Wartgamer
-
Posts
939 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Wartgamer
-
-
Stranger still; what has that got to do with the thread?
-
Interesting data from an old thread
In 1943 the Soviet's lost 23,500 AFVs losses by type were 22,400 tanks & 1,100 SU. Tank losses equaled 51.4% of all production while SU lossess totaled only 25% of 1943 production. Ie, Soviet production in 1943 was 23,977 AFV's Ie,:15,712 - T-34-76
100 - T-34-85
452 - KV1-S
130 - KV-85
102 - IS-2
3,343 - T-70
120 - T-80
1,928 - SU-76
635 - SU-122
750 - SU-85
670 - SU-152
35 - ISU-152
Soviet AFV strengh as of July 1, 1943 stood at 15,476 Tanks & SU's deployed such as:
Army - 10,199 - tanks & SU's.
STAVKA - 2,688 - tanks & SU's.
Far East - 2,589 - tank's.
Note the above does not include AFVs being used in the trainimng establishments. As of July 1, 1943 the Germans had a total of 2,088 tanks & SP's, deployed on the Eastren Front, whick left the Soviet's with an 6:1 advantage in armor as of July 1 1943.
[ May 02, 2005, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]
-
So the Panther+Tiger population is about 1/4 the number of panzers on the eastern front during late 43. The Germans had roughly 2100-2200 panzers 'on hand' during this time (around 800-1000 operational). I assume this stat is only turreted panzers but it may include stug in panzer division. This data is taken from a source that shows about 2600 panzers available and 2287 operational around June 30 (pre Kursk) and charts the whole year of 43.
The Germans are losing 200-300 Panzer IV a month (all fronts) during this time.
I am beginning to wonder how much new material the Germans held back.
-
Many of the 'TN' are probably the Panther tank units I mentioned above. But the 'TR' are all types of tanks. Tiger (some), Panther, Panzer IV (many Panzer IV).Originally posted by JasonC:TN = tanks in full units ("new")
TR = tanks as replacements
AN = assault guns in full units
AR = assault guns as replacements
T = total new AFVs sent east
Jul: TN 58, TR 122, AN 62, AR 73, T 315
Aug: TN 164, TR 123, AN 93, AR 111, T 491
Sep: TN 45, TR 93, AN 154, AR 129, T 421
Oct: TN 71, TR 230, AN 104, AR 73, T 478
Nov: TN 154, TR 262, AN 180, AR 138, T 734
Dec: TN 34, TR 367, AN 62, AR 149, T 612
Tanks as replacements increase noticably in the final quarter. The number of operational long 75 or better AFVs reaches pre-Kursk levels again in mid October and increases modestly thereafter.
As for Panthers and Tigers in particular, here are end of month figures -
Jul P-134, T-175
Aug P-225, T-181
Sep P-266, T-214
Oct P-316, T-227
Nov P-419, T-278
Dec P-349, T-232
Source - Zetterling and Frankson, Kursk 1943, various appendices.
Are those operational Tiger and Panther tank numbers?
That would have been insane (not saying it didnt happen). The Germans were getting ground down in 1943-early44. They would have been much better off just issuing Panther tanks to units that needed them. That is, units already trained on them that had so few runners. Trains should have pulled up with new tanks and evacuated long term repair tanks much further back.The replacement army probably had scads of them. They had to train every unit to use them. Many of the units that fought in Normandy still had their Panther battalions training in Germany at the time of the invasion. SS-DR had its issued at the time of Kursk, but they were still in Germany training on them, through all of July and most of August. And they were the first in line after the experimental regiment with GD for Kursk offensive. In fact, 2/3rds of the mobile divisions that took part in Kursk had a panzer battalion missing from their panzer regiments - often because it was training for a new type. It takes time to field a new tank.In 1944, there are instances of this happening with panther battalions getting issued many replacement panthers at a shot.
[ May 02, 2005, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]
-
An interesting stat is that the German only had around 300 Panthers in May 44 on the eastern front.
Very few were in Italy and around 500-600 were being built up in France.
So the Germans were either losing them at very fast rates (Germans report 1100 or so lost up till this time) or they are just taking too long to train units on. 3100 were built and ready to issue up till this time.
-
The SU 85 was first used in Sept 43 and about 750 or so were produced in 1943. The SU 152 (152mm) was produced in about the same numbers during this period. Not sure why Jason does not mention the SU 152mm during 1943. The SU 152 had a very capable AT round and also better armor than a SU 85. It had much slower rate of fire though.
