ozi_digger

G'day rolltider, welcome to the forum. I'd normally suggest you do a search. I just did a search of 'pbem movies' of the CM threads and found the following: Stitching PBEM Movies Together and pbem helper Hope this helps.

I'm reading a book on the LRDG right now. Scenarios would be raids on forts, running through ambushes and airfield raids. The problem I see is victory conditions. The LRDG never really hung around to 'capture the flag'. They were a hit and run mob.

I couldn't have said more eloquently myself. Hurrah! And that's why I play CM, its illusory and imaginary. I don't want blood and guts, just escapism. It's why I don't tend to complain about CM as a simulation. Its realistic enough for me. If you start to add more realism, you have to add complexity. If its too complex, I don't wanna play. So the perfect balance is somewhere between realism and playability - i.e. CM! Just my $0.02 after reading JC's post.

JasonC, I spent half of the last thread trying to convince you that weaponeering from proper data has *some* reliability and you come in here and debunk it straight away *shakes head* tut, tut, tut. Believe it or not JC, but you just weaponeered Pickett's charge to some degree. Emrys - I agree with you on the normal to line of flight stuff and am aware of Allied train-strafing tactics to avoid AAA. The problem was in the explaining 'linear gun run' meaning 'walking fire onto a traget' rather than 'linear target along line of flight'. So, will aircraft carriers be in CMx2? I'm just failing to see the relevence to either CMAK or CMx2. (TIC)

Hey, thats my shopping trolley!

diesel taylor - I'm not denying the loss of a wing of aircraft in exchange for a carrier is not a bad result, but lets translate that into the ground battle where 1:1 losses cannot be accepted(I'm just playing devil's advocate here). pamak - my interpretation is that the text suggests the target was 10'x10', not 10sqft, i.e. "10 feet square" not '10 square feet'. "Normal to line of flight" suggests it is along a linear gun run. Driels has the area of effectiveness of a modern 500lb bomb, for fragmentation against a tank, as 450sqft. This is at 45deg impact angle and instantaneous fuzing with no bomb burial. Because the explosive in a modern bomb (H6 etc.) is more powerful than TNT, lets reduce that by say 20%, therefore 360sqft. A 45deg impact angle will create a rectangular burst pattern and a 0deg impact angle will probably not change the area too much, but the pattern will be circular. Effective radius = sqrt(360sqft/pi) = 11ft. For a 2000lb bomb, area =440sqft, lethal radius = 12ft. S'pose a 1000pder is somewhere in between... Add soft soil or a 10millisecond fuze and you can halve that lethal radius to 6ft!

After a bit more research today, hopefully I can make the picture on the Stuka a little clearer. First - looks like dieseltaylor may have a very valid popint about the increased accuracy of dive-bombing. Second - jacobs_ladder - be careful when thinking bout near misses in water because you have hydrobaric blast effects. From Mike Spick Luftwaffe Bomber Aces: 'The area where a near miss might do considerable damage was at sea. In a dense medium such as water, blast effect was greatly multiplied, often causing lethal damage...' MD brings up a valid point about the SDB hits on japanese ships at Midway, but it comes back to JasonC's comments - IIRC weren't the losses in SDBs about 90%? (More on this below) Also from what I can gather, SOPs for attacking ships was to attack diagonally accross the ship, therefore it is a semi-linear target. By looking at the RAF Typhoon data I presented earlier, we can see that accuracy of attacks against linear targets increases quite dramatically vis a vis attacks on point targets. Both Mike Spick and Dr Alfred Price The Luftwaffe Data Book have similar claims about the accuracy of dive bombing but offer no source of empirical data to back their claims. Dr Price: 'In a dive-bomber a well-trained pilot could place half his bombs inside a circle with a radius of 25 yards...' Mike Spick also claims a Stuka CEP = 25 yds. This is from a standard release height of 2300ft. I'm sure these are low-stress figures. This brings me back to JasonC's comment about loss rates. Dive bombing is more accurate but it means you're a sitting duck to ground fire and AAA. You can't sustain the loss rates of aircraft vs tanks. Another text I skimmed was IIRC Efficiency of German Forces which had anecdotes from two German pilots. The first said that the loss rate of aircraft:tanks during the initial stages of the Russian campaign (before dive-bombing was phased out) was 1:1! The other pilot relates a story as the leader of a ground attack where his entire squadron 'spears-in' behind him. These sort of attrition rates are not cost-effective.

I know I've been harping on a bit lately about weaponeering in other threads, but Morris Driel in Weaponeering: Conventional Weapon System Effectiveness covers some of this stuff. One area he covers is P(kill) given more than one round is needed to kill a target. He says such calculations can be done using the binomial distribution function in a M$ spreadsheet (p. 244-246). Second area is Target Representation (pp. 363-369). Basically you divide up a target (his e.g. is a tank) into 4"x4" squares and each square hit has a P(effect) e.g. kill, mobility kill, firepower kill. These squares can also be represented at the component level, i.e. a hit at this square will affect this component. A simpler method is offered by dividing the tank up into larger panels or compartments which, when hit, produce effects based on a Monte Carlo sample of the 4"x4" boxes. Driels even offers a simple programming loop structure to do this. I guess the thing is, for reactive armour, that you program cell/compartment/panel x,y,z needs more than one hit to create an effect (kill/mobility/firepower). When hit the first time it creates a register. In essence, the prog checks the register every time the tank is struck. From a wargaming perspective, I find some of Driel's stuff fascinating and his model for tracking pin-point hits on a vehicle has the potential to offer some enhanced realism.

