John D Salt
-
Posts
1,417 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by John D Salt
-
-
Dunno of it counts strictly as "Sippenhaft", but one of the stories I can't give a printed reference for shows this unappealing aspect of Nazi people skills. Oberleutnant Steiner, later to be the commander (following the death of the original BC in the preliminary bombing -- and that's a story that must wait for beer) of the famous Merville battery on D-Day. In civvy street before the war, he had nothing but contempt for the brown-shorted bully-boys of the NSDAP. However, he was compelled to volunteer for the Wehrmacht because some of the local brownshirts threatened to beat up his pregnant suster unless he did so. I find it remarkable that, despite the circumstances of his joining, Steiner performed superlatively well on D-Day and afterwards. I understand from Col. Chilcott of St-Loup Hors (just outside Bayeux) that he could still hold his Calvados pretty well when they met (and stayed up drinking until 03:00) in 1999.Originally posted by Andreas:[snips]
Another 'motivational tool' in the German army was 'Sippenhaft'. Soldiers were threatened that if they did not stand and die in their foxhole, their family would be suffering for that at home. I have no idea how prevalent that was, but you find a number of references to it with regard to the fighting in the low countries in British histories.
All the best,
John.
All the best,
John.
-
That seems fabulously improbable to me. Do you have any evidence for this? Just how insanely intricate is CM:BO's penetration algorithm, anyway? If it was going into the detail of something like "Tankkill" I could understand it, but I rather doubt that it is.Originally posted by aka_tom_w:the fact is when they designed CMBO the computer hardware was not fast enough to compute (with accurate armour penetration algorythms) the damage from shots fired in real time.
All the best,
John.
-
Unfortunately, this thread seems to have degenerated into a trollathon with unexpected speed (Olle, surely you can troll better than that?).Originally posted by zukkov:i was just wondering whether the germans and/or russians ever used any chemical or other weapons of mass destruction during the war. [snips]
If I may attempt a serious answer to the question of CBW in WW2 --
To the best of my knowledge, the only major power to use BW on any scale was Japan, and that against the Chinese. Unit 731 also used war gas -- mustard, I believe -- to murder Allied POWs, including Russians. The only attested Japanese use of CW in combat that I know of was the use of frangible gas grenades (filled with HC, I believe) used against British tanks in Burma. This is reported in Louis Allen's "Burma: The Longest War".
The Germans fielded a couple af anti-tank weapons that might cause raised eyebrows to someone familiar with the 1925 Geneva gas protocol. The first was the armour-piercing bullet for the PzB 39 anti-tank rifle, which contained a small pellet of tear-gas. By the letter of the protocol, this might be held to be permissible because the tear-gas effect is not the main effect of the weapon. The second were the BK 1 and BK 2 anti-tank grenades, described in Wolfgang Fleisher's "Panzerfaust"; the nature of the contents is not mentioned, but they "developed a strong and biting fog in the air" and "caused not only smoke but irritation". If anyone has any further information on these, I'd be interested in knowing exactly what the irritant agent was. Again, it can be clained that the Geneva gas protocol is not violated, as irritation is a secondary effect to obscuration.
Post-war British thinking is that CW includes flame weapons, but this was not a position adopted by anyone during the war.
The USA was not a signatory of the Geneva gas protocol during WW2, and IIRC did not sign it until the 1970s.
All the best,
John.
-
Only to the extent that the system fails to punish or reward historical tactics. CM:BO is better than most in this respect.Originally posted by xerxes:[snips]
There's a huge difference between a clever strategist who does something you never considered and someone who's figured out how to "game" the system.
Personally, I cannot see why there are quite so many shrieks of "Gamier than last season's partridges!" from people. Trying to control an area of ground defensively by the use of fire and a few maneouvring units rather than by physical occupation makes me think of "tactics of space and gap".
Where I see the proposed method coming unglued is that mines and sharpshooters are badly over-priced for their effectiveness. If there is really lots of cover on the map, I also expect that an attacking force with a reasonable proportion of aggressively-handled infantry will cause the proposed defence a very great deal of grief. I doubt that such heavy reliance on indirect fire would do the killing job necessary, even with lots of TRPs, unless the attacker massed his men in "sucker cover" -- the AI can be relied upon to do it, but a human might not.
