mididoctors
-
Posts
107 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by mididoctors
-
-
I wish you could dig in in real time and create foxholes or least some form of shell scrapeOriginally posted by ParaBellum:[simply: foxholes represent hasty fortifications. The troops simply didn't had time to dig a proper trench or didn't expect heavy enemy attacks in their area.
If you want to simulate well dug-in troops, don't use foxholes.
Boris
london
-
I think that must be pretty close to the stats Alistair got..........Originally posted by JasonC:You guys are still just expecting the differences to show up way too close. The early portion of the ranges are easy for all guns.
Here at the ranges for 50%, 25%, 13%, and 6% initial to hit chances against a Pz IVH for 387 (76L17 infantry gun), 600 (SU-152), and 990 (57mm ATG) m/s guns -
990 m/s - 640-1330-1950-2500+
600 m/s - 560-1070-1500-1950
387 m/s - 480-840-1150-1450
Hit probabilities at 600, 1200, 1800, 2400m -
990 m/s - 54-28-15-7
600 m/s - 47-20-8-3
387 m/s - 41-11-2-0
At 600m, they can all do it - even the lowest MV guns is still firing close to flat.
Your stats are out of some grog tome I guess....and now I except as verbatim along with flat trajectory conjecture at sub 1000m or so ranges .Jason is right in his explanation
OK just to kick it back on topic vis a vis LV vs MV or HV guns.....
Again question... flight time is critical against moving targets for flights of as little as .5 sec which could equate against a AFV moving at 12mph as 2m...I still expect High MV guns to significantly outperform LV guns against moving targets in the 500-1000m range. For 400m/s guns a 20kph moving target will need a correct lead of accurate to within 1/2 of TDD (roughly)
1.5 sec flight time equates in target relocation at 20kmh of 8m...accurate lead against centre of target what's a AFV 3X6 X3 box?
ASL size modifiers?.....I take it target profiles are modeled I would expect non-liner performance against moving targets in relation to target size and MV..... off angle movement even at close ranges produces tremendous problems in lead for LV guns
if flight time against a target at 20kph is less than .5 sec then most target will be hit on the button as 2.7m displacement is within target size tolerance (lead ignored).. JUST.
this is very close for the KV 2 sub 250m....what is also added is turret tracking angles start to increase at close ranges further complicating things.... for the KV 1 this distance is of course arund 300m for HV 990m...close to 500m....
the long arm of Hv guns is much more noticable at the 500m against moving targets... a ASL style global moving target modifier is inaccurate....is this also true of CMBB? I would have thought a straight physics 2 body problem would produce almost perfect results assuming an inital shot velocity(includes direction) against target movement behaviour modeled seperatly but mapped in time.......modeling the gunners decision when and how to fire is the issue...subjective.
the advantage of diminishing 2 mil error...1.2m down to .5m is not that noticable against moving targets against errors in lead.
of course shoots along the axis of travel or close almost eliminate this disadvantage as flat trajectory fire conjecture still applies....IE do not charge down a KV 2 barrel..dooh!
the results for fast AC or road travel at 40kph plus are quite staggering
conclusion run at off angles towards your KV 2 foe he is unlikley to hit a thing until less than 250m and closer in turret swing will be a real issue......bam got him.....OH that is exactly what Jason got in his test
:cool:
well theres a thing it comes down to tactical deployment......
solutions within the game for what at first appear to inaccuracies in modelling AFV stats......well...things can be misleading at first.
BTS have spent alot of time on DF/AT fire model and it is not an area I feel that has "that" much wrong with it.
Boris
london
-
so at 600m your sughts alone could be 1.2m out about half the width of a turret? green crews are going to multiply this figure somewhat?Originally posted by JasonC:As for how fine the angles are discriminated in shooting, quadrant and deflection are typically measured in "mils", 1/6400 of a circle. It is a unit chosen because for small angles, the arcsin of a mil is 1/1000 (hence the name). So an error of 1 mil at 1 km means a miss of 1 meter.