Hey mate! Is this where I line up for the pumpkin soup?

WRT first comment. Yes, I've seen it in the library. I will endeavor to 'get around to it', but the problem is the more I research this subject, the less work I get done. Will post as info comes to hand. Um, there seems to be a little confusion over the 10 sqft target. Apologies to pamak because I should have been more clear. The table heading in the text is actually "Hits on 10 feet square normal to line of flight per attack per aircraft". This suggests to me that the target is not a point one but is linear. The RAF boffins were simply measuring the number of hits in a 10'x10' area along a gun run.

There are mixed reports on the efficacy of the Stuka. As dieseltaylor says, some claim it was THE dive bomber. Others claim the screaming klaxon was more effective that the bombs. Either way, the Stuka did change from pure dive-bomber to more conventional ground attack methods later in the war. Some of this can be attributed to its vulnerability to ground fire and AAA in the final attack profile. I was fairly careful in selecting my words, hence 'ball park figure'. I'd be interested in doing a bit more digging to see if Stuka-delivered CEPs are available.

Not necessarily. Most ground attack aircraft began life as interceptors, were found wanting in that department and used as ground attack. Some, such as the Mustang and Spitfire were used to do both. I'm not an experten on 20mm ammo but my impression is that they basically lacked the muzzle velocity and ballistic stability, when fired from aircraft, to be fully effective. Most cannons in aircraft had shortened barrels which caused these effects (low velocity & wobbly ballistics at range).

As usual the troll-grog Dorosh rears his ugly head with some useless advice. I have some advice to you too, Dorosh. First, I don't really give a toss what you think. Never have, never will. Look at the title, its an AAR of sorts. Just wanted to tell people it was a nice, fun, scenario. I had fun on a sick day. Period. Do I need a human opponent? No. Do I need more cowbell? Maybe. I'm happy if people found *some* worth from my post. Unhappy that once again someone has to suffer your personal criticism (me, I'm the target this time) and turn it into a slanging match. Y'see, my beef is that your advice aint that *humble* its more..... *pretentious*.

WRT strafing. Notice the 27% hit figure for 20mm involved 120 rds of ammo. As discussed earlier, this can take into account walking cannon shells onto target. Also, the RAF boffins also found that 20mm was next to useless against tank armour. The rocket strafing is somewhat tricky, because all 8 rockets would have fired in salvo and as mentioned, any factors such as wind will upset your MPI disproportionately. I'd tend to steer away from any 'direct proportion' argument of hits-to-size and go with the data that pertains to my actual target type. BTW, weapon data versus target type is not a function that is tied to our aircraft type. You will find that CEPs will not differ to a significant degree between similar types of ground-attack aircraft (e.g. Typhoon/Spitfie/Mustang). In fact, the same CEPs can provide a reasonable ball-park figure for an IL-2 or Stuka.

A couple of points to clarify the data. 1. The 1000-2000m range of firing for the Typhoons was found to be the optimum range to achieve greatest accuracy. This is due to the ballistics of 3" rockets. 2. High stress versus low stress. High stress refers to firing in an operational sense with AAA, smoke, moving targets, etc. Low stress refers to practice runs at bomb camp. 3. All high-stress data is from ground-truthing in cases where it was possible to do so after the battle.

Good to hear the ACT's housing policy is taking shape. </font>

As promised, I have a table to post. "Typhoon Scale of Effort Necessary Against Typical Targets" Note: Low-stress data taken from armament practice camp firing 3" rockets from 1000-2000m Target: Small Gun Position, Size: 5yds diam., Horizontal Projected Area (45deg. dive) 19 sqyds, % Shots Hitting Target: 0.2, For 50% Chance of Hit - Rockets Needed: 350 & No. Sorties: 44. Target: Panther Tank, Size: 22'6"x10'9"x9'10", Hor. Proj. Area (45deg.): 50 sqyds, % Shots Hitting Target: 0.5%, For 50% Chance of Hit - Rockets Needed: 140 & Sorties: 18. Target: Large Gun Posn, Size: 10yds diam., Hor. Proj. Area (45deg.): 80 sqyds, % Shots Hit: 0.8, For 50% Chance of Hit - Rockets Needed: 88 & Sorties: 11. Target: Army Hut, Size: 60'x30'x20', Hor. Proj. Area (45 deg.): 270 sqyds, % Shots Hit: 2.8, For 50% Chance of Hit - Rockets Needed: 24 & Sorties: 3. Target: Large Building, Size: 120'x54'x50', Hor. Proj. Area (45 deg.): 1000 sqyds, % Shots Hit: 10, For 50% Chance of Hit - Rockets Needed: 7 & Sorties: 1. Note low % hits, and these are the low-stress figures! RAF Op Research boffins noted that a 10mph wind could result in significant changes in MPI. "CAS Attacks on Gun Positions and Strongpoints 1945" (high-stress) .......................Rockets........Bombs No. of Attacks...........37............11 No. Within 150yds........33(89%)........5(45%) Note rockets more accurate but have less destructive effect. High Stress Bombing Against Point Target: average radial error 158 yards, with CEP = 130 yds. High Stress Bombing of Rail (linear) Target: average line error 69 yds, with CEP = 50 yds. Low-stress Straffing Accuracy (bomb camp) Weapon.........Rds/Attack/Acft......Hits on 10sqft 20mm................120..................32(27%) 3" rocket.............8..................0.045 End result: straffing much more accurate than rockets and bombs.

