BFC, Is it possible to get a size depiction for minefields?

[Vanir Ausf B]

Vanir Ausf B,

 

While it's true there are more points available for purchases in an absolute sense, I find your logic highly questionable. Why? Because it now costs a fortune to field a formation, even a cut down one. I did a 6K and change QB buy, huge by my standards

 

Just to build upon what others have stated, you are being silly. 6000 pts is not a "huge" amount of points in Black Sea, it's actually less than you get in a medium sized meeting engagement. As the US defender in a Huge size QB you can purchase the mechanized infantry portions of a combined arms battalion and if you strip out the drones still have enough points left for a platoon of Abrams tanks. As the Russians you could purchase an entire Battalion Tactical Group.

 

 

[John Kettler]

Baneman, Vanir Ausf B and Sublime,

 

You are correct! I made a huge mistake on my settings and utterly failed to notice it. I was thinking I had the settings as they were for my pending QB vs Sublime. Obviously, I didn't. Resuming the primary mine discussion following my truly impressive foul up, you are talking about a squad, but I have only AT mines in the example we're discussing. Consequently, the amount of space a squad takes in CMBS is irrelevant to the discussion. All I'm talking about is tactical frontage per mine bought.

 

In turn, this brings me to the important point Sublime made and which somehow escaped me because I locked onto the discrete single minefield coverage issue. There are indeed multiple minefields for each mine bought. 10, in fact. For some reason, I was thinking 5, so it's likely I got the number from TRPs per TRP bought. CMx1 minefield (how many discrete minefields per buy?) was one AS then (20 m x 20 m = 400 m^2), but an AS now is 8 m x 8 m = 64 m². 64 m² x 10 minefields = 640 m² of coverage. If (note conditional) a mine buy in CMx1 resulted in only 1 actual minefield, then it is irrefutable that AT mines in CMBS, relative to AT mines in CMBN , presumably true also for CMFI and CMRT, are indeed underpriced--by 37%. Alternatively, a CMBS mine buy allows coverage of 40% more tactical frontage, but this understates it because a CMx1 minefield (if there was in fact only 1 per mine buy, IIRC now, there were three, maybe more) has a 20 m frontage. By deploying the aforementioned 10 x CMBS minefields side by side, I can cover 80 m. That said, the loss of depth is likely really going to hurt kill probability relative to trying to get through 20 m (straight line distance) of mines in the CMx1 example. 

 

Given the above, which still has key unknowns, I'd say, now that I have something resembling a handle on the matter, is that there certainly is a cost differential. But I've shown there are several other matters which make this assessment rather fuzzy. The key one is how many discrete minefields you get in a single CMx1 mine buy. I don't know and have no way of checking that I'm aware of. That answer is going to have a major impact on the conclusions drawn. But there are several other factors in play here, at least potentially, and only BFC has the answers. What are the PH and PK values for a discrete CMx1 AT minefield vs a discrete CMBS AT minefield? That might seem straightforward enough, but we haven't talked fuzing. In the latter case, is BFC still simply using pressure plate fuzing, tilt rod or a mix? That depends on the specific mine used. Here is the rundown on current US AT mines. A tilt rod option potentially means any contact with it can set off the mine, meaning the whole body of the tank is targetable and that the tank's tracks don't have to hit the mine, which should greatly increase the odds of the tank setting off a mine, potentially killing itself.

 

IMO, what at first seems to be trivial comparison is, in fact, is nontrivial and complex. It really seems to come down to how you define the problem and what metric or metrics you use in making the assessment. I've already shown what the max frontage numbers appear to be (appear to be because a CMx1 mine buy likely gets multiple discrete minefields) for both cases, but let's say, in order to have some basis for comparison, we try to duplicate the CMx1 case using the CMBS mines. If we build a 24 m on a side field (3 x 3 minefield box), as the CMBS equivalent, that takes 9 of 10 minefields to do so. But if we go short, 16 m on a side (2 x 2), then we have only 4 used, with 6 left.  If so, we can then turn around and repeat the process. Thus, CMx1 (presuming only one actual minefield per buy) covers 20 m of front, whereas the smaller CMBS provides 32 m of coverage in a square formation, with two left over. If stacked behind each other to provide roughly the same depth as the CMx1 case, the CMBS mines are completely exhausted and cover a 40 m front. How do you wish to configure the individual minefields in assessing combat effectiveness? Has mine spacing changed within the discrete CMBS minefield compared to the CMx1 case? After all, the kill mechanism has changed, right? It's gone from straight blast to EFP. What about mine density? Has that changed? Unless or until BFC wades in, I don't realistically see how we can properly address what on the surface appears to be a simple comparison.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited August 19, 2015 by John Kettler