[ May 02, 2005, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]
-
German Panthers on the eastern front starts with the 200+12 used during Kursk/Summer. The initial problems with them is well known. They enter combat and quickly break down/hit mines/get-side-holed/abandoned/self-destroyed/etc. These were all Panther D(early). Supposedly survivors may have been turned into HQ tanks or retrievers.
Further German use of Panther in 1943 seems to be entirely on the eastern front. Panthers produced are not sent to the front but sent to training battalions so that crews are familiarized with the new tank. They are then sent as a unit to the front.
Following German 'unit' deliveries are in Aug43: (71 Panther to I/SSPRGT2), Sep43 (96 Panther to II/PRGT23), Nov43 (1 PD 76 Panther), Nov43 (1SSPD 96 Panther), Dec43 (1/PRGT31 76 Panther).
How many Panthers were sent as replacements would be interesting. The Germans claimed about 1600 Panthers produced during this period (till end of 43). None were sent to Italy in 43 and I doubt that they were sent to France. So they are either at the eastern front, in training battalions or held in some strategic reserve? Germans report 493 Panthers lost during 1943. These must have been on the eastern front and they must have sent replacements then.
These post Kursk Panthers are probably all later Panther D's with slight improvements. Perhaps Panther A.
An example of how poor these early Panthers faired comes from the PRGT23 that starts with 96 Panthers at the end of Aug43. In a little less than 3 weeks, it has 28 total write offs (demo-charged due to inability to fix or recover), 14 'runners' and 54 non-runners awaiting repairs. Its combat power is no more than a company. It never gets above this level and finally (apparently), has its non-runner 'fleet' over run and 'writes-off' 45 hulks at the end of Oct43. It apparently recieves not one replacement panther since its TWO plus runner/non-runner equals 96 (starting number) at the end of Dec43.
German tankers were still using Panzer III at this time as well as the Panzer IV long (and some used StuG). Given the very short 'front-appearances' of the Panther, its 'rarity' is much greater than its actual numbers.
[ May 02, 2005, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]
-
I believe the Soviets concentrated efforts against infantry formations during the post-Kursk period of 1943.
German infantry at this time did not have very effective LATW. They basically relied upon ATG and whatever AFV or other armor defeating weapon that could help them (FLAK/Arty/dense minefields).
The German armored formations, having been thinned out at Kursk, was basically a counter reaction force trying to stabilize the onslaughts.
The Panther 'population' was very slow growing during this period and the major flaws in the weapon system were not worked out till 1944. The Panther had cold weather problems as well as major subsystem problems and lack of spares (and design flaws like the mantlet). I believe the number of Panthers and Tiger Is may have been equal on the eastern front till late spring 1944 (each around 300 vehicles each). The majority of AFV were probably Panzer IV long and StuG till the end of 1943 and early 44.
The Panther is also a very 'offensive' weapon. It must have its engine running to fire effectively (and so do StuGs). The Panzer IV had an auxillary generator and could fire effectively with its main engine turned off.
So basically, the Soviets probably just avoided combat with Tigers and Panthers since they were so rare. They had room to manuver and would attack other areas with overwhelming numbers.
[ May 01, 2005, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]
-
Mortars can, and will, pound the baseplate into the ground. Especially large mortars or mortars firing with large charges. That is why you must watch the level bubble so that fire does not 'back-up'.
-
http://www.stripes.com/ww2/stories/mortars.html
An interesting site. Detailed use of 81mm in combat.
In Holland, the platoon in several instances proved itself adept in using the 81-mm. mortar without base plate or bipod. That means firing without use of a sight and the gunner has got to be able to see his target. "My men have gotten on the target in two rounds at 200 yards," reports Lt. Cooper.A gunner carrying a tube and two ammo carriers frequently went out with patrols and often the mortar was fired in this manner in close support of a company. "It's advisable to fire with no added increments when not using a base plate and biped because, if the charge is too great, your tube might sink in the ground," cautions Sgt. Woltz.
-
In any case, minimum range would be using the least propellant (cartridge only) and highest angle possible.
I have read +85 is the greatest angle. Thats about 91 meters or 98 yards or so (neglecting air resistance). You could probably take off 6% of that so around 90 yards.
-
The impact velocity is greater than the launch velocity? Me thinks not.Originally posted by flamingknives:Right. Having said how easy it is, I decided to have a go.
As a result, we see this graph of the trajectory of an M821 or M889 81mm mortar bomb.