Personally, I'd want to see at least a few MG teams to add solidity to the defence. I also suspect that, given that Wirbelwinds don't strike me as especially survivable, such a defence might suffer considerable trouble from an attacker who had made a reasonable investment in light armour (half-tracks, carriers or scout cars). Fast armour (Cromwells, Stuarts) using smoke boldly might prove a problem, too.
All the best,
John.
[ July 18, 2002, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: John D Salt ]
-
Do you have a source for this, please?Originally posted by JasonC:[snips]The highly angled 55 degree front slope is a poor target for 76mm tungsten, incidentally. 76mm plain AP is better than tungsten against so much slope, but needs to be close to penetrate as well as 105mm HEAT does at any range.
I find it hard to believe that either the M62 or M79 would out-perform the M93 HVAP (APCR) round at any slope, except perhaps at extreme ranges.
All the best,
John.
-
I wouldn't go as far as "insulting", but it reads pretty high on my crassometer. I reckon it's maybe even a bit dafter than that spurious "T" people keep putting in front of Chaikovsky's name.Originally posted by Panzer Leader:Hmm, I thought it looked pretty cool, but I don't know the ins-n-outs of cyrillic. Is it really that crass and insulting? [snips]
All the best,
John.
-
Why would you want seperate ammunition stocks for bow and co-ax MGs? For the AAMG, maybe, if it's a different calibre, but I know of no case where hull and turret MGs can't fire the same ammunition.Originally posted by Sir Uber General:How about having the bow and coax MG's be able to fire independantly with seperated ammo loadouts for starters...
All the best,
John.
-
Of course, to a mathematician, "generally" means "in the general case", that is, in all cases.Originally posted by Tarqulene:[snips]
redwolf says "generally", ie, "ususally". You want to use the word "partially". That's a difference in little more than emphasis. ("Usually" or "generally" implies more-often-than-not, "partially" doesn't.) "A mathematician is a species of Frenchman -- when you say something to him, he translates it into his own language, and presto! It is something entirely different." (Schiller, I think.)
All the best,
John.
-
Are you sure it fired the same round as the 17pdr.? I have this notion that it was a cut down cartridge with a little less propellant, which would also contribute to a lower mv.Originally posted by Michael emrys:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by flamingknives:
Yes, the comet did mount a "77mm" gun, but it fired the 17pdr ammunition. [snips]
Michael</font>
-
I have never seen mention of a PzGr 39 round for the 7.5cm L24, but it seems to me that the striking velocity would be so low that there is no thing to be gained by having a piercing cap. I can't find a description of the 7.5cm K Gr rot Pz round, but I would think it most likely to be APHE, which was more or less the customary AP nature for low-velocity weapons.Originally posted by Little_Black_Devil:The biggest issue I have run into is the K.Gr.rot.Pz round. Is it AP, APC or APCBC?
Would this round still have been in use by the time Barbarosa rolled around, or would it likely have been replaced by the Pzgr.39 round, which I believe is APCBC?
[snips]
All the best,
John.
-
Welcome aboard.Originally posted by Superstar:A couple a q's from a NewBee, to CM as well as WWII.
I don't know who makes that claim. In general, projectile dispersion depends on muzzle pressure, and as HE rounds are usually fired at lower muzzle velocities (hence lower muzzle pressures) that AP natures, they should, all other things being equal, be more accurate.Originally posted by Superstar:1) According to some sources HE ammo was inaccurate comapred to AP? Why?
The lower m.v. does, however, mean that they are much more sensitive to errors in range. Thus it is possible to be more accurate, in the strict sense of projectile dispersion, while having a lower hit probability against a vertical target.
PzGr 39 is APCBC (strictly, APCBCHE).Originally posted by Superstar:2) PzGr 39 and 40. Do these always represent APC and APCBC respectively or does it differ between guns?
PzGr 40 is APCR.