The finest gunnery can discriminate down to half a mil accuracy. Errors of around 1-2 mils may occur just from the way the sights and such work, without range error or gunner error in pointing etc. (Though a careful gunner should be able to eliminate 2 mil size errors, if he understands his equipment). Not beyond that.
Boris
london
-
try again but have the target moving at right angles to firer at approx 600m....Originally posted by Alastair Anderson:Conclusion: The KV2 is a better battlefield AT weapon than the KV1, at least in June 1941 when I ran the test. This cannot be right, surely??
More thoughts anyone?
Cheers
Al
infact use several different angles of deflection
my gut instinct is the 152mm is going to comeout much worse compared with the76mm
Boris
london
[ January 28, 2003, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: mididoctors ]
-
What realy matters in a way is flight time...especialy against moving targets....Originally posted by JasonC:It is just that the tolerance for error in the range estimate, shrinks rapidly as the flight time gets up around 2-3 seconds, because you have overall drops from flight apex of ~25 feet to contend with, so you are "golfing" at that point, rather than "bowling". And the likelihood of getting the range wrong by a significant amount, increases the farther away the target is (also the worse the crew, naturally).
As you rightly pointed out leading a moving target is going to be somewhat hard with a target that may be close to 8 meters further away than at the time of firing with a 600m range.....
perhaps a test against moving targets would produce a more obvious difference in performance between a KV 1 and KV 2
Boris
London
-
hmmm thats the rub........Originally posted by JasonC:So being wrong by 200m in the range, only made for a height difference of 1.75 feet with the flatter trajectory. The aim point is center of mass, and a tank is typically taller than 3.5 feet, so the 800 m/s gun will still hit the target with a 200m range error at 600m - a pretty big mistake in the range, for a target so close. The slow, 400 m/s gun may miss high, because the shell goes 7 feet above his aim point, and most tanks aren't 14 feet tall.
Actually it is slightly worse than that, because the apex is 100m farther one, and the target is only 200m past it when the range is overestimated like that. The portion of the shell flight closest to the apex is the flattest, so the shell "carries" there. With only 1/2 second of descent between 400m and 600m, the shell drops only 4 feet from the higher apex, so the wrong flight path is 12 feet higher than the correct one at that point in the trajectories.
flight profile well resemble a blunt arc with the with a coresponding diffculty in range assement as shell will drop in second half of flight as contary too our simplistic view of balistics.......perversely the heavy shell weight of the 152mm may mean its carry thru the air ie flight speed is more consistant....
I am left feeling that BTS must have done their homework and got it right...we have little choice..
Boris
london
-
A rough calculation in my head, the height of the arc of the shell from the KV2 would be a little over 11m compared with a little under 4m for the KV1. I am certainly no grog but I would have thought that 3 times the height of the arc (roughly speaking) would have made it significantly more difficult to hit a target a couple of metres high. </font>Originally posted by Caesar:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Originally posted by JasonC
Understand, it is the flatter trajectory that makes it easier to hit with a high MV weapon. The shell doesn't arc as high in the air. The result is a longer distance along the axis of fire within the error band the height of the target affords. You shouldn't see any significant difference until the drop of the slower shell over half its flight time (the descending portion) significantly exceeds the height of a typical target.
-
Yes remember PanzerBushOriginally posted by gibsonm:[QB] ? ... From the other side of the ridge comes the clanking thunder and the ominous dust-cloud that heralds the arrival of an onrushing wave of deadly steel: German armoured columns on the attack.
... Russian tank commanders slam shut the hatches of their dreaded T-34?s ... Gun crews prime their weapons and infantrymen hug the earth ...
... And there - topping the rise! ... A glint of dawn reflecting off the muzzle of the first German tank ...
PanzerBlitz is about to begin!?
(The memories come rushing back).
Boris
London
Nostalgia it's not what it used to be.
-
Do we need a what if forum?
Boris
london
-
I must apologise . I basicly do not know what I am doing ...!Originally posted by redwolf:Boris, you can edit your postings, you don't have to post again.
