Guest Madmatt Posted May 9, 2000 Share Posted May 9, 2000 Ok, here is my completely irrelevant and pointless take on this whole rather wasteful debate. (que intro music) THE BATTLE LINES ARE DRAWN... Diplomacy and negotiations failed... There is no turning back... Coming THIS SUNDAY (echo and reverb for effect), THE CHALLENGE MATCH FOR THE NEW MILLENIUM! WCMWF...World Combat Mission Wrestling Federation brings! WUSS SLAPP 2000!!!!! WU WU WU WUSS SLAPP 2000.. Steve 'Gravedigger' Grammont goes toe to toe with 'The USER' Lewis Blank and his manager The Grumbling Grog!... TEXAS STEEL CAGE STYLE... Also on the Bill, Charles 'MAYHEM' Moylan puts his brain in the ring against the man known as 'MG34'!!! RA RA RA RAPID FIRE MAYHEM... On the ROAD and IN YOUR FACE ACTION!!! SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY!!!! AWESOME ACTION... SUNDAY! BE THERE!!! See? You guys forced this upon yourselves...Learn to play nice now ------------------ If it's in Combat Mission, it's on Combat Mission HQ! And if it's NOT on CMHQ then its just GOT to be on CMHQ-ANNEX... CMHQ http://combathq.thegamers.net CMHQ-Annex http://cmhq.tzo.com Both now proud members of the Combat Mission WebRing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertFox Posted May 9, 2000 Share Posted May 9, 2000 Andreas, Both was the case. The MG34 needed 49kg rawmaterial to be produced, the MG42 needed 27,5 kg. Moreover productiontime for the MG42 dropped to 75 hours (compared to 150 hours for the MG34). Not to mention the increase in ROF with the MG 42. Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaffertape Posted May 9, 2000 Share Posted May 9, 2000 Germanboy: Yes, the '42 was easier to produce. I have the source at home. Similar to the Walther P38 pistol replacing the Luger. The Luger and the MG34 were beautiful weapons but somewhat overdesigned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted May 9, 2000 Share Posted May 9, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gaffertape: The Luger and the MG34 were beautiful weapons but somewhat overdesigned.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hehe, no wonder, they were designed by Germans... Ever seen one of the previous model Mercedes S Class (aka 'The Cathedral on Wheels')? An engineer's wet dream but unfortunately. too big, heavy and disgusting looking. Probably designed by the grandson of the guy who did the MG34... Helge, Gaffertape, thanks for the info. Interesting that they went the efficiency way on this one and not in tank or plane production. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted May 9, 2000 Share Posted May 9, 2000 There were definitely production advantages to MG42, some of which contributed to the ROF and reliability improvements as well... ...but I said I was done here. This merits its own little thread and should disengage from the Great HE Skip-Fire Debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted May 9, 2000 Share Posted May 9, 2000 I say they can overengineer my Panthers all they want . As for the other stuff... Cunningham, Russian MGs ? I didn't see any in my quick glance. I have pics of Geman troops training with water-cooled Maxims. Also a few with Brens and Vickers. As for the whole HE fuses thing... My opinion is that : 1. Virtually all tank HE rounds had fuse selection. 2. The vast majority could select a delayed detonation. 3. IF they selected this then it would be possible to "bounce" the shell. 4. If the shell bounced succesfully a little basic math could get it to detonate over an enemy position (to within maybe 20 or 30 metres accuracy). Do I have absolute proof it was used? No, but lots of personal accounts and it makes sense plus is a lot like some of the stuff in naval gunnery. Can I quantify how much more effective it was? NO ! Can I determine doctrinal requirements for usage? No ! I can reason that it was utilised against dug-in or hiding troops which normal HE wouldn't find as easy to kill or main but have no proof of this. So, should it go in? Possibly. Do I recommend it goes in? No. Why not? Until it can be quantified ANY attempt to add it will only result in an error being introduced into the game. The current situation is a level playing field. Where data doesn't exist at all and can't be reasonably extrapolated ( the nahverteidigungswaffe could be extrapolated a fair bit) then it is a mistake to add it. If ANYONE can find studies by the UK, US, German or Russian armies in which they show shrapnel patterns for airburst DF HE shells vs shrapnel patterns for groundburst DF HE shells then that will change and I'd definitely change my tune. Until then it'd be a mistake to do so. Please note that I welcome rational responses to this. Shouting at me or ANY other response whch constist of "Add it even though I don't know how effective it was" will be turned down. You CANNOT add a weapon which you can't quantify into a game cause then someone else will come along 3 months from now and ask why it was put in and Steve and Charles would ahve to say "Because Lewis shouted and threw a tantrum." IF it goes in it should go in because Steve and Charles can say " Because XXX (where XXX is the name of the person who found and presented the proof) proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it was used, how it was used and its effectiveness vis a vis the alternatives." Enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juju Posted May 9, 2000 Share Posted May 9, 2000 Repeat after me: NAH-VER-TEI-DI-GUNGS-WA-FFE Is there a way I can insert a .Wav file into a reply. Seems you guys need to be taught once and for all how to pronounce this baby? It ain't hard... Really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPeng Posted May 9, 2000 Share Posted May 9, 2000 OK, This thread looks like it's right up my alley: complete with bitterness, sarcasm, warts, pus, and probably beer. AND I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO CONTRIBUTE! DAMMIT! Peng ------------------ Peng sez "die a lot now." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted May 9, 2000 Share Posted May 9, 2000 Scott, I didn't think I was being heavy, sory if it sounded like that. I just stated that the "NAH-VER-TEI-DI-GUNGS-WA-FFE" (happy JuJu? No WAV file needed, just cut and paste!) is inherently something we had to deal with because it was, in fact, part of the AFV. As I said, to NOT include it would be a flaw unless we thought the weapon was not practically functional or could not be simulated correctly. But as I said, the mechanics and physics of the weapon were fairly easy to quantify, and therefore we could extrapolate this into what most likely is a realistic portrayal. Yes, there is room for debate, and debate we have had. But if there is a 50/50 choice on a feature like this, it goes in simply because it was a fixed feature and the physics (modeling) is not hard to determine. If it were a 50/50 choice and we could do without it (i.e. not a fixed part of a vehicle) or couldn't simulate it to a reasonably accurate degree, then we would opt to not include it. RCunningham, I was saying that it was "basically" a mortar bomb. I understand it wasn't the same, but the principle of the round and its delivery mechanism are pretty close. When compared to other HE tossing weapons out there, the principles of the mortar comes pretty close. And therefore we can take a somewhat known and make a better than decent stab at the specifics of something similar. We have done this all throughout Combat Mission, in more ways that can be counted, simply because there isn't definitive scientific documentation for all sorts of things that MUST be in the game in order for there to be a game in the first place. Think about it. Anybody got documnents on crew reaction time under x circumstance with y training? Anybody know what precentage of MG42 bullets hit their target at 2,000 meters in a given combat situation? The answer is no. War ain't that documented So it is up to us to sort out what is what, figure out how it should work, and stick it in if it is the correct thing to do. Outside opinion is very important to us, but we still call the shots. And thank God for that Without a "gatekeeper" CM would be a hopeless muddle. The important thing is that we keep the standards for including "narrow features" high, consistant, and flexible in the light of further documentation. That way people can rest assured that something was tossed in just because we were tired of hearing about it on this BBS There are many things in CM that I expect there will never be 100% agreement on 100% of the stuff in CM (hehe... knowing wargamers and humans in general...), but that is life. Someone has to make the calls in the end, and the only someone to do that is us. And unlike any other wargame developer I know of, we spend the time finding out what others think and to change our way of doing things if it is shown that we are in (or likely to be) in error. Some of these changes were not trivial either, like the artillery stuff. Don't think there is much more that can be asked of us Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 05-08-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted May 9, 2000 Share Posted May 9, 2000 The soviets love to quantify everything so they can plug it all into CRTs at their higher HQs and apply their "scientific methodology" to war. Perhaps it might, paradoxically, be easier to find useful tactical info in Soviet records than it is to find the equivalent in US records. Weird I know but if you have the access (which is the problem) I bet the Soviets have documented almost everything. Their examinations of the Ferdinand after Kursk were first-rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gunnerdream Posted May 9, 2000 Share Posted May 9, 2000 Ah, Mr. Peng, allow me. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? If a tree falls over in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? A train leaves station A at 9:00 p.m. and travels for 45 minutes at a speed of 1.6544879 light years a second. At what point does it collapse from singlemindedness? What is in the mind of a woman? The ship's doctor felt for a pulse on the neck of the beaten horse, looked into the eyes of the captain and said grimly, "He's dead, Jim." Forgive me...'tis late... Gunnerdream...floating down through the clouds... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Fat Guy Posted May 9, 2000 Share Posted May 9, 2000 Did anybody catch the MG34/41 or the MG34m? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Cunningham Posted May 9, 2000 Share Posted May 9, 2000 Fionn, I put in a bunch of the MGs with the ® designator. In the second list I only listed the ones not in my first post. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Anybody know what precentage of MG42 bullets hit their target at 2,000 meters in a given combat situation? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I do! 18.638% in all conditions! This post was NOT edited. The UBB software is lying. [This message has been edited by R Cunningham (edited 05-09-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertFox Posted May 9, 2000 Share Posted May 9, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If ANYONE can find studies by the UK, US, German or Russian armies in which they show shrapnel patterns for airburst DF HE shells vs shrapnel patterns for groundburst DF HE shells then that will change and I'd definitely change my tune. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Does this mean you have no Arty studies available showing the difference between a shell exploding in the moment it makes contact with ground compared with a shell which explodes after a 0,15 sec delay ? Sad, sad, sad. But you are well aware why delay fuzes were introduced as standard equipment for HE shells, are you ? Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Username Posted May 9, 2000 Author Share Posted May 9, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn: My opinion is that : 1. Virtually all tank HE rounds had fuse selection. 2. The vast majority could select a delayed detonation. 3. IF they selected this then it would be possible to "bounce" the shell. 4. If the shell bounced succesfully a little basic math could get it to detonate over an enemy position (to within maybe 20 or 30 metres accuracy). Enjoy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You lose me. What does 'Virtually all tank HE had fuze selection' mean? A panzer III with a 37mm had HE fuze selection? screw one out and put another in like a light bulb? You are ambiguous at best there. The vast majority? Can you humor me and just quote from where you are getting this info? Cite some common examples like the sherman 75 and 76? The ability to VARY the detonation from as near instantaneous up to a time limit allows you to do more than just bounce shells off the ground. It allows you to have the shells detonate deep into a woodline (such as the Panzertruppen example I had a quote from), have the shells detonate within the confines of a structure after penetrating. I am supplying historical examples here with references and am accused of being conjecturing and whiny. I see other people here also are supplying data/quotes/etc and I thank them. Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted May 9, 2000 Share Posted May 9, 2000 Helge, Ah of course that info for arty is available BUT arty shells have a different orientation than DF shells and so I wouldn't want to use their info since, in that case, 2 shells detonating 5 metres from the gound, with one being arty and the other a DF shell with a delayed fuse would NOT have the same effects. Lewis, Geman 75s, US 75s, 6 pounder, Soviet 76, Soviet 122. All the nice common ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MG32 Posted May 11, 2000 Share Posted May 11, 2000 THE GAME SUCKS BIG TIME!!!! THE CREATORS HAVE THIER HEADS UP THIER ARSES: BIGTIME!!! BFG IS REALLY A BFG WANNBE!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MG32 Posted May 11, 2000 Share Posted May 11, 2000 THE GAME SUCKS BIG TIME!!!! THE CREATORS HAVE THIER HEADS UP THIER ARSES: BIGTIME!!! BFG IS REALLY A BFG WANNBE!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted May 11, 2000 Share Posted May 11, 2000 Actually it should be either MG 42 or MG34.. MG 44 or MG 32 aren't correct. Funny but not correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MantaRay Posted May 11, 2000 Share Posted May 11, 2000 Anyone miss Peng's brilliant SS_Panzie bashings? Ray ------------------ When asked, "How many moves do you see ahead?", CAPABLANCA replied: "One move - the best one." MantaRays 5 Pages Hardcore Gamers Daily Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted May 11, 2000 Share Posted May 11, 2000 Time to close this one up. All that needed to be said, pro and con, has been said (here and in another thread). The reasons why we aren't simulating skipping HE rounds is explained fully in both. But here are the main points. 1. It is nearly impossible for us to simulate to even a remote degree of realism. 2. Such a tactic could only be used in special circumstances, but experienced crews, and even then probably a lot of shells didn't wind up skipping. 3. The HE delayed fuze was apparently standard for pretty much all HE weapons of note for both Allies and Axis. So not including this does not disadvantage any particular vehicle or nation. 4. For the amount of time needed to simulate this one, odd circumstance feature we could add several ones that would have a much larger impact on overall realism and/or gameplay. 5. No other wargame that we know of simulates this, so nobody is being prevented from using something that could be used in other games. In short, we don't see the point in adding it. In a perfect world, sure. But try living in our shoes for even a few days and you would see the world is far from perfect Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts