Brian

Since Brian cant form an intelligent clear question we will have to move on.</font>

Why the obsfucation, MBB? Assume for the nounce that I'm quite knowledgeable about the technical aspects of this piece of equipment and how it was employed. I'll ask further questions as we go along if I don't understand a concept. Start from the viewpoint not of a technician but a well-aquainted and well-educated user. I don't want to know details about the electronics but rather the practical ways in which this piece of equipment was employed. BTW, for all I care they were mounted in a row along the wall, next to your collection of flying pigs...

I hate to break your bubble but the microphones dont record diddly. You are revealing yourself to be technically incorrect in even asking the question you are trying to impress upon everyone that you (and the others you have selected in your royal "we") know so well!!!!! I am not kidding. microphones are transducers that create signals. Sorry pally. I cant explain things that you are likely to misunderstand since you cant ask the question right! I beg your pardon but you are biting off more than you can chew. How things work can be explained at many levels. Where you at? Lets see if you, no cheating now, can ask a clear question that I will answer. Its still early where you are so dont rush.</font>

No, MBB, I am not asking for a cut-and-paste job. I am asking you to explain, in your own words, how sound location and ranging worked. Lets see if you can do it and please again, no cut-and-paste. You explain to us how the microphones were setup, why they were setup that way and more importantly, what was it they recorded.

MBB, I was wondering if you would be willing to share with us your intimate knowledge of how sound locating and ranging actually works? Perhaps Andreas, Jon and myself would see whether or not you know what you claiming to be talking about? 'cause I for one, at least, suspect you don't actually have a clue how sound location and ranging actually worked. I'll even give you a clue - Shelford Bidwell, in his excellent book "Firepower" mentions how the concepts were first arrived at, in an amusing little anecdote. Perhaps you've read it?

Fortunately, I've never been on the recieving end of anything other than smallarms and then only on the butt party at the range. However, I have fired and been near the firing of a lot of larger calibre weapons. One factor which has to be considered with the sound a large calibre weapon makes is the speed of the round and the length of the tube. The longer the tube (or the less supported), the louder the sound the actual tube makes as it vibrates. This is quite noticeable as a "tung" sort of sound, which is I suspect caused by the round as it passes along the tube. Its pretty distinctive and most audible I've found with the 105mm Light Gun and 105mm tank guns (both of which have rather long barrels). The shorter M1 105mm gun did not make this sound. Another consideration is flash. Its something I note is missing from CM, to some extent. It does have the flash when a weapon fires but it does not have the flash when a high-velocity AP round hits an armoured target. This was most notable on the ranges at the Proving Establishment, when 105mm tank guns were fired. You'd see the round's trace as it moved downrange and when it hit the target, there would be a small flash of light, similar to as if someone had let off a camera flash, directed back towards you. This was always explained to me as a consequence of the residual energy of the round having to go somewhere, the result was it was converted from kinetic to visible light and heat. Its something you might want to consider putting into the future versions of the game, Steve. BTW, most low frequency sounds carry very well but they do tend to get lost in the background noise. Mortars tend to produce fairly low frequency sounds like a "cough" when they fire. The smaller the calibre, the smaller the sound. Against that should also be considered that they will be much closer to their targets. Perhaps my most memorable expeirence was my first field exercise in the army. We were exercising in one area of a large range complex. An artillery unit firing 105's were doing so, over our heads into the impact zone beyond. Because of the range's limitations, they were only firing charge 1 or 2 and that meant the rounds were much lower than perhaps would be normal. It added a degree of realism to the IMT we were practicing and was most interesting. No "whistle", more of a chuffing sound.

Which is why the effective range of these weapons is relatively much shorter than a comparable normal artillery weapon, BooBoo. Their actual maximum range is much greater but as you note, because of instability problems, it cannot be fully exploited. Spinning however helps, as do fins. The Russians as did the British, went for fins. The Germans and to some extent, the US, went for spinned projectiles. The former is easier/cheaper to manufacture but complicates the design of the launcher, the latter obviously is the reverse. The chief advantage of rockets over tube artillery is that the launcher is much lighter and more cheaply constructed. In the case of the larger calibre German rockets, the packing crate also forced the launcher, in the simplest forms. Its other chief advantage is that instead of having to crew multiple guns, over a longer period in order to achieve the same weight barrage, it is possible to crew one launcher which fires five or six rounds. As originally concieved, this provides excellent rapid coverage for smoke and chemical weapons. For HE, its a lot less accurate than tubed artillery but thats a tradeoff which has to be accepted. As noted, it will be most useful in the preparatary bombardments promised in CMBB. Does anyone have any drawings of the projectiles?[/QB]

