameplay and user interfaces are fantastic. (Hey, no swollen heads: they're great, but they CAN be improved.) Making the scenario roster more user friendly would be a HUGE stride forward. I certainly hope you're able and willing to do so. Thank you, Ken

Gents, All this CMx2 stuff will be so much tripe if BF.C does not allow me to annotate the scenario roster as I see fit. I don't care if each module only ships with one, unalterable, scenario. I WANT TO BE ABLE TO ANNOTATE/MODIFY THE SCENARIO ROSTER. Okay, here's a better explanation of what I mean: A lot of hard-working folks have created scenarios, many of which I've downloaded. The game came with many, as well. I've also created a bunch. Now, I've got a friggin' huge, swollen, engorged, scenario list. My brain is smaller than the list. I have NO idea which battles I've fought, which I've won, how often I've played, etc., etc. I'd also like to search the list. You know, "infantry only, night, 1944, Germans defend" "GO". You get the idea. I don't care about the actual game promised by CMx2. I just want the friggin' battle list to be organized and accessible! Thank you. Ken

Steve, Well, disappointment sets in. Already I see the faster cycle time resulting in a loss of quality. (Sigh). "Pigs in Space"? Steve, flaming pigs were NOT used in space. Lobsters were. Especially Lobsters of Doom. The pigs were purely planetary devices. Sheesh. How could pigs burn in the vacuum of space? Thanks for keeping us in the loop. It sounds like we'll have lots of great games to keep us busy. Regards, Ken

Gents, Why would there be any inherent difficulty in modelling tactical nukes? Overpressure is understood. Radiation is understood. Model the resistance to both into the units portrayed in the game. I'd think it'd be better to be in a tank than not. Etc. Chemical warfare: ditto. If a unit is in their chemical defense ensemble, reduce their efficiency/fitness as appropriate. Then, increase their resistance to the chemical effect. Model the footprint similarly to smoke. C'mon. Nothing too difficult there. As for Starship Troopers and Bugs, I'm all for it. Just, for the love of God, keep it faithful to Heinlein's (sp?) book, not that horrible spoof of a film. I'll leave the space lobster debate till later. Thanks, Ken

Gents, I've just finished reading "Thunder Run", which I heartily recommend. It's an account by an embedded journalist of several days of heavy combat into Baghdad. Principally focussing on armored task forces penetrating urban environments. Now for the on-topic part: I was amazed at the number of vehicular breakdowns and weapon malfunctions. Now, if you assume CM uses bog to represent something other than mud up to the axles, I do not think bog is too high in the game. YMMV. Regards, Ken

Gents, A more thorough explanation of the Panzer Elite model may be appropriate. In that game (of admittedly different focus, so an applicability of its approach may be of limited utility) each system in a tank is modelled by a volumetric shape with a certain damage tolerance. Systems include engine, gun, MG, gunner, loader, radio, etc. Each system has a different threshold before it's damaged. A loader is more easily damaged than an engine. Each such system damaged subtracts that much energy from the shell. If the CMx2 armor model is of higher fidelity (as I believe it needs to be), then so to should the behind armor model gain fidelity. If a given weapon can only penetrate the rear armor of a tank, then the engine should be the first system damaged. Carry on. Ken

Hmm, Okay, how about tracking the path of each shell? Determining an accurate size/shape for each tank section? With proper armor and angles for each section? Then, post-penetration, model what system may have been damaged (see Panzer Elite). No 'randomized' system. If the lower front right hull is penetrated, then off with the driver's legs. Or whatnot. Rear penetration? Never mind.... This would require much more detailed vehicle modelling. Thanks, Ken

Gents, Thanks!! Anyone else have anything to add? Ken

Gents, I'm certainly aware of your differing opinions and I certainly do not mean to start any kind of unpleasantness. I would appreciate the favor of you sharing some of your knowledge. For the sake of this forum, please try limit your responses, if any, to your knowledge/opinion of the following: what was the difference between German and Soviet penetration testing results? I seem to remember that every country used slightly different testing criteria. Then, using the results of the actual tests, the country would extrapolate ballistic performance over various ranges and angles. How the test was conducted, and how the performance was extrapolated to non-test points would both result in differing interpretations of performance for the same weapon and round. Also, the required performance for penetration would cause differing results. (I.e., does penetration mean the entire mass of the projectile passes completely through the armor, or does penetration merely require a pin-hole of light to be visible through the armor?) Thanks, Ken

JasonC, Several minor points for you to ponder. First, I agree with your analysis of the utility of the 81mm mortar. However, you mentioned that the 50mm mortar was displaced by a combination of the 81mm variety and divisional artillery. I would submit that the German regimental infantry gun section of 75mm and 150mm guns filled that gap. (The could be used for direct fire, indirect fire, or forward observer directed fire.) (I believe a book by Knapp details their early use.) Secondly, you mention the useful range of a hand grenade being 30 meters. That range being in excess of the effective range of the resulting explosion. I disagree. I've thrown many hand grenades (all during training). I'd NEVER use one if I did not have cover between me and my target. Of course, those are modern grenades. I don't know how their lethal radius compares with WWII varieties. Regards, Ken