BFdotcom, I own three-and-a-half versions of CM. I've always come back to it after putting it down for a while. Why? Probably the immersion factor, which in a large part is due to the superior AI. So good work guys, I hope the next title carries on the same high standard. *hug* I'm gonna take my pills and have a lie down now...

Well I've just wandered over from the CMAK air power thread and will add my $0.002 worth. Real-time aerial reconnaissance for the battlefield commander? Forget it - modern army commanders are only just getting their heads around it now since it was first introduced at the Battle of Loos in 1915 (thats because they get to 'own' the assets now). Aerial photography? Is another example of army pig-headedness in certain circles. Commanders who appreciated air power would usually ensure they had tasked the necessary assets with a lot of notice beforehand. It still depend on a lot of factors - aircraft availability, weather, ToT etc. If it can be included in the CMx2 mission brief, then why not? You gonna dig up a bona fide aerial recon photo that was used in the actual mission brief in the *insert TBA CMx2 setting here*...? Aerial spotting for artillery? Yep, bring it on. *If* it can be appropriately modelled for CM (think borg vs relative spotting on a big scale) then I'm all for it. But you pay the price in purchase points for having a Thor hovering above the battlefield with a basket full of thunderbolts. Add misrecognition of your own troops in the mix for good measure. Aerial FAC? Again, bring it on with all of the factors mentioned above, with double the chances of bringing it down on a friendly unit. *dons flamesuit* OK, bring on all of the emotional name-calling.

Well the weaponeering book has arrived and I found another text in the library. The other text is Ian Gooderson, Air Power at the Battle Front: Allied Close Air Support in Europe 1943-45 . His account sums up the pros and cons of CAS and armed reconnaissance and includes some weapon accuracy figures gathered by some ground-truth teams (even though ground-truth can be misleading a la Wittman). Some of the tables I'll post soon. He includes some first hand accounts from Germans. To sum up, Gooderson says CAS was effectual but flawed by drawbacks such as the air vs armour myth (which he fully acknowledges). CAS was effective against soft targets (kill) and to produce a demoralising effect against other targets (neutralise). It was useful when artillery was unavailable or to support airborne ops. It was useful ahead of an armoured spearhead. It produced its best effects when an artillery bombardment had little effect and a short, sharp dose of hurt and pain from above was needed to produce a breakthrough (*sorry, my air power bias is showing, I'll just cover that up*) Interesting, though, from his reading is that I get the impression that CAS in CM is modelled more toward armed reconnaissance - a single or pair of aircraft appearing at a random time and attacking targets of opportunity, rather than a flight of fighter-bombers arriving 'on call'. IMHO the question of CAS or armed reccie, in the CM setting, is purely semantics.

Oh the refridgerator box wasn't too bad, I spose. Y'know I could play little games like pretending the little light actually came on I opened the door, or maybe drink a flagon of port and pretend it was my fort and fight off the federal agents. Wazzat Bob? He'z lookin at me strange y'say? You comin' to get my secrets huh, bub? Well I'm a not leavin' ya hear? *possessively grasps for shopping trolley full of plastic bags and clutches flagon to chest* Go back to yer fancy home in the other thread, buddy!

Hello... hello... is anyone home? Hmm, nice digs. The decor's a bit kitsch, but it'll suit nicely for now.

Perhaps then CAS, in CM, would be better off 'pinning and panicking' more than causing casualties?

Geez mate, I'm taking the helmet and flak jacket off now, OK? Now we have a common ground I wanna throw it out there (being an air power advocate myself) - if CAS was so ineffectual (even versus a lot of 'soft' targets) why was it so highly demanded by the ground commanders?

And a 500 lb bomb dropped under realistic combat conditions rarely landed within 300 feet of its intended target. Wolud ya wanna back that up with some evidence? CEP gives us 50% within 300ft. Which I re-figured above to 160ft BTW. The USAAF dropped 3.1 million 500 lb bombs and 560,000 1000 lb bombs over Europe. As a whole? Lets stick to tactical CAS. Pound for pound thrown or dollar for dollar invested or man for man wounded, 105mm and 155mm howitzers beat the air force, hands down. Thats not even part of my argument - because you're right. I'm arguing we can generate a realistic model instead of putting it in the too hard basket. I'm going to try and get some accurate WW2 CEPs tomorrow.