For German tanks, Chamberlain, Doyle & Jentz, "Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two", A&AP, London, 1978.Originally posted by Superstar:3) If I wanted an authoritive book(s) on tanks and tank-guns ( mainly German and Russian ) what would you recommend?
For Soviet tanks, Zaloga & Grandsen's "Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two", A&AP, London, 1984.
For the technicalities of anti-tank gunnery, I'm sure lots of people will happily recommend the book by the group's very own Rexford (Lorrin Bird) -- my copy should be somewhere in mid-Atlantic by now.
Tell 'im, Mattias!Originally posted by Superstar:4) Anyone from Sweden? Where do you get your books? I'm not aware of any bookshops with a good military range.
All the best,
John.
[ July 11, 2002, 07:13 AM: Message edited by: John D Salt ]
-
You are certain to be disappointed if you look for Villers-Bocage in the Vosges. And Wittman met his end at St-Aignan-le-Cramesnil.Originally posted by *Captain Foobar*:Juju,
If you go looking for Villers-Bocage, where Wittman met his end, you will be disappointed.
Quite a lot of villages and towns in Normandy were flattened, and Villers-Bocage was demolished by heavy bombers. It is still nonetheless a rewarding place for a battlefield walk, as long as one bears in mid how the terrain has changed, which is better-recorded for V-B than for many places. A visit to Point 213 shows more clearly than books and maps can how significant the point was, and how Tigers could approach to close range unobserved; it also shows that the idea that the road was "blocked" by destroyed vehicles is clearly flapdoodle.Originally posted by *Captain Foobar*:It is one of the few villages around that seems to be "modernized".
[snips]
St-Aignan, where Wittman was killed, and La Cambe, where he is buried, are also worth visiting.
Sorry I haven't a clue what one might find in the Vosges.
All the best,
John.
-
Mr. Picky, who seems to be suffering a more than usuakl percentage of speling erros, should of course have written "AVsRE".Originally posted by JonS:HOW TO ATTACK LIKE THE BRITISH
[snips]
{12} This seems to me to be a good scheme that reflects the way British commanders handle “atts and dets”. You might also have a “funnies” add-on, including AVREs and Crocs; [snips]
All the best,
John.
-
"Maiden's water"? I'm not sure what exotic drinking habits they have where you live, but I bet you couldn't say that after half a dozen pints of Bishop's Finger or Young's Special.Originally posted by athkatla:[snips]Thats because their beer is like maidens water down there. If you want some REAL ale, you have to come north, and that means a lot further north than Watford Gap
Best not to go too far north, anyway. Burton on Trent still brews beers as good as you'll meet anywhere, but things are getting a bit fizzy by the time you get to Yorkshire, and Newcastle-upon-Tyne is still suffering under the heel of Scottish & Newcastle breweries, who produce undrinkable filth that one wouldn't use as mouthwash for spavined mules.
All the best,
John.
-
Excellent piccy!Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:
Testing is being done as we speak...
I hope the kiddie in the photo has already collected her first My Little Pony Tank Destruction Badge.
Has anyone lese read "Peter Rabbit, Tank Killer"?
All the best,
John.
-
The RPG-2 was adopted for service in the Soviet Army in 1949. The LPG-44/RPG-1 was developed during the period 1944-48 but never adopted.Originally posted by Determinant:When did the Soviets start to use rocket propelled grenades?
Source: "Protivotankoviye granatomyotnite kompleksi" ("Anti-tank grenade launcher systems"), Lovi, Koren'kov, Bazilevich & Korablin, Vostochniy Gorizont, Moscow, 2001.
All the best,
John.
-
PRO document WO 185/178, "Tank armament versus armour", says, and I quote:Originally posted by redwolf:[snips]
However, a British report stated that the hit probablity at 1000 yards would be 1/6th of that of a 6 pdr, without giving reasons.
"... the characteristics of the weapon greatly reduce the chances of direct hits with all types of projectile - at a range of 1,000 yards, the chances are about one-third those of the 6 pdr and at longer ranges the falling-off increases rapidly. For effective anti-tank engagement the maximum opening range of the 95mm is say 600/700 yards, preferably less."
