pamak1970

Although I agree with what was said in this thread I will point (again) that the above quote although maybe true statistically in the strategic level, reveals nothing about probability of kill during a ground attack at a tactical level. It is like saying that the probability of kill when a pilot shoots at a target is affected to some extend by the numbers of industrial production. We should not confuse statistics and probabilitites.

Thank you for the effort to explain the situation. The second response made things more clear to me.

Which basically amounts to the way we have it in CMBB/AK... rapid target switching and "collateral" effects. Either i was misunderstood or i have not understood the response I understand this limitation and i do not propose any change in this method of simulating grazing fire(collateral damage through rapid target switch). My focus is not in simulation of trajectory. It is more narrow . It is about the way AI chooses now targets to switch fire for "collateral" effects and simulate grazing fire. From what i read in the current state the AI does make multiple LOS and LOF calculations and switch fire rapidly from one target to another in order to simulate grazing fire. So, regarding this aspect of LOS and LOF calculation for multiple targets,we already have the technical ability to do so. What i point ,is that this choice of targets should be altered a little bit in order to follow a "geometric pattern". This "geometric pattern" of the choice of targets will give the "feeling"- "illussion" of a "psuedo-trajectory" effect. For example, Imagine a line formation of two squads- (two squads beside each other) ,with each squad seperated from the other by 50 meters attack a MG directly in front. In CMMB or CMAK, AI might simulate grazing fire by switching fire between these two squads . This is a problem cause in reality these targets deployed in such a manner can not be affected by grazing fire effect. On the other hand, if a column formation of two squads seperated again by 50 meters (one squad behind the other) attacks the same position,then the MG can produce grazing fire effect . So the way i see it, the choice of the targets should be more restricted. The MG and all affected targets should be approximately along the same geometric line in order for the former to switch fire and apply collateral damage to the latter,as a bonus of grazing fire effect. So the additional calculation in my case,is not about LOF determination or LOS. These things are calculated in the same way it happens now. The additional calculation is about the determination of the additional requirement i expressed earlier. That is, the MG and all targets should be along the same geometric line (or better if the determination is about if they are all inside a very narrow "firing arc") . If they are, then grazing fire is executed in the same way it happens now and both targets are affected, if they are not then there is no grazing fire and only one target is affected. Under these conditions, it will make a big difference in the game if a MG fires oblique or flanking fire towards the approaching line formations. In the above example of two squads side by side ,the best position for a MG is to be and fire from the flank. Only during that case , the requirement of having MG and both squads along the same geometric line, can be fulfilled. The most common situation would be to have squads side by side ,but still they will not be at the exact same level. So even oblique fire can satisfy the geometric requirement, while frontal fire will not be able to do so. Under these conditions ,players will have an advantage in deploying MG in a more realistic manner. So we will see MGs of the right sector aiming diagonally towards the left and Mgs of the left sector aiming towards the right , creating crossfire immdediatelly in front of the defence position. So, the question i see ,is if it is intense for the engine to calculate in addition of what is does now ,that 3 or 4 for example different points on the map belong to the same geometric line. [ September 09, 2005, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: pamak1970 ]

Because if you don't do collision computations, you won't know if the bullets would be blocked by terrain. It is collisions with terrain or other cover that would need to be calculated. </font>

Since i do not want to simply whine ,i have to say that the concept of relative spotting and the concept of blocking LOF -even with the limitations expressed in previous posts" are the two most important things for me I can not comment on C&C since there are not many details revealed yet.

JasonC actually did a model of this IIRC using both CMBO and CMBB and the results were astonishing. </font>

An additional note is that according to my understanding from what i have read until so far is that since we are already in the LOF determination phase, that means that the shooter has already established the intital position of the targets (during the LOS phase).

The problem with simulating true Grazing Fire is that the system would have to do LOF in a fan and do collision detecting along every point. Massive computations needed for that, especially in open terrain with a MG that can reach out hundreds of meters. I am not trying to be smart ass here since i do not know about programming. I am just wondering why it is needed collision computations. Since grazing fire will be against dismounted infantry moving really slow, and since the time of flight of a burst will be really short (grazing fire range up to maximum 500 meters), i would not have any problem to see just an initial calculation, ignoring any collision calculations. If a dismounted infantry unit for example just before the start of fire is eligible to receive grazing fire, then i think that 90% of the time this will remain the same until the burst reaches the target. Am i right? [ September 07, 2005, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: pamak1970 ]

