German 75mm HE fuses

[Username]

Rereading Panzertruppen II and came across the following on pg 147:

"By firing Sprenggranaten (high explosive shells) with and without fuses set on delay into the woods opposite, as later related by a prisoner, three enemy infantry companies preparing to counterattack were completely decimated so that they couldnt initiate their attack"

The above paragraph (actually a sentance) relates experiences of a Panther company fighting allies in Italy on May 23, 1944 (May 23 is my prediction for CM release by the way). It seems that German 75mmL70 firing HE had a setting option?

Here is a paragraph from Panzerjaeger: Tank Hunter (Folkestead) on page 25:

"On our way we bivouacked in an apple orchard and it was there that we recieved instruction in the 75mm antitank gun and how to fire mixed ammunition. Anyone being fired on by regular artillery rounds had a 50/50 chance of survival, if they hit the dirt. We were issued antitank shells tipped in steel and regular high explosive (HE) antipersonnel rounds. On the head of every HE projectile there was a screw-activated delayed fuse. With the screw turned in, or out, the HE projectile hit the ground and deflected into the air, spraying its blast downwards and forwards rather than expending its force upwards."

The above first hand (experienced) account is from spring 1942. I believe he is stating that ALL the 75mm HE has this capability. It seems to indicate contrary to what others here surmised about the superiority of indirect or high arc artillery fire to direct fire high velocity weapons.

From my emails with Steve we seem to be in agreement that ALL 75mm german tank weapons (L24, L43, L48, L70 and PAKL46) fired the same PROJECTILE with DIFFERENT cartridges crimped on back of them.

I wonder if anyone here has any information or experienced opinion regarding the above information. Steve said Fionn is his ammo guy.

Lewis

[This message has been edited by Username (edited 05-01-2000).]

[Username]

"The German Sturmgeschutze in WWII 1939-1945" Wolfgang Fleischer/Richard Eirmann

States there was a variable 0.15 second option on the 75mm HE shell.

I quote from pg 74:

"In addition the assault gun crews could use exp,losive shell34. These shells were made of pressed cast steel. They had an impact igniter with an adjustable delay (0.15 seconds)which allowed the shot effect on the target to be set optimally. For example, when firing ricochet shots, the igniter was set for delay. The shot, landing flat on the ground, bounced off and exploded only when the igniter setting was reached. With ricochet firing, great splinter effect could be achieved against living targets not covered from above."

Be nice if someone would comment.

Lewis

[Guest Mikeman]

Hi Username,

Very interesting stuff there. Is there some aspect of CM you do not think is right in regards to it?

Mikeman out.

[Username]

yes

[Guest Big Fat Guy]

well, if they don't think the MG34 warrents being in CM I'm sure the time fuse for the 7.5cm shell won't make it.

[Username]

Hey Big effing whatever

MG34s are all over the place in CM1. Standard issue in most german vehicles.

Fat slobs arent.

Lewis

[Guest Big Time Software]

Easy now. I am sure that dig was at us rather than you Lewis.

I haven't had to say this in a while, so I might as well do it here...

Anybody that comes here with a particular chip on their shoulder, about a particular weapon/aspect of warfare, generally isn't going to make much headway with us unless they make a clear case for whatever "special interest" feature they are looking for.

BFG's small arms chip doesn't impress me in the slightest so far because he has not given any sort of evidence as to WHY it is so damned important to have MG34s in CM1 as part of squad equipment. "Because I want them" doesn't cut it. By all indications, the MG34 was no longer in front line, squad service by 1944. If BFG wishes to present some evidence to the contrary, we'll take a look at it. But until such time, no dice.

As for the fuses, are you suggesting that we simulate ricochets with delayed fuses? First I have heard of this. I'm going to ask Fionn what he can dig up on this.

Steve

[Fionn]

Lewis,

Can you outline precisely what effect you think fuses etc have and how that impacts on the high velocity/low velocity efficacy debate?

If I know precisely what you are proposing it'll be easier to limit myself to discussing only relevant issues.

I'll have a researched reply by tonight if you delineate the parameters a bit more ( got to go to the movie theatre this afternoon ).

[Username]

Sorry bout last night. Big beer blowout for Cinco de Mayo.