I'd be interested to know which report says it's one-sixth; I suspect this may be a misremembering of the above report.
All the best,
John.
-
I hope you are not seriously suggesting that I expose experimental fighter-pilots to substances as dangerous as sugar, which is well known to cause obesity and dental caries.Originally posted by Michael emrys:Seanachai, I feel quite confident that the soldiers in the tests where there were no flak guns present were sufficiently armed with M1A6e sugar tablets. My God, man, surely you don't think our government would permit our boys--the cream of our nation's manhood--to go into battle unarmed? What can you be thinking of, man? Get a grip.
Michael
Instead, we here at the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen used aspartame, a low-calorie sweetener. At least, I assume that "AP" in the ammunition window indicates AsPartame.
10 reps, run as in the previous account but using an amn load of 100 AP instead of 100 HE per AA weapons, produced the foillowing results:
2cm Flak AP
0.07 saves per gun
0.13 birds per gun
448 bursts per bird
40mm Bofors AP
0.74 saves per gun
0.27 birds per gun
77 bursts per bird
So, AP works against aerial targets; just not very well.
All the best,
John.
-
A while ago, I whined that I'd never actually seen any fighter-bombers downed by AA fire in CM:BO.
I have now seen lots of them, as I've conducted a few trials on the relative effectiveness of the different AA weapons in the game. The results are reported below; for those who can't be bothered to read any further, there is not much to choose between the 2cm Flakvierling, 3.7cm Flak and 40mm Bofors; the single 2cm is about half as good.
METHOD:
The test scenario used a flat map with two metalled roads running across it. Scattered trees were placed between the roads and on either side of them. It is hoped that pilots' suspicions will not be aroused by the fact that some demented topiarist has made the trees spell out "FLAK TEST GAME".
"Regular" quality forces were used throughout. 12 trucks were placed roughly equally spaced along each road, for a total of 24 trucks. 12 of the AA weapons under test were placed along the sides of the roads, one weapon in each "letter" of the scattered trees. Each weapon was given an ammunition load of 100 shots of HE.
This target array was attacked by 12 fighter-bombers. The game was set to last 20 game turns. An unarmed jeep or Kubelwagen was scheduled to arrive as a reinforcement with 1% probability on turn 20, to prevent the game ending prematurely.
Five treatments were run, each of ten replications, as follows:
1. 2cm Flak vs. US fighter-bombers.
2. 2cm Flak vs. British fighter-bombers.
3. 2cm Flakvierling vs. US fighter-bombers.
4. 3.7cm Flak vs. US fighter-bombers.
5. US 40mm Bofors vs. German fighter-bombers.
A control treatment of ten replications was run with no AA weapons present, but German trucks and US fighter-bombers as usual.
RESULTS
For each replication, the number of guns, trucks and aircraft destroyed was recorded. The amount of ammunition expended was also recorded. For guns destroyed during the course of the game, the ammunition expended up to the time of their destruction was recorded. As the guns were placed in scattered trees a fairly safe distance form the trucks, loss of guns was rare, and no replication involved the loss of more than one gun.
Three measures of effectiveness were chosen:
1. Saves per gun. The number of surviving trucks divided by the number of guns.
2. Birds per gun. The number of downed aircraft divided by the number of guns.
3. Bursts per bird. The number of ammunition points expended divided by the number of aircraft downed.
The number of guns was considered to be the number of guns deployed, regardless of losses during a replication.
In the "control" treatment, all ten replications resulted in the destruction of all 24 trucks in the target array. The number of surviving trucks, and the "saves per gun" measure, indicate the relative ability of an AA weapon to fulfil its primary task, defence of friendly forces from air attack.
The "birds per gun" measure gives a relative indication of the ability of an AA weapon to fulfil its secondary task, the destruction of enemy aircraft.
The "bursts per bird" measure is similar to the traditional "rounds per bird" measure, and gives an idea of the order of magnitude of kill probability per burst.