Another thing that links the above post and previous ones ,has to do with LOF block. Will infantry units also "block" LOF,or it is only vehicles that do so? If infantry units do block LOF, then grazing fire can not be simulated . On the other hand if infantry units do not block LOF then we can still shoot from behind through our friendly formations. Unless of course there is the case where friendly infantry units do block friendly LOF but not enemy LOF

Steve already answered this. He said that Charles came up with a way to "simulate" it in CMBB and will likely do so again; I got the impression that true grazing fire would be "simulated" only (meaning, I guess, multiple attacks along certain trajectories). </font>

I mean transonic-supersonic ballistics

Two questions. Did you find data regarding the particular weapon ,like Cd and weight of shell , or you just tried to calculate roughly the magnitude of the minimum range ? The second question is if you are aware of a program for transonic ballistics. Thanks

Yankeedog , i do not want to highjack this thread which is really important. I will just point that the minimum range does not seem to match with the numbers you use to calculate it. It is way too short. I can send you an email with more details if you are interested

Perfect!! I did not understand this when i read your first post. Yes, this "ten feet square" instead of "10sq feet" gives much more logical results and things are more consistent now,plus the size of the target for strafing fits well with images i recall from modern airforce training centers. Now using the same method i described earlier to calculate effectiveness during strafing ,i still get more accurate results for rockets but the difference is not so big as before. I do accept the relation between size of target and percentage of hits which you have hesitations to accept . Here is what i find. A ten feet square is 11.11 Sq yards surface. The percentage of rockets hits according to strafing table is 0.045/8= 0.0056=0.56%. Now the panther size is 50 sq yards . That means that compared to the strafing target size (11.11 sq yards) ,it is about 4.5 times larger (four and a half times larger) Using the relation of percentage of accuracy and size of target i see in the first case ,i expect that a target like a panther during strafing with rockets ,will receive 4.5 X 0.5 =2.25% hits. Now we need to find the number of rockets nessesary to have a 50% chance to acheive one hit when the percentage of accuracy is 2.25 %. The formula for answering the above question is the following. P=1-(1-a)^X The symbol ^x means that x is the exponent or power and the (1-a) is raised to that power x The letters-symbols of the above equation represent the following data. X = the number of rockets we try to calculate in order to have a 50% chance to acheive a hit (actually the exact phrase is in order to have AT LEAST one hit). P= the probability of acheiving at least one hit after firing x rockets. In this case we have set this value to 50% so P=0.5 a= the percentage of hits we get for each specific target according to tables data. In our case it is 2.25% ,so a= 0.0225 So the final equation is 0.5=1-(1-0.0225)^X So now we can calculate the value of x and after solving the equation we find that x= 30 rockets. Therefore number of sorties is 4 (since each sortie has 8 rockets). Two notes . If you ask me how do i know that this is the correct type of equation, i can not give an answer without going to mathematical details which do not have any place in this forum. However you might be convinced that this type of equation is the one the author uses in order to claculate his results in the first case. Simply use the same equation and use the numbers the tables provide in the first place to test if results are the same. If you use a calculator and the data of previous tables you will find that results are the same. You can also test my results to see if i did any miscalculation. So for example (1-0.0225)^30=(0.9775)^30 must be equal with 0.5

information about german ground attack tactics From http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ge_af_apr43/

First i think we have to take in consideration that there are various scenarios. For example things are different when a plane is directed by an air-liasion officer towards a ground target compared to when a plane has to spot and engage a target without any type of help. I saw an interesting piece of information regarding target aquisition in the latter case. It is remarks from Rudel which i do not have any reasons to question in this case. From http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/a10cactusairforce.htm Now i do not see the above comments unreasonable. Maybe it is much easier to spot camouflaged vehicles moving along roads but it is not so easy when they are located outside of a road ,even when terrain is open. Even if you spot a vehicle it is difficult to distinguish a camouflaged tank from a truck or recognize friend from enemy during breakthrough operations. The use of "air recognition panels" is not sufficient to give a solution for air recognition. For example i have read in one of the wwii soviet manuals i have , that ground commanders were reluctant to use these panels unless the Soviet air force acheived and maintained air superiority,which makes sense. I think that especially for Rudel and generally tank buster pilots it was important to identify a tank from a truck since their mission was more narrow . On the other hand regardless of what was the actual effect of typhoons against tanks, they were not dedicated tank buster models and they were not restricted in their choices of targets.