Muzzle velocity: 66m/s
Bomb mass: 4.14kg
Launch angle: 82.5 degrees
I've accounted for air drag and gravity in this calc in increments of 0.1 seconds. While I've kept the drag coefficient constant at subsonic velocities, it doesn't change much. That said, the value of Cd is the crudest fudge known to man, and any results must be taken with this in mind.
Impact is at 120m/s and 86 degrees down angle.
-
No, thats incorrect.I'd hazard that you're assuming a constant resistance for the bomb.I am using a comparison of no-resistance from air (pure newtonian equations) and known data (US 81mm mortar rounds.
Given these two, one can calculate some effects from air resistance.
-
neglecting air resistance. moon artillery with earths gravity.
-
All of that data was using a set 45 degree angle of fire. I would assume this gives the greatest range and using a fire chart, you would back off angle to decrease range.
Using non-air resistance newtonian physics, you should get:
235 fps yields approx 576 yards range 10.6 sec(~6% range loss)
700 fps yields approx 5104 yards range 31 secs (~35% range loss)
This is just envelope-back calcs but I can crunch it better. Clearly 3 times the velocity (or 3 times the flight time also) has resulted in approx 6 times the range loss.
-
Some data from a US Manual:
81mm M43 mortar round (light) 45 deg
zone 0 (cartridge only) 235 fps 541 yds
zone 1 (cart plus 1 charge) 332 fps 1020 yds
zone 2 (cart plus 2 charge) 410 fps 1500 yds
zone 3 (..........3 charge) 499 fps 2042 yds
zone 4 (..........4 charge) 572 fps 2517 yds
zone 5 (..........5 charge) 638 fps 2963 yds
zone 6 (..........6 charge) 700 fps 3288 yds
The reference to a vacuum is just stating that atmospheric conditions must be taken into account.
[ April 29, 2005, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]
-
Ive never seen production numbers but just dates.
76mm APBC ProjectilesThere were three 76mm APBC projectiles issued by the Soviets:
the BR-350A was issued from before 1941 and ceased production in 1943;
the BR-350B, pictured below, started production in 1942 and eventually replaced the BR-350A; and
the BR-354B projectile replaced the BR-350B projectile in 1944.
The BR-350A projectile is slightly longer than the other two. The BR-350B had a differently shaped HE cavity, probably to strengthen the shell to help prevent it from breaking up on impact. The BR-354B has an even smaller HE cavity and the bottom half of the shell body tapers in slightly, probably to further strengthen the shell body. It also has a smaller opening for the fuze and a different composition of HE filler, being an incendiary mix. The basic design of all three projectiles, however, remains the same. Source: Krogfus, Miles: World War II AP.
-
The DookieWerfernaffe is optional on this version of the EPzSKfz 7.
-
These are good ideas of course.Originally posted by Uedel:to continue this fine Thread , i started this one for further discussions
so here are my suggestions
Small Steps to Improve the Generall AI behavior:
- Selectable Unit Class (Support, Scout, etc)
This are items for the Scenario designer to give the AI an idea for what to use the selectet Unit I.E. Support means not to move the unit (Mortar) up to the line where it recieves MG fire, instead the AI tries to keep this unit behind the Attack units in cover with good LOS in direction of the moving Friendly units and to use the Section HQ to spot while keeping the Mortar in cover etc. This way u could as a scenario designer also say the AI please use this Stuart Tank as a Scout unit for the other heavy Tanks also in this Scenario, would stop the frustration for me when i mowe down the billionst 3 inch Mortar team just 20m away from my trenches.
- Sceanriodesigner given Waypoints and rules of conduct.
Let the Scenario designer give the AI driven forces a general set of orders to use, I.E. Move Troops from company A over left or right flank while use Units from Hvy Weapons Platton stationary in the middle for support. The Scenario designer should NOT give exact Waypoints for every unit just MACROWAYPOINTS for AI troops (like big clumsy arrows) and the AI still uses its own allgorithms to move the units it self. For this we would need a tool to say the AI also these units are Section A,B,C,D etc (like with the setup zones now,the troops in the blue zone are Company A etc).
What your thoughts about possibilitis to enhance the AI in simple but effective ways
Greets Uedel
I think that 'AI' should be replaced with 'HE'. Thats Human Emulation.
It should be clear that many good player 'methods' are actually just like military drills. Players 'fight' platoons. They 'push-forward' companies towards objectives, etc. The 'AI' should not think in terms of either individual units (where the orders are issued) oron a grand scale (flags). It should 'think' in terms of objectives and formations.