1. High velocity/low velocity efficiency. As I have contended all along, german 75mm HE projectiles were the same for L24, L43, L48, L70 and even the L46PAK. Only the L43 and L48 had the same AMMO meaning they could fire the same shell/cartridge combination. My point is that there is no wall thickness/HEpayload difference between these weapons.

2. The ability to vary when the fuze detonates the shell after it ricochets off the ground goes against the common notion here of shells burying themselves and smothering the shrapnel effect.

3. When attacking bunkers , buildings, hardened targets, the ability to delay detonation allows the projectile to penetrate before exploding. Higher velocity would allow more penetration. Higher velocity also adds a 1/2mv2 energy component that gives the explosion an extra punch.

4. This seems to be the standard HE projectile for these weapons. Is there anything on the allied side like this? I have heard of US troops using this effect with sherman 75 but its was at very close range and on roads and other hard surfaces. It didnt seem like there was a variable component to it, they were just taking advantage of the inherent time period between the fuze triggering and the detonation occurring.

Lewis

PS All this is maybe for CM2 possible consideration. But it does seem a very real advantage that I have found at least 3 sources for. At the level of modeling taking place in CM it would have a definite impact.

[This message has been edited by Username (edited 05-06-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Username (edited 05-06-2000).]

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

I don't see what all this talk about simulating different fuses is all about, myeself. But I'm sure it would be a little difficult to code something like your ricocheting artillery shell. To do code for something to hit the ground and then deflect back up in the air and detonate with a down and forward blast is a little beyond what CM has done. Why? Because the general shape of any explosion in CM is a sphere or hemisphere, not a downward and forward cone.

I don't know, maybe it wouldn't be too hard to code that, but here again, it would be one of those new innovations that CM is all about.

------------------

"Why don't we say that we took this one chance, and fought!"

"Stupid humans. Hahahahahahaha!"

--from the film Battlefield Earth

[Guest Big Time Software]

It actually wouldn't be that hard to aproximate if the physics of a bounced shot could be determined. We had a huge discussion about this a long while back and the conclusion was that it could be done, but only in very special circumstances. So special that it wasn't practical, or really valuable, to simulate.

Steve

[Username]

I think that that in the german case it wasnt a special circumstance but a designed in effect. It was a tactic that WAS taught and there was a mechanically variable setting to maximize the effect. Was there any other nation that did this with tank HE?

Lewis

[This message has been edited by Username (edited 05-06-2000).]

[Fionn]

Quick comment...

Virtually all HE shells from all nations had the option to carry "special" fuses.

So, what we're talking about here isn't anything inherent to German uberHE shells or anything like that. It's actually quite an ordinary everyday thing which any artillerist or AT gunner or Flak gunner in WW2 would have been well aware of.

[Username]

Quick Reply...

Its my understanding that all the german 75mm HE had this as general issue. Again, not special but the general issue.

I dont know where you are going but I am trying to focus on the tank weapons/antitank guns. I am sure most people here are familiar with Flak weapons and field artillery having fuzing options for their missions. Most people including Steve seem unaware that the germans went to the "bother" of doing this for tank/antitank guns. They had their reasons I would suspect.

Are you aware of any US army sherman HE shells 75mm/76mm either special or general issue that had this capability? Do you think its worth modeling in the game given the "airburst" characteristics that come about?

Lewis

[Guest Big Time Software]

It is only worth simulating if it can be proven that it was, in fact, done in combat conditions on a fairly regular basis. We would also have to figure out the physics for HOW such a thing could happen or not happen.

Because something exists does not inherently prove anything. There has to be more evidence before we go making it a widespread part of the game. Otherwise we are just pissing in the wind.

Note... we have had this same type of discussion about WP, smoke grenades, and rifle Grenades. If we simulated things simply because they existed (i.e. face value research), all three things would be in CM in practically every scenario. As it is WP is not, smoke grenades are not, and rifle AT grenades for US troops are (but not plentiful except for Airborne). And we have good reason for all three.

Steve

[Username]

Panzerjaeger: Tank Hunter (Folkstead) as I quoted above is a first hand account of a german antitank serviceman.

I would take a first hand account over anything Fionn or Steve or myself or most anyone here would say or theorize. I have referenced 3 sources that claim it was used.