The design of the 15cm and 21cm Nebelwerfer was made after careful analysis of the way in which most rocket artillery explode. As most of them put the warhead in the nose and the rocket motor in the tail (sensible, yes?), it was found that when they exploded, essentially they blew the rocket motor section of the body off in a few large pieces/one piece, and this provided little to the fragmentation effect of the round. So, the 15cm and 21cm rounds were designed in reverse. The warhead was placed behind the motor, which exhausted through a ring of vents, which were angled to provide spin stabilisation which was felt was superior to fins. One side effect of the angled vents was the "moaning" sound which earned them the nickname "Moaning Minnies". As to their fragmentation effect, I believe its Harry Blackburn in his book, "Guns of Normandy" who recounts that they were feared more for their massive concusion than their fragments. Apparently it was quite large, compared to normal artillery, often apparently killing soldiers and leaving no marks. He mentioned that troops were often found in their weapon pits, dead but apparently unwounded. In the battle of Arnhem, the Nebelwerfers were used to good effect against the paratroopers confined in "der hexenkessel" (Witch's Cauldren) in Oosterbeek. Again, more because of their sound and their massive concussion, than necessarily because of their fragmentory effects. Another factor which should be remembered is that they were originally designed for use by chemical warfare troops, primarily for the laying of smokescreens. It was only when the Germans were forced back on the defensive that the usefulness of their HE capability was revealed. I'm not sure, but I can't remember if CM even offers a smoke option when using them, but I could be mistaken on that one, I admit. Finally, the source of the various sounds that artillery makes is primarily the driving bands on the shell. When they are forced into the rifling, grooves are cut in them and when the shell rotates, as a function of the lands, they cut the air and this produces the whistling sound. In the case of the Nebelwerfers, there is some evidence to suggest that the moaning effect was deliberately enhanced for its moral effect on the enemy, just as the Ju-87 had a siren added in order to scare the bejuses out of the target with the effect being rather like a spotlight on a rabbit or a 'roo.

THis has already been discussed in other threads. I've spoken to Steve at some length. I suspect there will be few if any changes to the map system in CMBB. However, from what Steve has said publicly and privately, the editor and inputing systems for maps in the rewrite will be radically different. One of the very interesting things which did come up is the possibility of being able to import map data from GIS sources. This would mean that commercial and government survey sources could be imported directly into the editor and "tweaked". Further, I've suggested that if the map files were seperated from the actual unit information, and the encoding for the map files revealed, it might be possible to directly edit maps, outside of CM, utilising say, a text editor. This could allow a player to hand encode a map, utilising a grid system and then inputing it into a text file, which in turn the map editor could read. However, again, this whole issue will be addressed more fully, once the rewrite of the engine begins. Remember, CMBB is basically done, so I doubt anything radical will occur there, as far as the map editor is concerned.

Mmmm, I seem to remember from high school physics that curiously, water doesn't actually freeze at zero degrees centigrade. Something about latent heat or something...

Try Dymocks or the Co-Op bookshop sites.

With caveats, I'd agree. Haven't seen this one but I use Crow, D., German AFV's of World War II, Profile Publications, Windsor, 1973. Admittedly I got mine in '74 and its long out of print but for basic detail and history its excellent. If one wishes a more basic understanding of the design history for UK AFV's, you can't go past IMO, David Fletcher's books. For the US side, Hunnicutt (if you pocket can bear the cost) and for the German side, the various books in the Schiffer stable by Jentz, Doyle and Co. [ February 03, 2002, 02:42 AM: Message edited by: Brian ]

Interesting. And yet, in the Western Desert, HE was completely unknown, and it is primarily from that period the myth that the 2 Pdr could not/did not (depending upon whom you read) fire HE. So, why wasn't HE shipped to Egypt? Was it perhaps because there was a belief the space was better taken up with AP? The British Army did some crazy things, continually shipping out useless pieces of equipment, such as the infamous Rota-Trailer, which was a serious waste of shipping space, despite the continual pleas from Middle East HQ for them to stop sending them. So I wouldn't be surprised if it stemmed from a Whitehall decision, not to ship HE.