Boris
London
-
In CMBB the T-70 seems very effective for a lt tank..is this out of kilter with reality or was soviet deployment tactics incorreect for this vechile......why did the Soviets regard it as a failer..or cease its production?Originally posted by mididoctors:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John D Salt:
[
The T-70/M can hardly be regarded as a "success", as the Soviets gave up manufacturing light tanks (only a few T-80s were produced) and used the T-70/M components for SU-76/Ms instead. Lend-lease vehicles such as the Valentine were used in the recce role until the end of the war.
Boris
London</font>
-
In CMBB the T-70 seems very effective for a lt tank..is this out of kilter with reality or was soviet deployment tactics incorreect for this vechile......why did the Soviets regard it as a failer..or cease its production?Originally posted by John D Salt:[
The T-70/M can hardly be regarded as a "success", as the Soviets gave up manufacturing light tanks (only a few T-80s were produced) and used the T-70/M components for SU-76/Ms instead. Lend-lease vehicles such as the Valentine were used in the recce role until the end of the war.
Boris
London
-
From that we can infer that Synthetic POL production could have been raised to match an increased Mechanized force structure....Originally posted by JasonC:It was a question of forecasting likely oil demand and thus necessary plant capacity, far enough in advance of the actual demand, to build the plants in time. Then divert abundant coal to them as feedstock. But you don't try to shoot much higher than your likely oil needs, because you are paying through the nose to get it.
The overall economic cost involved was high, because the dollar per barrel efficiency of getting oil from coal this round about way wasn't good. The oil "cost" probably somewhere between $60 and $100 a barrel. But the strategic importance of independence of foreign supply was obvious enough. That is why the four year plans focused on synthetic oil plants.
Modern developed economies are flexible things. They do things one way not because it is the only way to do them, but because it is the most efficient way to do them - the easy way. At some cost in efficiency and so in overall wealth (diverted, necessarily, from other ends), they can do them the hard way. If they must.
]
the diversion of manpower was negligable compared with total manpower within the economy... for instance doubling/triperling POL production based on an increased tank force would have been possable..if early management decisions based on need where taken......
this had to occur inline with a tank production stratergy that emphasized simplisty in reducing production models...This combined problem solving was beyond that capable by the 3rd Reich (IMHO discuss etc.)
however fuel shortage did occur due to Bombing thus perhaps an increased AFV total would have be immobilised back down to historical levels if the allies applied the same intensity per target as they did originaly..
Again a larger Tank Fleet seems somewhat more untenable than any conjecture on POL production.
What seems more critical from your (excellent) post is that the fate of any "what if" is in the hands of US strategic bomber command and not Speer and Co!
If synthetic oil production had been assigned greater priority seems no production stratergy was going to pay dividends.
What are the our assumptions should make about the German economy in respect to the original question? IE in regards to a greater number of MK IVs force structure compared with a multi-tude of types.
OK lets assume that US bombing is kept to historical levels and a expansion in POL production to support a large tank force is not meet by an increased US bombing campaign against synthetic plants.
Ok lets also assume some early planning (biggest bugbear for me) that will enable
Both an increased Mechanized army and the the rationalisation of tank production to a fewer models..sake of argument PZ IVs
(could be PZ Vs) the model is not that important at this stage of the argument.
What could we expect of the economy...
would it behave like a sausage ballon that if squezzed in one place it expanded in an other or...expansion in some areas (POL AFV production) could be had without effecting other areas (U-Boats,locomotives , food whatever)
Question1
under ideal conditions given that the allies behaved roughly in the same manner How nuch bigger could the German war economy been with better earler planning?
Question2
What would have been the largest Tank force deployable without adverse effect to other ares of German war effort?
Question3
Where there areas that could have been disbanded by the 3rd Reich that could have further increased this total or offset failings else where. One thinks of V wpns...aircraft production etc? Some development areas the 3rd Reich indulged in where not insignificant but where thay detrimental to our what if?
Question4(+)
What would be a max Tank force deployable with sacrifices in other areas identified in question 3 or even areas of greater sacrifice?