I find your reasoning comical. Imagine german panzer, panzerjaeger, sturmartillerie, PAK units and others using 75mm HE ammunition for YEARS.. I would tend to think that they would get the hang of how to use it best and publish that information for sharing.

I cant imagine in even the shortest training on a Panzer IV, Stug, Panther, etc that they wouldnt cover it. These weapons didnt have a plethora of different projectiles and cartridges. They didnt need to figure out how much gunpowder to use or mathematical parabolic equations. The gunners needed to learn to shoot AP and HE. Even in Panzerjaeger the author and his crew recieve a 75mm PAK in the field as a replacement weapon (he was an experienced 37mm crewman)and are given instructions on the capabilities of the HE shells fuse.

(Do you imagine conversations like this taking place)

"Hmmmm wonder why the end part of the fuze will turn?"

"Someone once knew but all people with the knowledge died all at the same time"

"Guess we will just fire it and hope for the best"

"Lets not read any of these manuals or anything..no time"

Clue me in to how much evidence you need. Need the german manuals? Training films? course curriculums? Statements from every living german vet who fired a HE shell? Were the instructions on the side of the shells?

Ponderous..

Lewis

[Guest Big Fat Guy]

He he he,

I don't have a chip on my shoulder about MG 34's. I understand completely why they are not in the game.

I think you all are a little heavy handed.

I see no reason to yack it up about my questioning the accuracy of the game. It is supposed to make the computer game world revolutionized. To tell you the truth, I can't wait . I would love to see gaming revolutionized. If you want proof about the MG 34 and the MG 15 do your research. I can point you in the right direction if you need some help. Who did the research that decided that the MG 34 was not a front line weapon in 1944-45? Yeah it is true that you have it in the vehicles, but they need to be in the hands of infantry for the game to be accurate.

Sorry I put such a bee in your bonnets. This kind of yack reminds me very much of the snooty way Keith Zabalaoui used to make a fool of himself with on the old CC3 boards.

Have a nice day!

[Guest Big Time Software]

Us and Keith in the same sentence? Obviously your Junior Status is showing Keith doesn't even do bug fixes, while we have put in dozens of user suggestions over the last year. But, you can think what you want. Doesn't really matter.

We are tired of people coming in here, and with their first post! telling us that we have it all wrong, we don't know what we are doing, and we need to do homework. It is disrespectful to say the least, and it is exactly what your first posts were laced with. So I don't see why I should be kissing your butt.

I would like you to point me towards sorces that state the MG34 being a COMMON weapon in the hands of front line squads during CM's time period. And any info you would like to provide about the use of the MG15 in the ground role, from a deployment and not technical standpoint, would also be interesting. So far it is just your word, and seeing as I don't know you, it isn't worth much on its own.

Lewis... sorry, but I really didn't find your quotes to be the Holy Grail you think it is. Look at your own posts and see that there is a lot of your own personal conjecture in there.

What more do we need? Info from someone else from some other source. Fionn is working on that now.

In any case, NOTHING is changing for CM 1.0 since it is already in the bag so to speak.

Steve

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Fat Guy:

Who did the research that decided that the MG 34 was not a front line weapon in 1944-45?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the answer was that it wasn't worth modeling, not that it wasn't there. CM is more about small unit tactics than about individual small arms modeling.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yeah it is true that you have it in the vehicles, but they need to be in the hands of infantry for the game to be accurate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would depend on the mission of the game. The difference between the weapons is not really significant enough to model, if your goal is simulating small unit tactics. It has been explained that the squads are essentially templates, and that increasing the number of templates would increase our already interminable wait, without materially affecting combat resolution.

If that is wrong, and the higher reliability and cyclic rate of MG42 would seriously change the outcome of conflicts, then you might want to document that and submit it politely. The weapon graphic is just a cartoon hung on a polygon, so it's easy for the MG34 to be a part of the vehicle roof. Have you looked in the Graphics file and looked at the bitmaps from which the units are contructed?

MG15 is definitely not worth modeling. There are infinite variants of small arms that are fascinating to collectors but wouldn't contribute to the game. I doubt whether the Ausf. D chassis mods with Ausf. H turrets will be modeled either.

If you are seriously interested in choosing the precise weapon and modeling its individual characteristics, there's always Deer Hunter (you can have one of the 3 copies I got for Christmas- sigh). It just seems kind of unnecessary. Random assignment of weapons may come with time (BTS has a way of surprising us). Relax.

[Guest Big Fat Guy]

Well, BTS continues with the defensive tone common to Keith Zabalaoui.

My status as a junior member has nothing to do with my knowlage of WW II

small arms. I can't help it if I am new to this forum. I realize that

game designers tend to defend the games they make with the same force they

would defend their own children.

I understand the design theory behind not using the MG34 and MG15 in CM.

The differences between the MG42, MG34, and MG15 are cosmetic at this

scale. The real rates of fire of these weapons are similar, not equal,

but similar in game terms.It does not give you licence to think less of

me because you do not agree that it was not the only machine gun in general

use by the Germans in 1944-1945. If I was rabid about the subject I would

bring up French, Czech, and other lesser known weapons.

I will list my sources so that you won't have to take my word for it.

If I were you I would not take the word of someone I did not know either.

1. Weapons of World War II by, Chris Bishop. On page 247 the author can

be quoted as writing "for though the MG42 was intended to supplant the

MG34, it in fact only supplemented the earlier type.

2. Infantry Weapons of WW II, by Ivan V. Hogg. On page 85 Mr. Hogg discribes

the MG15 as adopted into infantry service in 1944 due to a lack of machine

guns. On page 88 Hogg discribes the MG34 as bing in production and use until

the end of the war.

3. The German Infantry Handbook 1939-1945, by Alex Buchner. On page 148 Buchner

discribes the new weapon (the MG42) " Along with it (the MG42) the reliable

MG34 was still in use to the end of the war."

4. The US War Departments Handbook on German Military Forces. This book list

the MG15 and the MG34 as in use by German infantry forces in 1944 on

page 314 and page 316.

5. Millitary Small Arms, by Ivan V. Hogg. On page 222 Hogg writes

"the MG34 served through the Second World War."

6. Utah Beach Battle Book, by Ed Rains and Jim DeGoey. In Mr. Rains' chapter

on German weapons he writes that the MG34 was a predominate weapon along side

the MG42 in Normandy.

7. The 101st Airborne From Holland to Hitlers' Eagles' Nest, by Mark Brando.

On page 56 there is a photo of captured German machine guns taken in the first

night's fighting between E/501st/101st. They were captured near Veghel.

In the picture you will see nine machine guns, 3 MG42's, 2 MG34's, and 4 MG15's.

They were captured from a mixed battalion of the 59th Division that was supported

by paratroopers. By listing this source I in no way intend to depict the MG34 or

MG15 as a weapon that out numbered the MG42 in use during 1944.

It is here to add flavor.

Now, I don't expect or even want you to change anything about Combat Mission.

I was just contributing to a discusion about the game. Should I start calling

you Steve Z. ? Have you ever sat in a room with Keith, I hear you could have

caught his illness by close contact. (Get the pun?)

And no thanks on that Dear Hunter offer, Mark IV, I have all the crappy games I need.

[Fionn]

BFG,

I don't think Steve was really dissing you too much as regards the MG34. Basically I think his stance was that the differences between the MG42 and MG34 at CM's level were minor.

And since it would require a doubling of unit types to accomodate the MG34 as a separate weapon from the MG42 this simply was both impractical and unnecessary.

Whatever Lewis might have said to you etc is his business and not something I (or I'm sure Steve) would encourage or condone.

In theory you are right though. The MG34, MG15 etc etc should all be listed separately if one is to be absolutely accurate about it. Czech, Italian, French etc etc machineguns etc should also be accounted for.

However, the reality is that the amount of research time and coding time is finite and, at a certain point, a line needs to be drawn. Since the MG42 was so similar to the MG15 and Mg34 in its prime characteristics at this level (and since the other MGs from other nations were so rare in this theatre) the line was drawn at modelling the MG42 properly and then saying "good enough".

CM is tied to fixed squad organisations and TO&Es at the moment and so differentiating between the MG15, MG34 and MG42 would triple the number of infantry units for a quite negligible benefit.

