Wol

It's worth noting that fragment density decreases with the square of radius, (it is after all, and ignoring the ends, an expanding distorted hollow shell of fragments), and that initial fragment velocity is dependent on the charge to wall mass ratio. the warhead is either a hollow charge projectile or HE, and approximates a very high capacity light case bomb or shell. BRL405 gives an approximate initial fragment velocity of perhaps 7000 fps depending on the actaual thickness of wall material (There is not enough data on my copy of the rocket schematic to tell). There would be 10 of thousands of middle body fragments, some small % of them capable of penetrating light (1") thicknesses of armour at considerable distances! Keep it away from me!

How fast a tank turns depends on what kind of kind of steering it has, and sometimes whether it is moving or not. If clutch and brake, then only half power is usually available for turns (Clutch and brake one side, flat out on the other side.) If moving at speed, and the vehicle is up to it, you can turn faster because you have more energy, but you will not turn as tightly. Some may even have pivots (sort of special brakes), just yank them on and hang on. If you have regenerative steering, power can be either directed to the working side, or if stationary, (and if so configured) reverse the offside track, neutral steering. Many British vehicles had pre-selectable regenerative turn radii. Suppose your motoring along, want to turn right, select tightness of turn, and watch the gearbox do the work. This allows for faster, and far less fatiguing turning on the move. Elephants, as I recall, had electric drive with complete flexibility, and CharB1bis also had fully regenerative steering (I think). Any way, how fast you turn depends on whether moving or stationary (You at least have to accelerate the vehicle fron stationary just as if you were taking off), It also depends on whether you can convert all the engine power to power one track, or must lose half of it, and whether you can, reverse one track if stationary. Of ourse the longer the vehicle, and the weaker the tracks, the more likely you are to shedd them, and then you are in trouble! Wol

A thought on TRPs The wonder of QB games is that you can pick TRPs at all without limit. Consider that each should be unique to one battery of OBA, but in the game, all (including on board mortars) can use it. Yet they represent pre-registered artillery fire targets. They have worked out the ballistic solutions, not moved, and fired ranging shots to determine the appropriate solution, for EACH battery intending to fire there. Perhaps TRPs should cost 10pts per unit capable of using them (automatically adjusted by the 'ole PC). More realistically, they should be assigned to a particulary battery. Second, no account is taken of the time needed. the more possible target solutions the longer the exercise takes. Third As I recall, FAOs actually belonged to the batterys, and were assigned to support particular forwad units, and could sometimes call upon the fire of other batterys in the regiment. I think the US did things a bit different, and assigned FAO to units, but did not assign particular batterys to them, rather they could plead with all their parent batallion's batteries for fire, but none would be slaved to his desires. These different national ways of handling fire reslt in different rates of response to fire being called, and makes it possible that artillery will not nbe able to fire when called upon. The battery may be firing in support of another unit, relocating due to counterbattery fire, or silenced due to enemy fire or the need to rest follwing heavy activity. If the battery is under command or in direct support, it is less likely to be unavailble, especially for final protective fires , due to being used to assist someone else. Of course it might still be unavailable for one of the other reasons given above. Finally the only fire patterns avilable in the game are concentrations of greater or lesser density. This ignores the fact that most european armies, including the russians, organised defensive barrages, for the attack rolling barrages, creeping barrages, (often including smoke) fire squalls(for the russians). These require usually at least a battalion (12min?) of guns to produce a fairly narrow band of fire, either to halt infantry attacks, protect and screen flanks, provide cover for attacking infantry. As far as I am aware the americans did not practice this kinds of fire patterns in WWII, but I would love to be educated. Barrages would be a great thing to see in the game and would be much more appropriate in Assault games for the commonwealth. Of course it might or might not be possible to cancel pre-planned fires during a game. Finally, in the scope of CMBB, why would it take longer for a soviet FAO belonging to a regimental gun battery of the same level of experience, to bring in observed artllery fire (or blind fire) thasn his german opponent. (Of couse requests for fire by battalion or company headqaurters to artillery units anywhere in the chain might take longer because of communication/authorisation reasons in this case there is no FAO to drect such fire available), but that is another story. cheers Wol

I think that ad-hoc changes are necessarily easier, but really the point is that having people play with a set of rules which they interpret, (set in very hugh level language) rather than the computer interpret, allows vastly more to be left unsaid. The mind boggles at the complexity of coding the rules of say the later WRG rule sets into computer code which detail orders and modes of operation. I am sure it could be done, but communicating players intentions to the computer would be a formidable task!

I couldn't agree more. The idea of scaleable levels of command with proper c3 would make the game unique. But my point was not to knock the game per se, but to try to put intp perspective the worries people have about realism. I am no diffreent to most. If we ever get T35m38s then they had better have all the mgs, sloped armour etc etc. I think that generally , tabletop games allow better c3 systems, simply because of the interface. But I do like moving each of my (double underscore) tanks around. It is a game. It looks fantastic. It is the best tactical level computer game I have ever played, by a long way. Randomised personalities and some level of autonomy for sub-units would be nice, and might also destroy the game in human vs human encounters. I do not want to issue real orders, make mud maps, appreciations, assign tasks etc etc. Although some approximation might be nice - but again, this is a game, and a lot of the finer technical aspects do not amount to a hill of beans. There is a real danger though in concentrating ooddles of resources into getting 1% of the game technically correct but leaving the other 99% as a very poor approximation. Again CMBO/CMBB are great.

Da Tovarich, I meant TRP should be useable by HMGs, a common practice until the task was taken over by medium mortars. Remember all that theory of MG fire, beaten zones size over 500 yards, boat tailed ammo for vickers for 4.5 km ramge and reverse slope fire, fire by mg batteries on areas etc. Just a thought, even if they are off-table. cheers

I checked a squad (of 1 man left from 9) to see if by some chance he still held an lmg, and lo and behold, ther was a rifle and lmg listed. Squad icon says only 1 left, detail screen shows two weapons???? any ideas Wol

The best system around the 'eyeballs in the sky' and 'Herr General, this discreet minute is over, you may instantly issue orders to every unit in your batallion (personally, and to each fire team with complete knowledge of the geography and placements of friendly forces and knowledge of every enemy unit known by any friendly unit' that i ahve found is in WRG WWII 1925-1950 (1988 edition) rules. Here you issue orders appropriate to units and subunits, conduct them in appropriate tactical modes (dependent on training and experience), and need to re-acquire units each bound. In respect of most other current tabletop games, CMBO/CMBB is hopelessly inferior in terms of orders and c3 generally. Equally ludicrous is the "Fritz, KVs reported on report line alpha, we must commit the reserves. But no Hwerr General, the turn is not yet up!" Never mind the "no need to use nominal tactics, orders/formations/consider personallities of sub-unit commander (imagine if Sgt Rock launched an attack with his platoon all by himself, or Capt Bowley turned your advance into a probe, or pretended he never got the order until prompted or relieved or you visit him, or Lt Pontiatowski orders a retreat all by himself because he hears of a tank in his rear and he aint gonna be cut off no siree) And people worry about the slope on that Panther's armour! But as this is a very pretty game, I could not care two hoots! No really. Relative spotting will be nice, but I get a lot of fun out of personally commanding every fire team oin the batallion/company whatever.unit I actually like playing as a god. I just do not think that we should get too worked up about realism

Only 6? and that doesn't include support staff, limbers transport etc. An NCO in charge, a guneer, loaders, ammo bearers and labourers. BTW I want area fire on pre registered hexes for my MG using area fire! Any chance of coding TRPs to particular batteries?

For the Soviet view, Erickson's books and articles are a MUST read, especially his article on soviet sources. Read with albert Seatons book. Beyoind this...If you read Guderin, make sure you read Yeremnko's "The arduous begining", also Chuikov's 'The begining of the road", Rokossovski's "Sodatski Dolg" ( A soldiers story), etc. Other places are the various editions of Journal slavic(formerly soviet) military studies, technical books by Glantz, Zaloga, Bellamy (Red God of War), Michael Parrish and so on. Your local library will hold many of these, and there are also the various editions of the history of the great patriotic war.

I think that the T28 was probably the most significant soviet AFV in the Finnish campaign and early months of Bararossa. It was not new, powerfully armed, (and later versions very heavily armed and armoured), It equipped some of the longest standing and most experienced of the new mechanised corps, and was probably far more successful than the T-34 and KV. As I recall over 500 built too. So I hope it makes it.

You rotters are just tormenting me right? [ September 16, 2002, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: Wol ]

Waaaaaaaaaaaaagh! Oh well I suppose late model T28E will have to do - but it is not the same!

G'day all, I am just anxious that the T35s in the game (hopefully both major 'production' versions) will have the correct number of mgs. Including AA mg they should have 7. I was heartbroken that ASL ommited the co-axial mgs in the 45mm sub turrets. Whgen I am counterattacking around Dubno against the green german inf (minus all AT guns), I expect my surviving behemoths to expend some of all that mg ammunition aka "Tanks in retreat" and Merestekovs remarks. [ September 16, 2002, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: Wol ]

spoiler warning . . . . . . . . . . I got creamed on the tutorial, 5 shots in 40 seconds knocked out both tanks at 340m. Everyone then fired (and I mean everyone) on the PAK, it died on the 25th turn! I won the other two quite easily in the end. IMHO I think we should get used to green and conscript troops. In CMBO My americans are mostly green, the brits and germans rarely more than regular. I also think that most soldiers are just trying not to get killed. Their is a tendency to think the 'norm' is 'regular', with all vaguely special troops as crack or better. This tends to make for poor results when you use the great unleavened mass. In old WRG terms, most inf are Regular D. BTW why no T34m41 command tanks for platoon leaders, and no smoke for KV1S? cheers