Question5
with the answers above for the various alternatives (lets keep it simple) would more MK IVs made sense? or would the increased numbers not have made up the qualative gap? again this relies on an understanding of toatal what if numbers...if a total 50,000 Pz IVs was possable (unlikley) then the answear is obvious.....how about 20,000or 15,000 ?
Question 6
if you could workout the magic number of MK IVs that would be advantageous compared with historical figures it would be a start
This is perhaps the easiest of questions to answear as it is independant on economic factors IE it is a benchmark .not a possable conjecture.... once we assume a figure we can back track to see if there was any possability the German Economy could have produced this number.....a yes or no answers the original posted question
Boris
London
BTW sorry for the stream of consciousness style post
-
good pointOriginally posted by M Hofbauer:I think that what lies at heart of the matter of this whole affair is the ooooold problem of the artificial "turns" of the game.
perhaps VPs awarded relative to turn captured and maintained..if you grab something on last turn of game you gain less VPs than if you controled it on turn 16...again greater flexability in victory condition design required.
Boris
london
-
check out the head on JC
SPOILERS
Finished playing a CMBB game Heart of stalingrad from the SD.....this has T-70s
I posted a few thoughts on how effective they were and in retrospect they fall into a definate role... and as JC has so fully described in detail how good they are...
was the T-70s success the precursor to the PT range of post war lt tanks..a doctrine of lt tank deployment...the term "force mix "comes to mind
Boris
london
-
So in conclusion POL assets where somewhat more stable than we would assume from conquered/controlled fieldsOriginally posted by Bastables:1942: 7.7 Million metric tons
1943: 8.9
1944: 6.4
Figs refer to imports and production at Synthetic fuel plants.
The "damage" inflicted by USAAF aggravated a serious situation ie fuel shortages in the Caucasus constrained mobility during 1942 ( 2000 Zetterling). These figs do agree more with Andreas reasoning.[/QB]
thus Romanian fields themselves or any other captured wells in Russia did little to effect German POL totals.....
From this inference, German fuel levels before US bombing (operation custer was it?) damaged synthetic production should be used asa benchmark that form any basis of total POL and hence servicable AFV/aircraft/U -Boat MAXIMUM deployable.
Was there a surplus of POL or vehicles(land, sea and air) ?
or where the two in sync....?
Figures on total afvs in the field per year please....... even better total number of AFV HOURS IN FEILD
:confused:
seems German ability to field AFVs was on the rivet anyway.
The number of factors that need to be addressed by Speer seem numerous for any increased AFV number to be any use
:confused:
Boris
london
-
I basicly agreeOriginally posted by JasonC:[
As for the comment about type VII boats and type XXIs, yes the type XXI was a much better submarine. It was also available far too late to do any good. The battle of the Atlantic was tech intensive, yes, but a better U-boat would not have won it. The techs that mattered were radar, long range shore based ASW, escort carriers, and intel successes. Ultra had far more to do with it than any deficiencies of the VII. Ultra plus centimeter radar in scads of planes, was going to shut the U-boats down, once all of it arrived.
But the Germans scored their biggest successes with the least improved boats, and when they had only about 60 of the things. The cost involved to have 300 VIIs instead of 60 would have been tiny. Quantity early when the other guy is vunerable is much better than quality late when he isn't. You don't just "get there with the mostest", you get there *first*.
You have paraphrased the point I was making.
If you assume 300 early war VIIs would not be countered then yes a retooled early German economy and a startegic decision to apply real resources to the battle of the Atlantic would have bourne fruit for the German U-boat arm....if a long term struggle was envisaged U-boat development should have been a priority as post mid 43 on the Type VII was ineffective.....
the Type XXI advantage was its ability to keep pace with convoys submerged and in transit to operational ares in a submerged state......schnorkel devices reduced the range of the type Vii to a intolerable degree. even thou periscope detection was possable with CM radar operational speed and range was the strategic factor U-boat command ability to prosecute the war.