However, for CM2 I'd love to see the ability to enter weapons data on a man by man basis utilising a larger weapons database. For right now though everything which is of major importance is modelled. Anything else is just for "authenticity and feel" IMO but that's no reason not to push for it for CM2 .

Now, I haven't ever had the misfortune to sit in a room with Keith Z and haven't caught any communicable diseases from him (thankfully) . I don't even know if Steve has met him or not (I'd guess he has but amn't sure) but as someone who has "run into" Keith after criticising things in Close Combat and has brought the same, sometimes blunt but honest, approach to CM I can tell you they're not much alike .

Just for the record though... We have had a bit of a history on the forum of new guys showing up and hurling really stupid questions and opinions around and thus, sometimes, a new guy who brings up a critical but valid point, gets assumed to be another waster... My advice is simply to remember that people's reaction to your initial posts was more influenced by the 99% of argumentative newbies who make such statements and don't know Jack and NOT based on your comportment or knowledge etc.

In other words. I'm sure no harm was meant and I'd just forget about it for now since no real harm was done.

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Lewis... sorry, but I really didn't find your quotes to be the Holy Grail you think it is. Look at your own posts and see that there is a lot of your own personal conjecture in there.

What more do we need? Info from someone else from some other source. Fionn is working on that now.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I think I will take your advice and review my posts here since Fionn is busy with BFG.

First Post: contains quote from Panzer troops. Second quote from Panzerjaeger troop. Point out my conjecture please. I dont see it.

Second Post: contains quote from another reference that sturmartillerie also used a variable reference. Point out my conjecture please. I dont see it.

Third Post: affirmative answer to another persons question. Steeped in conjecture.

Fouth post: Side tracked by MG34 pissing contest.

fifth Post: Lots of conjecture going on here.

1. you have agreed as much in emails Steve.

2. considering I have supplied first hand accounts of the use of the weapon as such..explain how this is conjecture.

3. I can supply data that shows the higher velocity 75mm german guns performed better. http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/willphelps/Specs-02.htm

4. I am stating that the evidence seems to support what I am saying and am wondering if other armies had anything like this. More conjecture.

sixth/seventh Post: trying my darndest to be absolutely clear so as not to con"fuse" Fionn or Steve.

eighth post: Sliding into sarcasm but keeping away from conjecture.

(Review over)

"Because something exists does not inherently prove anything"

That sounds absolutely Goebbbelesque.

I wonder if the existance of a default setting for the fuses is known. They came from the factory someway I would presume.

But lets not get "conjecturish" again. (Someone should look up the difference between conjecture and deducing or reasoning)

Lewis

[John Kettler]

Here's my contribution to the bouncing 75mm HE to get an airburst thread. It's taken from page 93 of the Bantam paperback edition of FLAME THROWER, by Andrew Wilson. Wilson commanded Crocodile flame thrower tank troops during WWII.

"Fire an air-burst," said Wilson.

The operator set the fuse screw in the side of the shell and tapped the gunner's arm.

The gun slid violently back and the shell exploded above the trenches in a puff of smoke and flame."

It is clear to me from the routine nature of the fire command and the total lack of reaction (other than obedience) by the loader, that this was a common gunnery procedure, not something unusual or out of the ordinary. The only other rational explanation would assume that the loader is able to instantly compute time of flight solutions to generate an airburst. The better explanation would be that the HE round is fired short, bounced into the air over the trenches and detonated after a supershort fuzing delay.

Thus, it would appear that both Germany and Great Britain's troops used similar techniques in combat.

Seems like a worthwhile tactical capability to me.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Guest Big Time Software]

BFG, well... you can insult me all you like, but that doesn't change anything in my mind or the minds of people that have actually done more than hang out here for a couple of days. You came here with an attitude, and you continue to have one. So I don't understand what I am supposed to do. I personally have no problem with criticism, but when it comes with a attitude you bet I take issue with it. I don't know why it is you expect that I should just pucker up and kiss your butt.

In just a few posts you established yourself as a "I know more than you do" type. Go on, deny it. I doubt you honestly can. I've read pretty much every one of the 43,000 posts here and feel that I am a good judge of what people are like from their postings. You started out with the small arms challenge (narrow focus agenda), moved on to telling us that it is "no big deal to add" (how would you know?), and then made some strong (and very incorrect) comments about game marketing. So, it is pretty clear that you think you know your history, game programming, and game marketing better than we do. Right...

As for your references, I have pretty much all of them and a few more. You obviously either didn't read my previous posts about why we made the decisions we did (note... Keith wouldn't have done that, just insulted you instead) or you didn't care about our opinions because yours are more important (what I suspect). In any case, you didn't respond to them when it was appropriate.

As I told you in the MG thread (the one you didn't respond to), and Fionn has pointed out, we have to draw a line somewhere. We can't simulate every last little thing, nor is it important to do so. Can you see the forest through the trees?

Yes, the MG34 was in production all the way up until the end of the war. It is unclear how much of that production was for AFVs though. But the important question is to what degree were they in front line service. The fact is that the MG42 was designed to replace (not supplement) the MG34, was in mass production for two years by this point, and was standard issue.

I never denied that the MG34 was still in use, and never will because it isn't true. But simply because something existed doesn't mean that it is relevant. And that is what has to be proven before we go chaning things. Otherwise we wind up with ASL where they tossed in any half baked opinion and called it reality (sorry ASLers, but there is a lot of that in there).

Your quotes are either statement of fact (the gun was produced) or anecdotal (some paras captured a bunch in 1945). And from this we are supposed to make some major change to the code to support? You think our research standards are that low that any Joe can make a few ambiguous, and not even directly relevant comments, and we are supposed to shove it in to make him happy? What a horrible way to make a game...

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Just to make you happy, here is my response to your "research":

1. Weapons of World War II by, Chris Bishop. On page 247 the author can

be quoted as writing "for though the MG42 was intended to supplant the

MG34, it in fact only supplemented the earlier type.

I don't understand this quote at all. What is the "earlier type" he is referring to?

2. Infantry Weapons of WW II, by Ivan V. Hogg. On page 85 Mr. Hogg discribes

the MG15 as adopted into infantry service in 1944 due to a lack of machine

guns. On page 88 Hogg discribes the MG34 as bing in production and use until

the end of the war.

Hogg also states that the MG15 "too cumbersome to be a successful infantry weapon. Numbers were used, because they had to be used, but they were never liked..." As for the weapon performance, it wasn't remarkably different from CM's level of simulation. But the thing here is HOW MANY were actually pressed into service. A couple hundred? If so, then it is in good company with at least another dozen MGs that the Germans used. Are we supposed to have ALL of these in the game? And if so, WHY? What difference is it going to make from a tactical standpoint? And Hogg's comments on the MG34 production to the end of the war is not in dispute.

3. The German Infantry Handbook 1939-1945, by Alex Buchner. On page 148 Buchner

discribes the new weapon (the MG42) " Along with it (the MG42) the reliable

MG34 was still in use to the end of the war."

Never disputed this. But to what degree were they standard front line equipment? This comment says nothing about that either way.

4. The US War Departments Handbook on German Military Forces. This book list

the MG15 and the MG34 as in use by German infantry forces in 1944 on

page 314 and page 316.

The Handbook also states, "[the MG34] was the original standard German dual-purpose machine gun and is still used, although it has been replaced largely by the MG42".

5. Military Small Arms, by Ivan V. Hogg. On page 222 Hogg writes

"the MG34 served through the Second World War."

Again, another quote supporting something that was never disputed.

6. Utah Beach Battle Book, by Ed Rains and Jim DeGoey. In Mr. Rains' chapter

on German weapons he writes that the MG34 was a predominate weapon along side

the MG42 in Normandy.

Sorry, but we make it a rule to not treat any game related materials as a credible research source. Apologies to Ed Rains and Jim DeGoey.

7. The 101st Airborne From Holland to Hitlers' Eagles' Nest, by Mark Brando.

On page 56 there is a photo of captured German machine guns taken in the first

night's fighting between E/501st/101st. They were captured near Veghel.

In the picture you will see nine machine guns, 3 MG42's, 2 MG34's, and 4 MG15's.

So if a group of US soldiers, when the war was already over, captured a unit with 5 Volksgewehrs (which we don't simulate either) that would mean something? Sorry, anecdotal stuff only helps flesh out an already documented point. I see no such documentation from you.

Steve