Weapon____Saves/gun_birds/gun_bursts/bird
2cm Flak(vs US)_____0.92____0.43____77
2cm Flak(vs UK)_____1.37____0.48____67
2cm Flakvierling_____1.46____0.71____23
3.7cm Flak_________1.58____0.77____22
40mm Bofors_______1.14____0.70____18
CONCLUSION
The experimenter (me) was too idle to conduct any statistical tests for significance, so it is not clear how far differences in the numbers indicate genuine differences or experimental error. The 2cm Flak seems to have performed slightly better against British aircraft than American ones, but this apparent effect might vanish with a larger sample. No tests have yet been conducted comparing US and British fighter-bombers against other weapons.
There is a clear difference between the single 2cm gun and other weapons in aircraft-killing performance. The difference is much less clear-cut in terms of "saves". In terms of aircraft-killing capacity, the performance of each weapoon seems to be roughly in line with its points cost, with the Bofors perhaps rather overpriced, even though it seems to have the best hit probability. The single 2cm may, however, be the best buy in terms of putting the attacking aircraft off their stroke.
The results of individual replications showed substantial variation in both aircraft and MT kills, although the bursts per bird figure was relatively stable. From observation of the games, it may be that the performance of the attackers depends strongly on the extent to which multiple fighter-bombers attack simultaneously.
I hope this is useful.
All the best,
John.
-
Here, have a hastily-typed guidelet to as many of the vehicular units as I can recall right now.Originally posted by JMcGuire:Yes, yes, more wallowing in my rediscovered newbieness.
Ok, even my mother probably knows what a King Tiger is, but I must admit more than a few of the units in CM mystify me. I can look at their details and get a pretty good idea of how to use them, but I'm wondering if there is a good online reference that gives a quick one-liner description of the various unit types' intended roles.
[snips]
The vehicles are grouped into categories with the same intended function. Note that the weapon a vehicle carries may not necessarily be an adequate guide to its role; for example, tank-hunting vehicles have an ammunition load including a smaller fraction of HE than assault guns do.
Within each category or sub-category, as far as possible, I have listed vehicles in preference order, worst first and best last. I have also tried to order the categories roughly in order of specialization, most generally useful types first. The category names are often, but not always, direct translations from German terms.
Battle tanks. Their role is direct fire combat against all comers. Mediums carry long or overlong 7.5cm guns, heavies 8.8cm or long 8.8cm guns, in rotating turrets.
Medium: Panzer IV, Panther.
Heavy: Tiger, King Tiger.
Hunting tanks. Their role is tank hunting. They are heavily armoured and carry powerful weapons.
long 7.5cm gun: Hetzer, Jagdpanzer IV.
overlong 7.5cm gun: Panzer IV/70.
long 8.8cm gun: Jagdpanther.
12.8cm gun: Jadgtiger.
Tank hunters. Their role is also tank hunting, and they are also powerfully armed, but have only light armour protection.
long 7.5cm gun: Marder III, Marder II.
long 8.8cm gun: Nashorn/Hornisse.
Assault guns. Their role is fire support against all kinds of target, and as an ersatz for battle tanks. Better armoured than Panzerjagers, but not as well as Jagdpanzers. They carry long 7.5cm guns.
StuG III, StuG IV.
Assault howitzers and direct fire support vehicles. Mainly anti-infantry, but with some ability to attack tanks with hollow-charge projectiles.
Half-tracked, short 7.5cm: SPW250/8, SPW 251/9.
Tracked, 10.5cm: StuH 42.
Recce vehicles. Their role is to find the enemy. They are lightly protected, but equipped to fight, with 2cm cannon, or 5cm (Puma) or short 7.5cm (PSW 234/3) guns.
Half-tracked: SPW 250/9.
Wheeled: PSW 234/1, 2, /3.
Tracked: Luchs.
Captured tanks. Tinny French rubbish you use when you can't afford a real tank.
Hotchkiss H-39.
Personnel carriers. They carry or tow things.
Armoured, half-tracked: SPW 250/1, SPW 251/1.
Softskin, half-tracked: Sd Kfz 7.
Softskin, wheeled: Kubelwagen, truck.
Indirect fire support vehicles. SP howitzers or half-tracked mortar carriers whose main role is to attack area targets with HE fire in the upper register. In CM:BO, they will use direct observation, but this is not their intended use.
Half-tracked, 8cm mortar: SPW 250/7, SPW 251/2.
Tracked, 10.5cm how: Wespe.
Tracked, 15cm how: Hummel.
Anti-aircraft vehicles. Their main role is air defence, but they are also useful against ground targets. A bug in CM:BO means that the softskin variants are not used.
Armoured: Wirbelwind (4 x 2cm), Ostwind (3.7cm).
Softskin: Sd Kfz 7/1 (4 x 2cm), Sd Kfz 7/2 (3.7cm).
Flamethrowers. Set things on fire.
Tracked: Flammpanzer Hetzer.
Half-tracked: SPW 251/16.
Hope that helps somewhat.
All the best,
John.
-
Shylock, surely?Originally posted by Zitadelle:To paraphrase King Henry V: "Do I not bleed if you prick me?"
[snips]
All the best,
John.
-
Hurrah! Prolonged, thunderous applause (as the stage directions for Stalin's speeches always used to say).Originally posted by JasonC:To Farslayer - LOL. How about (to the tune of "fade away and radiate")
Oo baby, I hear you spend nite-time
[snips]
...
I look forward to suitably CMish versions of Blondine masterpieces such as "The Hardest Part" (the exact Brinell hardness being quantifed by Rexford), "Hangin' on the sound-power phone", "Giant ants from space" ("ants" here obviously being short for anti-tank guns), and, of course, "Youth nabbed as sniper, errrh, I mean sharpshooter".
All the best,
John.
-
In some games I've been playing recently, hidden flak unmasks anyway when enemy aircraft appear. So the answer seems to be "yes".Originally posted by Kuma of Finland:This might be one of the stooopid questions (again) but still: should I hide my FlaK's or not?
Situation: I've put my FlaK in hide in order not to shoot any approaching enemy too early. But then an enemy Jabo pops in for a visit - does my FlaK start shooting at it now (while hidden)? :confused:
I would dearly love to see my flak hit an aerial target, for once. Does anyone know how many rounds-per-bird once can expect the different guns to need to expend? Indeed, has anyone ever had the experience of downing an aircraft?Originally posted by Kuma of Finland:I would like to see my FlaK's shooting planes down even at cost of the FlaK. [snips]
All the best,
John.
-
Here, let me re-post my "weight of flying metal" table. This is an estimate of the amount of metal shot into a tank by penetration of 3-inch (75mm) armour, taken from PRO document WO 185/178, "Tank armament versus armour".Originally posted by lewallen:I think there was a thread on this a while back, but I couldn't find it in the Search, so here's the question: are tanks in real life usually knocked out by a single penetration?
Weapon_____Amn nature_____Mass of metal
88mm_______APCBCHE_____11.9 Kg
17-pdr________APC________9.5 Kg
75mm_______APCBCHE_____8.2 Kg
6-pdr________APCBC_______4.3 Kg
75mm PaK 41__APCNR______1.25 Kg
95mm________HEAT_______0.45 Kg
Mr. Picky says that's 2-pdr or 2-pr, but not 2-lb or 2-lber.Originally posted by lewallen:IIRC the 2lb cannon,
Indeed; but I suspect that the same would probably be true of small-calibre APHE. I don't know how much difference adding the HE burster charge makes to the efficiency of fragmentation, nor how reliable the fuze functioning was, but British ATk weapons abandoned APHE entirely after the 3-pdr, and if the tank-killing performance of subsequent designs suffered as a result I have never found any evidence of it.Originally posted by lewallen:for instance, used only solid shot with no explosive filler, so I would expect that you might get several penetrations on, say, a self-propelled gun (with a big, lightly armored superstructure) that would not knock it out.
All the best,
John.
redwolf says "generally", ie, "ususally". You want to use the word "partially". That's a difference in little more than emphasis. ("Usually" or "generally" implies more-often-than-not, "partially" doesn't.) 
Southern USSR topomap site
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
All the best,
John.