IF early german development in the areas of U-boat stealth where carried out CM radar would have been a catchup weapon rather than the devasting advantage it turned out to be ..again firstest with the mostest argument......which can always cut both ways....the Germans where working on radar detection equipment but did not concentrate in the CM bands as they thought to be technicaly impossable at the time!
obviously the relationships betwen the opponents behaviour and the other arenas of the war (German pens in France etc.) are of a critical importance......
The Real problem is one of culture within the Third Reich where intergration of management decisions where split between the various deptartments and not intergrated as in the allied view of problems..out of which a lot of post war management culture appeared...Rand corporation, NASA etc,,,
For any of the what ifs to be applied require the nature of the Turd Reich to be somewhat more sensible.....For any regime to succeed,having its head of state security believing that the german people were descended from a race of psi supermen from the era of the giants ain't going to help.
let me add a "what if" on tank production relating to POL assets is the way to go if you wish to decide whether or not to concentrate tank production on a "more cheaper" than "few better" argument.....It seems German fortunes relied on the interplay of occupied/controlled oil producing areas and adequate product stratergy.For all factors to fall into a sweet spot is such a long shot, I can not help feeling the whole "could Germany have won" thing is a big no no... someone is going to have to do the maths here......what did Guderians management consultant job in 43 kick up?
let me also add..Wargamming is an excellent community for such historical debates and has 'real' academic value that goes beyond actual wargames and enjoyment into a more useful activity, that may benefit opinions and decision makers today
Zen and the art of wargamming
Boris
-
I second thatOriginally posted by tero:That would be interesting. The "luck vs skill" debate indicated there is something to be done to the less than perfect scoring which uses only casualties and the flags as yardsticks.
victory conditions seem simplistic...especialy when compared with the level of effort but into other areas of the game.
Boris
london
-
Good god Sniper..those wacky parallelagram tanks......!!! going back a few yeas thou 1975-80 ish. Had a sister game called patrolOriginally posted by John D Salt:ISTR that one of SPI's tactical boardgames -- it might have been the original "Sniper!" -- had an interesting scheme whereby, once a side had reached its "preservation level" of casualties, its victory conditions changed completely, and victory points were awarded only for getting your remaining people out OK. I would be interested to see if a similar scheme could be made to work in CM.
[/QB]
played on naff geomorphic 10X10 hex boards
i rememember panicing squadies randomly running around based on a little hex based compass thingy....cool little smoke counters and staircases....we could use stairwells in CM ....I Digress
preservation levels.....how does morale effect play in CMBB not at all until you 0 or is there a cumlative effect like ASL ELR decay and Battle field integrity?
Boris
london
-
I thought the skinnies at the beginning represent the conflicts of ww2 (japs etc)Originally posted by Xipe:[QB]Most people would probably have it that it stems from Henleins WWII experiences. I tend to fall into this camp: "Robert A. Heinlein hides a critical examination of the necessity of war in a rousing adventure novel set in the far future. While fighting a war against alien arachnids, the protaganist, Juan Rico, learns not only how to be a soldier, but also decides that while war is not desirable, it is a necessary part of the human condition. Heinlein's novel is clearly influenced by both his World War II service and his dislike of communism, but the "Starship Troopers"is still an interesting read, especially when contrasted to the post-Vietnam works of Joe Haldeman ("The Forever War") and David Drake ("Hammers Slammers")."
who then join in to fight the red hoarde(bugs)
as the UN(US?) latter but I will give the link a read...
I read as a kid both starship troopers and forever war ... In retrospect i think they are silly stories
Boris
london
-
I thought Starship troopers was the Korean War?Originally posted by Grisha:Hannibal,
Have you read that book by Heinlein, Starship Trooper? Well, western historiography has pretty much depicted the Soviet-German War along those lines. The Germans are the starship troopers, and the Soviets are the bugs. That the Germans lost only gives it that special 'tragic' aura typical of the best of theater and film. Given that collective impress upon modern western civilization, who would you be more interested in? Exactly. One of the best spins of all time.
Having said that, I must concede that the bugs-er, Soviets had done little to dispel that ungracious image, but that just may have been a ploy at retaining a maskirovka edge through bias in the event that another war with the West was to occur.
Boris
london
-
This is the Only area i disagree with the accepted notion that technical advances where useless in the face of numerical superioty..... the german U-Boat arm did not suffer from a lack of U-boats 1943 on but essentialy they lacked a credable u-boat at all......in all the arenas of conflict in WW2 the atlantic was the most technical driven with superiroty going to those who coul field a credable force of technically superior vesselsIn practice, the same inability to settle on a definite type and ramp its production afflicted the other arms as well. Speer made some headway preventing this in the case of the Luftwaffe, concentrating on production of Me-109s and FW-190s. But there was still a wide proliferation of types. Same with subs, where the type VII boats might have been ramped, but instead they continued to dribble out IXs to XXIs..[/QB]
A decent commitment to U-Boat production earlier in the war would have been meaningful
with type VIIs but once centrmetric radar was developed only a true submersable would surfice(read type XXI)..... IF the German stratergy had concentrated a Large part of the early war economy into U-Boats the war may have had a very different character indeed. I feel this is the area that produces the biggest WW2 what if.
And yes the I did find your post intresting and informative
-
yes I tend to agree with the above statementOriginally posted by easytarget:Since the industrial capacity of the U.S. at the time was greater than Italy, Japan and Germany combined, it would of made little difference what the Germans focused on (short of a nuclear weapon).
however I like a "what if" so for the sake of an argument
few questions and thoughts
German War inustry was a slow starter.....
better management may have increased there chances.....?
dumping the tigers etc and concentrating on the mk IV..? probably viable from a tactical point of view up until mid 44,,,,, advance in allied tank design would necessitate something better..but like all what ifs it fails if you assume the other side does not change its behaviour.....
the real question is
HOW SIGNIFICANT WAS THE TIGER/PANTHER TO GERMAN DEFENSIVE PERFORMANCE 1943-45
OR you could ask....if you replaced all the panthers and tigers one to one with PZ IVs how much quicker would the Germans lost the war?
Would SS panzer divs at Kharkov 43 (mainsteins back hand) really done any worse equiped with PZ IVs? i doubt there would be that much a different outcome? but later in the war the changes in peformance would accelerate the differences in what if history compared with reality.
hard to quantify......
perhaps game communitys like this are a good place to start to find an answer....
My gut feeling is the most significant German AFV is the STUG III 75Long barrel (L48?)
You need a meaningful ratio of a PZ IV worth compared with a tiger and a panther and that value mapped against oppostion AFVs....
could german industry make 50000 PZ IVs...even if expensive tank design was dropped.....
Unlikley knowing the NAZI regime.. if they could have russian tank superioty would have disappeared...I doubt German could support logistical such a tank force...The germans had a large number of Warplanes in 1945 sitting on the ground.
Work out in manpower and POL assets the maximum number of battle tanks the Germans could support in the feild and you may be closer to an answer...
if the figure is much bigger than max/average german battle strength..concentrating on a "cheaper" design may have made sense.....
if the figure is roughly the same then better tanks make sense......
you may need to plot this as a average of German available strength as max strength is meaningless if your force oscilates in strength
wildly.....what was german TANK POWER as in the number of AFV HOURS in the field!
broadly speaking they should have made 2000 type xxI U-boats and 2000 me262s to be in with a shout..and as easytarget suggests they would still have been nuked......
Boris
London
-
Risky rather than gamey...
Boris
London
KV2 first shot accuracy test result
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
vertical velocity is constantly modified by g a constant but even this movement is effected by air resistance ..... the X component is not entirly seperate in that the original energy of the shot is not applied along that axis solely.........
As was I previously stated the flight path would be a blunted arc.
the steeping of flight needed to be effective against deck armour requires a higher trajectory than DF at ranges discribed....
this blunting will be more extreme at greater ranges.......
instictive intuition makes me believe that such steeping will not be a factor at 600m scenario debated......
we need a function for air resistance to argue about this. and in the case of 152mm the shot weight may carry better against air resistance.
hunch
Boris
London