ozi_digger

For a minute I don't dispute what you're arguing. But wait - the tests you mentioned are by their very nature 'groggy' (is there such a word?). No actual data from the period exists, so what do we do? Conduct controlled firing tests at a variety of ranges versus static targets. Now make the targets moving. Add stress, smoke and anything else you can think of and the data may reduce your chances of hitting 100 fold. Thats a given. I wouldn't wanna refute it. My point is that actual real-world, modern weaponeering data exists from high-stress situations that we can use as a baseline to model effectiveness. We could do a lot worse than accept some of their figures with a dose of healthy critique. Going back to the link I posted, I found a minor error in my calcs - the crater diameter I used was for a 250lb bomb. I therefore ran another quick calculation. If I use more realistic stats, I get a SSPK = 1/567. The US 1st Tactical Air Force claims 407 tanks destroyed in the ETO Nov44-May45. By dead reckoning (taking no other factors into account), this alone represents over 230000 sorties where an AFV was the intended aim point - and you're saying my figures are too high? Again, please don't tar all data with the same brush. A bit of healthy massaging of real data can produce a realistic baseline.

I've heard this argument before from a number of quarters and with no disrespect intended, I'll rebut. First, if you look at the probabilities I arrived at above you'll find that the SSPKs are very low and not an inflation of what you'd realistically expect. Second, don't tar all data with the same brush. Sure weaponeering stats are usually a game of averages which don't take all anomolies into account. That's also the beauty of it - you can lower your probabilities for weather, high stress, training, AAA fire etc. A lot of weaponeering modelling out there is gumf, especially the stuff that is not derived from real-world data. But when it is taken from real-world data, who am I to argue? The same goes for your example. Accurate weaponeering data for the Napoleonic era doesn't exist. Protagonists at the time didn't keep it and since then all we have is the SWAG of a grog with an interest in the subject matter. Which brings me to my third and final point. Third. Since the formation of the US Army's Air Corps Tactical School a lot of this statistical data was collated and kept. Its not just pre-1943 'we can get a bomb in a pickle barrel from 10000ft' stuff that was refuted once the peacetime tests gave way to Real War experience. That 300ft CEP from the link is derived from a number of sources - low stress practice, mid stress exercises and high stress combat flying - its not a pluck. Its what real-world weaponeers use to compute the number of sorties they need to generate to guarantee a reasonable chance of mission success. No, the SSPK is not always too high, its not always 100% accurate, but it does give a ball-park figure. That same 'falsity of weaponeering' argument even comes from the pilots. I.e. "I've been in this game for 25 years and dropped more bombs than this equation of yours and I'm telling you you're wrong and my intuitive guess is right!" Well, sometimes he is right, but 9/10 he's wrong and the equation comes up with a figure closer to the truth. Especially so when that equation is based on real-world data. *dons flak jacket and helmet again* :cool:

I demand separate sounds for the kubelwagen! (Assuming CMx2 is WW2 that is) That means I can record the *dak dak* of my kombi as a .wav file and throw it in as a sound mod.

*Puts flak jacket and helmet on* Well, I said I'd post but I didn't wait for the text, I decided to go ahead with what I know and add to the air power debate, specifically this thread and Thorn in the Tiger's Side. Apologies in advance to those who thought they'd seen the back of this debate and were gonna let it die a natural death. If you want a realistic model for CAS, you may as well use accurate data. Statistics as a percentile of armour kills, due to air power, for specific campaigns can be an inaccurate measure of their efficacy because of environmental factors. Therefore, IMHO, the best method to employ is to extrapolate weaponeering data. WW2 weaponeering data probably exists but will take longer to research, so modern weaponeering data is used here as an example. The data is taken from this link: General Air Munitions Data The example I work through here is a single bomb dropped against a tank. Other weapon types such as FFAR rockets and 20mm cannon are also included in the link. Given the defined release parameters (see link) the 500lb bomb has a Circular Error Probable (CEP) of 300ft. This means that 50% of bombs will fall within a 300ft radius of the aimpoint. At this juncture, lets define the kill radius (Krad) of the 500lb bomb. As outlined before, our target is hard - a tank. Krad will be greater for softer targets. From the table, the crater diameter for a 500lb bomb in medium soil is 19ft. This sounds about right to achieve a tank kill. This is where we extrapolate our data. Our CEP = 300ft, which represents an area of pi.r.r = 282857 sqft. Our Krad = 9.5ft, which represents an area of 284 sqft. The area covered by our bomb for a kill (Akill) = 284/282857 = 1/996th of the total CEP area. Remember CEP is 50% of impacts. Therefore SSPK = Pcep.Akill = 0.5 x 1/996 = 1/1992. The crater diameter of a 500lb bomb can be massaged to represent a firpower kill or mobility kill on a tank. Say 2 x diameter represents area that gives us a 70% chance of achieving an M-kill or F-kill. Thats a radius of 19ft, which is an area of 1135 sqft. P (M or F-kill) = Akill x Pcep x Peffective = 1135/282857 x 0.5 x 0.7 = 1/711 As mentioned before, the relevant data can be extrapolated to represent kills against soft targets, which will dramatically increase SSPK. Similar methods can be utilised to represent gun and rocket runs, artillery and small arms fire. All of the above is for academic purposes only - since BFdotcom plans to keep the same CAS model. *Takes helmet and flak jacket off*

Hmmm, what he said... Will second grog Dorosh on 1. Realistic terrain. 2. Flexible victory conditions (i.e. AI can defend an area if it doesn't have a flag on it); also: 3. Simple playability - please don't get more complex - CM is complex enough as it is. The following are non gratis anus rodentum, IMHO: 1. Campaign mode (I have enough imagination without BFC having to name all my pixeltruppen for me) 2. Over-detailing of 1:1 (see post 3 & 1, above) - still wanna play realistic unit warfare without having to get to know my pixeltruppen personally, y'know?

I tend to avoid these threads because they degenerate into emotional arguments so quickly. WRT earlier pages - from my experience, pilots definitely overclaim, even in this day-and-age with advanced technology. For the probability guys - have any of you read Morris Driels, Weaponeering: Conventional Weapon System Effectiveness ??? IIRC he goes into some of this stuff. Have ordered a copy so will have another look and see if there is anything worth posting. (By that stage, this thread will be closed, so will open a new thread only if his work is worth reading).

My Syrian campaign source is largely Australian-centric (Official History - Gavin Long, Greece, Crete and Syria). Has a few examples of the French tank counterattacks. I was looking at a few in particular because infantry vs infantry can get a bit boring. The only problem is tank vs tank action in Syria was quite rare, but you can find a few instances of French tank counterattacks being stopped by CW guns. Can scan some bits of my source but will need a while to do it.

IMHO, wouldn't you be better off modding the Italians in CMAK into Vichy French? The French and Italians had similar weapons systems (both small arms and tanks) - more so than the Germans. Its been something I've been thinking about when pondering potential Syrian campaign scenarios for CMAK.

July 1944, Operation Goodwood, south of Caen.

G'day all, First, SPOILER ALERT (see below). Second, I've been at home sick over the last couple of days and what better opportunity to play some CMETO that I recently downloaded. Despite grog-troll Dorosh being a canuckian I decided to play Wild Bill Wilder's 'A Canadian Confrontation'. Wow, what a game! For anyone of mediocre ability (such as myself) this proved to be a great challenge of playing Canadians (attacking) vs German AI and I recommend anyone who hasn't played it to give it a go before reading on. Third, I suffered a tactical defeat 54-46 in a nail-biting finish. > > > > > > > > > > > Took the vanilla setup and selected Canadians. You start with quite a few tanks and kept receiving reinforcements before I'd even starting doing something with them. Advanced my infantry up the sides of the road leading to town and moved tanks up behind with MMG carriers and Stuarts leading the Shermans. My armoured advance halted due to the 75mm concrete bunkers on both flanks - these proved to be my nemesis as I attempted a few hail-mary plays to get tanks behind them. I started to lose Shermans, but not too badly and I crept through the sparse woods trying to get flanking shots but my loss rate of tanks could not be sustained at a rate of 1:1. Kept advancing infantry up the centre with Churchill and SP gun support which proved to be easier than expected. Gained the flag in the middle of town and saw dust on the horizon which meant German tanks and tank destroyers were on their way. I crept my infantry into the buildings surrounding the flag, infiltrated my PIATs and engineers forward and hid them as far forward as possible. My attempts at flanking the pillboxes succeeded only on the right when a Sherman negotiated the minefields and got a rear shot. It was all too late as the clock was counting down and I'd only freed up one flank. Bang! the Germans counterattack with armour (tanks everywhere!). Luckily, I'd neutralised most of their infantry and they had to push their armour forward without infantry support. Unluckily I was down to a Churchill, 2 Stuarts, 2 Shermans and two SP guns. One Churchill was up the centre road into town, the Stuarts were right-of-centre (just cleared of covering pillbox), one Sherman was trying to get key-hole shots just left of centre, the other was on the extreme right behind the pillbox and the SPGs were supporting centre and right of centre. The Churchill copped it first but fought to the end, taking out 2 tanks/Stugs - wow I love heavy armour. The right Sherman attempted a shoot and scoot over a crest to get a flank shot but got nailed by a waiting 88mm at the end of town. The left of centre Sherman got two keyhole shots before a Stug shrugged of his hits and delivered a death-blow. The German armour is in town and my Canadian flags are starting to turn into ?'s. A few medium range PIAT shots take out some tanks but they keep coming into town. Attempted to rush my Stuarts up the right to get flank shots - they got one before being nailed. In a last ditch effort, I close assault with infantry and engineers as they pass buildings but the clock runs out. When the game ended I was watching the clock counting down and I needed 'just one more turn' to 'do something'. In the end the Germans still had about 4 tanks/Stugs and I had 2 SPGs (next to useless vs armour without a lucky keyhole shot) and a COY+ of infantry with 2 PIATs still having ammo. I'd highly recommend this to someone who wants a challenging game vs the AI. Well done Wild Bill. Anyone else had a similar experience with this scenario?

Yeah, I checked my e-mail this morning and saw it there. Will have a closer look tonight. Will probably only have time for one scenario though... Expect a return e-mail tonight! (and prepare to die mwahahaha!)

Thanks Mike, consider me better edumacated! You'd agree that they'd be *mostly* ineffective in the ground support role?

If you're referring to the large naval guns in Singapore pointing out to sea and not being able to swivel inland - its not true. The guns could swivel inland. Problem was they were naval guns capable of only firing solid shot. Their weakness therefore was that they didn't have HE ammo that would have been beneficial in supporting a land operation (and they have a flat trajectory which makes them suitable for DF role only). I probably agree that Percival was a bit of a numpty, but holes in the plan for the defence of Singapore appeared during the 1930s. It was realised that the Commonwealth navies could not fight a war on two fronts. That is, they could not defend Singapore and Britain concurrently. Same with necessary air assets and land assets. Consider also British doctrine in the early war. It was unsuitable for jungle fighting. The British preferred defensible strongpoints and roadblocks which the Japanese simply by-passed through the jungle. Just putting stuff in context here.

How about spring or summer, 1000-1500pts, meeting engagement or attack/defend. MEs are good for quick battles but not historically accurate. I don't mind being defender if you wanna hone your attacking skills. You choose which side.

Count me in for the tourney (even if there is no prize ). I'll take you up on that PBEM, Will. Helps too when players are in same time zone - you get a lot me turns sent at night & on weekends.

*Off topic* Check yer yahoo e-mail JonS!

The NZ general in question is Freyberg. JonS is probably the best authority here (being a sheep-shagger ). I think Freyberg's failure on Crete is one of those examples of a good commander having a bad day. I used to think Freyberg was an oaf, but when you consider he'd lost his guns and tanks in Greece, he didn't have much to fight back with. The paratrooper threat was real but the threat of amphibious invasion was greater in his mind. I guess Freyberg thought he could mop up penny-packets of paratroopers with his reserve, while concentrating his artillery on the coast. I reckon its just an example of a calculated risk on his part that didn't pay off.

I'm not an army meathead but it would depend on how 'edumacated' you are. Any high opinion of Blamey is sure to change after reading 'Bastard of a Place' or similar history of the campaign in New Guinea.

Whats the prize if I win?

Simple answer - because the licence for that particular version (AAV) belongs to the Commonwealth Department of Defence.

Yes! I've touched it! I have a copy. You're right - it is just a stripped down version with Bren Tripods and a shed-load of Crete scenarios. Nothing fancy and no Greece. Also includes a historical interface to teach RMC cadets about 2nd AIF history. You're not missing mutch, but it it is suitable for what it is intended - to teach history & get a grasp of basic tactics. Using a great simulation as the engine I might add (do I get my free copy of CMx2 now, BFC?) BTW, I was disappointed too - about the missing Vichy French - but I got over it.

Wow :eek: that site is a treasure trove. After seeing that I can't promise better (especially since they're already scanned). Have found this on the catalogue for the academy library tho: *Bombardment Orders for Operation Overlord 1944* (original 1944 text) Any interest?

G'day Jon, I'm due a visit to the AWM soon. I'll have a look for you. BTW, any other map requests while I'm there?

Give me a couple of days to dig something up from the academy library Hans. I'll get back to you.

I bought it direct from BFC, although it has CDV written all over the box. So I'm figuring its BFC. Lets start at the beginning. I'm running a Dell Inspiron 8500 laptop (2.2 GHz, Nvidia GeForce4 4200Go (Dell mobile) with 64Mb graphics). My real problem I suppose is the blue screen I got at the very beginning with a STOP error (much like the one mentioned in the troubleshooting). It recommends I update my drivers so I updated BIOS, directx and graphics card. Still gave me a blue screen. I.T. boffins at work recommended I apply a patch. Did that and got the no CD error. This morning I turned off anti-virus (PC-cillin), daemon tools (with CMBB & CMAK mounted so I don't wear out the disks) and everything else that I thought could be affecting the CDRW/DVD drive. Still no joy - it cannot detect the CD. I suspect I may not really need the patch (bought my CD in mid-2001?), but actually getting half the title screen up is more encouraging than the blue screen of death. Anybody have some suggestions?