First there is no need for any apology . The second thing is that i do not understand what you are saying. I am not sure how you envision the shape of this type of linear target or the definition you give to the term "linear". The size of the surface of the target is a definite number,in this case 10sq ft. Now this may have the shape of a square with each side being around 3,2 feet or it might be a different shape -2 feet wide X 5 feet long ,or 1 foot wide X10 feet long for example. The concentration is large in any case. Now if the results of the table were given in feet instead of square feet, then i could give a different interpretation. For example if there was 25% of hits inside an area of 10 feet wide along the path of the strafing , that is certainly different. In this case we know how the rounds spread "left and right" of the strafing path but we do not have a complete picture of accuracy cause we do not know how they spread along the strafing path. In my view the phrase "Hits on 10 feet square normal to line of flight" has the same meaning with the phrase we see in the first example "horizontal projected area" which is affected by the angle of dive.

Does anybody have available information and bibliography about the way strafing was executed? (Typical range ,angle of dive and so on). If you see the data about strafing ,the percentage of hits is very high. A surface of 10 sq ft is very small for such concentration-nomatter if you "walk" the fire towards the target. Imagine that a human six feet tall and 2 feet "wide" projects an area of 12 sq foot size. Even a MG on the ground firing automatically 120 rounds against such a small target at a distance of 1000 to 2000 meters (3300 to 6300 feet or 900 to 1800 yards) can not acheive such results regarding concentration. It is possible that there is an explanation for all conflicting information. For example, strafing maybe much more accurate but on the other hand it is not easy to use it often ,especially above the battlefield cluttered with all kinds of AA and small arms fire from enemy deployed formations in defence-not to mention friendly shells travelling towards the enemy area. I expect to see the plane flying really low and with a very shallow angle of dive (not the 45 degrees mentioned in the first case),coming really close to the target which does make the plane very vulnerable. On the other hand strafing could be used much more often behind the enemy lines against targets of opportunity and generally during cases when units could not be protected adequently with aa fire ,like during marches . [ August 31, 2005, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: pamak1970 ]

I remember there was a similar issue in another thread about the term of accuracy. Anyway,i think it is better to use the term accuracy regardless of any objections so that we can follow more easily the data provided by the tables. For example when the table about strafing is labeled "low-stress strafing accuracy" we can make things much more easy by sticking to the same term . We might say that the table links the word accuracy with the "strafing", not the "weapon". </font>

i can not force you talk about the data. Have a nice day

I remember there was a similar issue in another thread about the term of accuracy. Anyway,i think it is better to use the term accuracy regardless of any objections so that we can follow more easily the data provided by the tables. For example when the table about strafing is labeled "low-stress strafing accuracy" we can make things much more easy by sticking to the same term . We might say that the table links the word accuracy with the "strafing", not the "weapon".

The table does not give "different data". You are saying that increasing the target size by 45 times increases the accuracy by 45 times and that is clearly not the case. The data shows that it takes 140 rockets just to get a 50% chance of ONE hit on that 450 sq ft target. By the way, strafing is just the term that refers to making a low level fired ordnance attack against a ground target. Doesn't matter whether you use machine guns, cannon, or rockets. </font>

All you say is right as long as we do not talk about strafing. When we talk about strafing using rockets , the table gives different data .

Actually i do not beleive that these data answer the question about the effectiveness of Typhoon. They make things more complicated. I do not have the book and it seems really an interesting one. For the time being i just read your table and notice the following things. First , i am not familiar with close support tactics but i was wondering since the beginning about the choice of range in firing rockets. It seemed to me that 1000 to 2000 meters was too much. Maybe when you dive to hit the target this might be typical but i was not sure if this was the only method used to attack ground targets. So i was not so much surprised when i saw a little bit later an interesting paragraph from your data. Look the data about strafing and notice that strafing is not limited only to 20mm rounds but it can also include rockets! It is even more interesting to pay attantion to results . The data regarding strafing talk about number of hits on a 10 sqfeet target!!. That is really a very small surface compared to the data used about hits from a 1000-2000 range. Notice now that during strafing we have 0.045 hit after firing 8 rockets against a target of 10 sq feet surface. On the other hand a target will be certainly larger than that. We do not know how much larger since this will depend on the relative position of the aircraft to the tank but consider that during the previous case of firing rockets from a 1000-2000 meters ,the data give a surface of 50 sqyards for a panther tank. A surface of 50 sq yards is equal with 450 sq feet!! Now if we have 0.045 hits inside a target of 10 sq feet, how many hits we can expect inside a target 45 times larger (450 sq feet) ? Tough question to answer without going to details but again imagine that if someone claims that the number of hits will be also 45 bigger then suddenly the 0.045 hits per 8 rockets, becomes 2.025 hits per 8 rockets. That is 2 out of 8 rockets strike the target area

Ok, so from what i understand it is a random thing regarding which craters created by artillery strikes during game provide cover and which ones they do not and are just graphical symbols. That is the clarification i was looking for.