Hopefully the designers are either very competant players themselves or are corresponding with really good players so that they can emulate them. Otherwise, how could 'AI' be any better than the programmer?
-
The German weapons you mention are Battalion support weapons. The US weapons are company support weapons. If you used US 81mm and 1917 watercooled HMG, then you would be comparing appples to apples.A typical German heavy weapons group can have as little as HQ, 2 HMGs, 1 81mm mortar - and still do everything you need a heavy weapons group to do. It helps immensely that the weapons are actually powerful, powerful enough to do things at range, etc. A US group with just 30 cals and a 60 can't do squat - you need to double the weapons, or include a reduced platoon of infantry as well - and then you want range 200-300m, rather than 400-500m. The resulting large group also winds up needing more cover, making a better arty target, etc. Medium speed is not an adequate compensation. -
-
Data on US mortar rounds from Korean War website...
This website shows a crew firing 81mm and using heavy bombs.General DataWeight: 136 lbs assembled; tube 44.5 lbs; mount 46.5 lbs; base plate 45 lbs.
Overall Length: 3 ft 9.5 in.
Muzzle velocity (HE): 700 f.p.s.
Rate of Fire: 18 rounds/min norm; 30-35 rpm max
Maximum Range (HE): 3290 yds
Sight: M4
Ammunition:
M43A1 Light HE: 6.87 lbs; range min 200 yds; range max 3290; 80% frag radius 25 yds (comparing favorably with 75mm howitzer); fast detonating fuse (explode on surface).
M45, M45B1 Heavy HE: 10.62 lbs; range max 2558 yds; bursting radius comparable with 105mm howitzer; equipped with delay fuse so some penetration possible for demolition use.
M56 Heavy HE: 15.01 lbs; range max 1300 yards; adjustable fuse for quick or delay operation.
M57 WP (White Phosphorus): 10.74 lbs; range max 2470 yds; designed to lay down screening smoke, but had definite anti-personnel and incendiary applications.
M57 FS: 10.74 lbs, range max 2470 yds; laid down dense white smoke.
M301 Illuminating shell: range max 2200 yds; attached to parachute; burned brightly (275,000 candlepower) for about 60 seconds, illuminating an area of about 150 yards diameter; used M84 time fuse, adjustable from 5 to 25 seconds before priming charge detonated, releasing the illum and chute.
http://www.olive-drab.com/od_infweapons_mortars_81mm.php
This website shows the very heavy M56 round for the US 81mm. Very close to the German Heavy 81mm mortar round in shape/weight
http://www.inert-ord.net/usa03a/usa5/6081/60mm.html
[ April 22, 2005, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]
-
One of the advantages of mortars fired indirect is the accuracy (range or length) compared to tube artillery.
Most people think of mortars as being inaccurate. They are susceptible to wind forces but are actually a much better support weapon for neutralizing (pinning) enemy forces.
In Normandy, tube artillery was just too 'loose' as far as getting the range down. This is because the large spread of rounds along the length of travel of the guns. If firing over your own troops heads, you would want them to be back at least 200 yards or so. In the bocage, troops were seperated by half that distance or less. Also, the artillery would not be able to use low angle fire since it must clear the hedgerow of your own troops.
German mortars were said to account for 70% of the casualties in the bocage. Part of this stat is that mortars can fire over the hedgerows and defeat the embankment cover that artillery could not.
I am not sure how CM models indirect fire spread or differentiates it for different weapon systems.
-
It was a very good representation of indirect fire but certainly not light 81mm rounds. Trees were being knocked down left and right.Regarding the attack on Foy in the fine series Band Of Brothers, it seemed that those US 60mm mortars targeted that building overly quickly and the explosions (if I remember correctly and if I am correct) seemed like 105 sized explosions.A bit earlier in that series, when E Company was under barrage in the forest outside Foy, the replication of that barrage seemed to be a superb and seemingly accurate representation of an 81 mm mortar barrage into woods. Those scenes (amongst a plethora of other seeming most accurate battle scenes in BOB) seemed to be some of the most accurate and most infrequently viewed battle scenes in war movies.
I just watched 'Windtalkers' (ugh) and its comical the way they use gasoline or other flammables to represent arty. In one scene a bazooka makes half a hill go up in flames.
The Germans were known to mix in all types of indirect fire. Accounts of Nebelwerfers, mortars and true artillery rounds being used together during a barrage is common.
Vaccume in the atmosphere and mortars
in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
Posted
yes I read your remark about blast. It has nothing to do with the thread.