Slapdragon Posted November 8, 2000 Share Posted November 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Splinty: Indeed combat flatulence has been cited as a major cause in loss of battle efficiency. See Chap.13 in Cramp's Gaseous Emissions and Their Effect on the Combat Soldier. Where he states that "the average soldier would expel gas once every five minutes,thereby disrupting both his aim and his ability to concentrate on the task at hand due to the odor and vibration of the flatus." Imagine the disruption caused by an entire platoon repeatedly farting in battle. [This message has been edited by Splinty (edited 11-07-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Dang Splinty, that one is good. I only have a copy of Jentz, "Enclyclopedia of Gas Warfare". Your cite is way better than mine. I hereby declare you the expert in farting under fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bamse Posted November 8, 2000 Share Posted November 8, 2000 Jam ? What flavour are we talking about ? Jam decrease your fartrate ? I don't understand a thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted November 8, 2000 Share Posted November 8, 2000 Ummmm,Thanks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Fredriksson Posted November 8, 2000 Share Posted November 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bamse: Jam ? What flavour are we talking about ? Jam decrease your fartrate ? I don't understand a thing! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Stooopid Sveeed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lord General MB Posted November 9, 2000 Share Posted November 9, 2000 Soldiers, So... your saying that your all morons? Come on! What about the Jamming of MG's? ------------------ Cheers, Lord General Mr. Bill, 1st Army Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted November 9, 2000 Share Posted November 9, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: I do not know why BTS did not including jamming, but I suspect it would not effect things as much as you thin. The three weapons used on the Western front, the MG42, the 1917, and the M2HB, each had a MRBS of 5-800 rounds in testing and a MRBF of around 2000 rds, and a MRBCF high enough that it could not be recorded according to a conversation with Dockery (author of Navy Seals and an expert in small arms). MRBS is mean round between stoppage, or a jam that takes from 5-15 seconds to clear. MRBF is a jam or mechanical problem that takes upwards to 5 minutes to clear. A Catastrophic failure is one in which the weapon must be repaired by a gunsmith. The last two would result in loss of the weapon for part of the game, or all of the game. Now, assume that in battle conditions things are an order of magnitude worse (they are not or the MG42 would be jamming in battle every 50-80 rds -- the numbers are probably 1/2 to 2/3 range numbers based on tests of the MAG-58, CETME, and M-60 Machinegun), but lets talk worse case - no one in CM cares for their MGs on either side and everyone's ammo is terrible. Every belt you get an average of 2 jams that stops the MG for 5 seconds each, making the MG 1/8 less effective all the time (have to consider belt replacement time or it would be 1/6th). On the average, 200 rds of ammo generates a stoppage that holds the show for 5 minutes of so. In the worst case, far worse than we can make any case for, you have a marginal decrease in effectiveness, and the occasional loss of a tank MG. Now, lets be reasonable. If we assume the stoppages are twice as likely rather than an order of magnitude from testing, then we would reduce the firepower of a MG 1/40th to account for stoppages, and and average of 1000 rds fired in combat will generate a 5 minute stoppage. In other words, to small to really matter at all. On the Ostfront, in the cold and with poor quality MGs like the PD, the numbers may be much more compelling. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Reposted for MB's benefit. Can you quantify a response? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Fredriksson Posted November 9, 2000 Share Posted November 9, 2000 I have a theory, which may have been aired earlier: I've had separate MGs jam once in a while, which is fine, since they only have that one gun. But as for MGs as part of squads and tank-MGs, I think the jams are modeled into the total fire-output, and there is no real need for having them jammming. The tank / squad still has other ways of firing. You with me lads?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philistine Posted November 9, 2000 Share Posted November 9, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Reposted for MB's benefit. Can you quantify a response?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I appreciate the posting, very informative (not sure posting twice was necessary, though... ) But it seems that you are arguing against the utility of modeling jams for MG's at ALL, and not just for Tank/vehicle MG's. Your arguments would seem to apply just as much to MG teams. To the extent that coding in jams for tanks/vehicles would be time-consuming or problematic, I don't have any problem with not doing it (it doesn't seem like a huge deal to me); but conceptually, I don't see any reasoned basis for a distinction between a MG team jamming and a tank MG jamming (particularly in tanks/vehicles with only one MG). I would think the same model for chance of jamming for MG teams could be used for MG-armed vehicles (with potential small adjustments if thought appropriate). Once again, I'm not sure its a big enough "problem" to justify changing if it would take substantial effort (for CM 2), but it is not obvious to me why vehicle MG's should be treated differently from "infantry" MG's, nor did your post seem to address that issue. Just my $.02 --Philistine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lord General MB Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 Sirs, If its included in the coding then theres no problem (E.g. if its inclueded in the total firepower output). Thats all I wanted to know. Thanks. ------------------ Cheers, Lord General Mr. Bill, 1st Army Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Philistine: I appreciate the posting, very informative (not sure posting twice was necessary, though... ) But it seems that you are arguing against the utility of modeling jams for MG's at ALL, and not just for Tank/vehicle MG's. Your arguments would seem to apply just as much to MG teams. To the extent that coding in jams for tanks/vehicles would be time-consuming or problematic, I don't have any problem with not doing it (it doesn't seem like a huge deal to me); but conceptually, I don't see any reasoned basis for a distinction between a MG team jamming and a tank MG jamming (particularly in tanks/vehicles with only one MG). I would think the same model for chance of jamming for MG teams could be used for MG-armed vehicles (with potential small adjustments if thought appropriate). Once again, I'm not sure its a big enough "problem" to justify changing if it would take substantial effort (for CM 2), but it is not obvious to me why vehicle MG's should be treated differently from "infantry" MG's, nor did your post seem to address that issue. Just my $.02 --Philistine<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually Ohillis I was arguing against any modelling of jams in the western game because jam rates of weapons used in this side of the conflict are so low as to make the reduction of firepower (1/40 or 1/50) tiny and fatal jams statistically unusual in an hour of even constant firing. On the the Eastern front again, the PD and DshK had jam rates that are high enough to be serious, expecially in snow, the MG38 was a dog in snow, and even the vaunted MG42 did not love -35c temps outside of Moscow (although it was the best of the breed). Here, you may have an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philistine Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Actually Ohillis I was arguing against any modelling of jams in the western game because jam rates of weapons used in this side of the conflict are so low as to make the reduction of firepower (1/40 or 1/50) tiny and fatal jams statistically unusual in an hour of even constant firing. {snip} <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I think there are two issues. The first, which the thread began with, was: given the fact that jams are modeled for MG teams, should they be modeled for tanks and other vehicles? The answer to this question, I would think most people would agree, is (assuming the jam rate for MG teams is correct and there is no great difference in tank jam rate and MG team jam rate) it should be modeled IF it does not take too much effort to code this in. (with various positions on what is too much effort for this fairly small niggle). The second question which you have interjected is should jams be modeled at all in CM1 (with your position being no). I assume you would like to see the removal of jams from MG teams? Even using your numbers (which I have no basis to dispute) it seems that jams should be modeled. Assuming a combat jam rate of 1/2 of that under favorable conditions or 1 per 1000 rounds, jams don't seem that unlikely in a battle at CM1's time-scale. IIRC, MG teams generaly are assumed to have about 4000 rounds while tanks have about the same (depending on the tank, obviously). At an effective fire rate of only 100 rounds/minute, an average MG would jam after only 10 turns of firing, after firing about 1/4 of its ammo. I agree that the only "jam" to be modeled should be the one that takes a number of minutes to clear rather than the stoppage which is what your previous post indicated would reduce FP only by 1/40 to 1/50. As far as I know, it is only the lengthy "jams" that are modeled (i.e. not stoppages and not catostrophic failures). Of course, if a stoppage in a tank would take a significant time to clear due to the limited access to the gun, that would be different, but I have no idea of whether it would or not. It's not uncommon in my playing to have a MG or two jam in the course of a game. This seems reasonable to me and I don't recall having seen any other complaints on the board about too-frequent jamming (doesn't mean there weren't any). In any event, I disagree that a jam rate of 1/1000 is too low to model, and I also disagree that vehicle and "team" MG's jams should be treated differently as a matter of principal (assuming minimal coding requirements). Two more cents. --Philistine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lord General MB Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 Sir, Well put! I agree very much so on what you have presented here Philistine. Good arguments. I find the odd jam to be a very small problem, and it does inhance the tactics one has to imply to cope. It's no big deal. So if tank MG jams can be modled with relitive ease, then I would support there inclusion fully. Squad sub machine gun jams, I believe, are included in the firepower output. If not then I would like to see it added to the firepower output (if possible). Oppoins? ------------------ Cheers, Lord General Mr. Bill, 1st Army Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lord General MB Posted November 12, 2000 Share Posted November 12, 2000 Sir, BUMP ------------------ Cheers, Lord General Mr. Bill, 1st Army Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts