BFC,Legitimately taming U.S. rocket artillery

[John Kettler]

The first combat use of the 4.5" T27 rocket launcher was mid-October 1944 in Lorient, France, but significant use didn't really get rolling until the Huertgen Forest campaign of November 1944. Please see pp. 333-335 of THE ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT:Beachfront to Battlefield, paying particular attention to the footnotes.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

BFC,

Rats! Forgot the URL, and now it's too late.

http://archive.org/stream/ordnancedepartme00mayo/ordnancedepartme00mayo_djvu.txt

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

While hearing directly from BFC here is by no means assured, I'm surprised no one has said anything at all about what at least some deem a controversial matter.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Vanir Ausf B]

I'm not aware of anyone who deems the availability date controversial. The only thing controversial about US rockets is their ridiculous price in QBs.

[John Kettler]

Vanir Ausf B,

The point of my post is that they didn't see ground combat until the date indicated, which would mean zero purchase availability until the earliest date I gave. Would think that would go a long way toward solving the problem. Can't buy what isn't available, right?

Regards,

John Kettler

[Wicky]

That would then rule out for scenario creators beach battles involving Landing Craft LCT® launched rockets on D-Day itself.

RP-3s were used to arm the Landing Craft Rocket, also referred to as the Landing Craft Tank (Rocket) to denote that it was a modified Landing Craft Tank. These were used for shore bombardment during amphibious landings. LCT®s carried 1,000 launchers and 5,000 rockets.

[TrailApe]

From what I can gather they were used by 2nd Inf Division at Brest in August'44 - surely that's within the date paramaters for CM Normandy?

[Wicky]

From what I can gather they were used by 2nd Inf Division at Brest in August'44 - surely that's within the date paramaters for CM Normandy?

Yup

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5iwZfCjS2GgC&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=Brest+August+1944+rockets&source=bl&ots=QMF2fiuzdF&sig=ZdCnwsCHhl3Cvjx15USIG7CyHoc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cY72UObzLarA0QXArIGADg&sqi=2&ved=0CIUBEOgBMAk#v=onepage&q=Brest%20August%201944%20rockets&f=false

[John Kettler]

Wicky,

I did say ground combat, as in selectable for a ground battle. I distinguish that from something available to scenario designers. I agree that rocket vessels were used on D-Day.

TrailApe,

I quoted a pretty authoritative source, but if you've got other evidence, I'd love to see it.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Wicky]

Wicky,

I did say ground combat, as in selectable for a ground battle. I distinguish that from something available to scenario designers. I agree that rocket vessels were used on D-Day.

TrailApe,

I quoted a pretty authoritative source, but if you've got other evidence, I'd love to see it.

Regards,

John Kettler

Where did you say "ground" combat in your post?

I quoted a pretty authoritative source, but if you've got other evidence, I'd love to see it.

See link I posted to Beachhead to Brittany: The 29th Infantry Division at Brest, August -Sept 1944 By Joseph Balkoski for August use of Rockets

[dieseltaylor]

The book is revealing. Three experimental systems with lousy reliability and back to the Ordnance workshop as often as firing.

And the overall comment indicates only that firing rockets into a large enemy area it would be probably hit something. Hardly the tactical weapon on a small battlefield. The Regiment that was operating them had a 4 mile frontage which gives a good idea of the size of the target area fired into.

When initially deployed even at 1000 yards they revealed serious problems in hitting a target. A weapon system that realistically is underpriced and probably overpowerful as a battlefield weapon.

I agree with JK apart for Landing Craft this is too early .... and perhaps just plain wrong in damage per point spent.

[John Kettler]

Wicky,

Most interesting. My read indicates we're talking the extreme tail end of August. The Army may've had a few to play with, but the text suggests (and the map starting August 28, 1944 supports) the earliest rocket strikes came very late in the month of August, though no exact date was given. Also, we're talking three launchers, not, say, three battalions, parceled out at a scale of one launcher per regiment supported. By comparison, the earliest T-34 encounters in the East were on a vast scale.

Looks like yet another great piece of work by Mr. SPI! Shall have to read it one of these days.

TrailApe,

What Wicky produced was for the 29th ID. Do you have the same sort of data for combat use by the 2nd ID?

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Wicky,

Per my post #5 in this thread.

"The point of my post is that they didn't see ground combat ..."

dieseltaylor,

Who knew something so simple could be so hard to keep functioning? Over engineered, perhaps? Not exactly rocket science, is it? Couldn't resist! From what I can tell, the U.S first encountered the Nebelwerfer (combat debut in Russia, June '41) in Tunisia, though admittedly the main commonality between the Nebelwerfer and our weapon was that both were rocket launchers. I like the "Schnitzelwerfer Battery" very much! Never heard of it before, but it's pretty clever and very galling.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Wicky]

My read indicates we're talking the extreme tail end of August.

Which on my calendar is earlier than October-November, and June earlier still.

Do you still want them removed entirely from gameplay for historical reasons?

[dieseltaylor]

Are you in favour of experimental weapons being cheaply available in an anchronistic way?

[Wicky]

Bung the price up to account for rarity - simples

[Apocal]

It already has a significant rarity cost. Apparently some people play with rarity turned off?

[Vanir Ausf B]

The thing of it is, the rarity modifier is a multiple applied to the base price. But because the base price is absurdly small you can still buy quite a few of them.

It doesn't really matter. They are almost universally banned from QBs and BFC doesn't care enough about QBs to change it. But I see no reason why they can't be left in the game for scenario makers to play with if they want.

[John Kettler]

Apocal,

If one considers the Brest period, the U.S. rocket launcher's availability in CMBN makes Tiger tanks look common by comparison. And, yes, people do play with rarity turned off. With rarity on, this thing shouldn't be available until very late August and should be scarcer than hen's teeth. As for regular QB purchase before the real intro circa Huertgen Forest, I think if BFC charged, for one launcher, what a 105 battery costs, that would dampen purchasing enthusiasm considerably.

Vanir Ausf B,

I have no problems with scenario designers messing about with them, but as you've seen, I suggested a nasty corrective to the underpricing problem.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Vanir Ausf B]

but as you've seen, I suggested a nasty corrective to the underpricing problem.

Good luck with that. You're hardly the first to do so.

[JonS]

The thing of it is, the rarity modifier is a multiple applied to the base price.

I am fairly certain this is NOT how rarity works in CMx2.

AIUI there are two purchase pools - Price and Rarity.

Each unit has two costs - the Price Cost, and the Rarity Cost. They are independent. At Strict rarity, the cost for units that have a Rarity Cost (not all units do ... there's nothing particularly rare about a rifle battalion, for example) will often be several times the Price Cost. But there is no change in the Price Cost between None, Loose, Standard, or Strict rarity.

When you purchase, each unit you buy draws down from both the Price pool, and the Rarity pool. Changing the rarity modifier affects the Rarity Cost for units, but has no effect on its Price Cost.

When your Rarity pool is empty, you cannot purchase any more units that have a Rarity Cost. When your Price pool is empty you cannot by anything more (regardless of what's left in your Rarity pool).

[Vanir Ausf B]

I am fairly certain this is NOT how rarity works in CMx2.

Perhaps my wording was not clear. I am well aware that price and rarity are separate. What I meant was that the rarity value is a multiple of the price, i.e. if for example King Tigers are equally as rare as Pumas the King Tigers will have a much higher rarity cost.