Close enough for government work -- 81mm, same-same like everyone else's bar the Russians. </font>

An interesting discussion. The information I have is that the British did develop a HE round for the 2 Pdr. It was however, not widely issued. It was also a nose fused round, which made it more suitable for destruction of materiale and personnel than the destruction of bunkers/buildings. The Australian Army, according to correspondance I've had with Michael Cecil, the head curator of weapons at the AWM (and author of the excellent series of "profiles" Australian WWII equipment), developed their own HE round in late 1942, with a base fuse, in response to the poor performance of the 37mm HE round carried by the M3 Stuarts utilised in the "Battle of the Beachheads" in New Guinea. Again, the 37mm round was a nose fused round. The Australian one was a base fused round, which ensured that it penetrated its target and then exploded. This round was trialled against the British one and found to be superior against Japanese coconut log bunkers of the type encountered in New Guinea. It was on general issue from mid-1943 and explained the longevity of the Mathilda in Australian service, compared to elsewhere. Back to the British use of a HE round. There are tantalising comments in several books regarding the issue and use of a 2 Pdr HE round by Armoured Car Regiments in NW Europe. Usually mentioned in passing WRT the Little John Adapter and the apparent unpopularity of that addition to the muzzle of their weapons because it prevented the firing of HE. Which obviously couldn't be a complaint if they didn't have HE to fire, now could it? In correspondance, David Fletcher, head librarian at the Royal Armoured Musuem at Bovington and author of several excellent books on British armour development and history made the same point to me. He is apparently preparing to write a book on British Armoured Car Regt's in NW Europe, so hopefully more information will surface eventually. So, it would appear that there were sufficient quantities of the British nose fused round produced to supply at least some to the Armoured Car Regiments. As to how much, is unknown at the present moment. Because of its design, it is not particularly valuable against "hard" targets but excellent against "soft" targets. How that could be modelled in CM I have no idea.

An interesting thought. My question is how were they going to get them there. The Germans weren't exactly well equipped with LCT's and the KVI is too heavy for a glider/transport aircraft to carry. I was always under the impression they intended to use 35(t) or 38(t)s.

An interesting thought. My question is how were they going to get them there. The Germans weren't exactly well equipped with LCT's and the KVI is too heavy for a glider/transport aircraft to carry. I was always under the impression they intended to use 35(t) or 38(t)s.

I'm sorry, but Daimler 40mm gun does not have any HE at all. But the AP capabilty is good, i agree.</font>

An interesting point, John. I used to know the calibre of the 3in Mortar, it is greater than 3in, which is the calibre of the round, not the tube. Mmmm, 80mm? As to the assumptions of some, you have to remember, the flavour of the board tends towards being Americano-centric in nature because of their sheer numbers (yes, I know I'll get the usual stick for making such an obvious observation but the heck... ). You'll get used to it. Its nearly impossible to fight. CMBO is an excellent game but it is lacking somewhat in its accuracy in some of its simulations of British/Commonwealth equipment/OrBats/etc. It is apparently a whole better than it was though, when it was first released, by all accounts, so yes, BTS does listen to criticisms.

Err, am I seeing things or is that a rather a salicious picture I'm seeing posted there of a young lady and a young man, wearing few if any clothes?

Humble apologies. I got it wrong. Yes, the Soviet gun was 45, not 47mm in calibre. [extracts thumb from bum, puts memory back in gear and stops thinking about GIS and unix problems for a few seconds] Apart from that, yes, there were several other 47mm guns, though.

Humble apologies. I got it wrong. Yes, the Soviet gun was 45, not 47mm in calibre. [extracts thumb from bum, puts memory back in gear and stops thinking about GIS and unix problems for a few seconds] Apart from that, yes, there were several other 47mm guns, though.

Surely you jest? The whole bloody Board's overrun with you marsupials. You can't turn around without knocking over someone's VB and starting a fight. </font>

I would say the chances are very low for the 47mm AT guns, because the only 47mm AT guns were the austrian Böhler and the french model 1937. </font>

I would say the chances are very low for the 47mm AT guns, because the only 47mm AT guns were the austrian Böhler and the french model 1937. </font>