German 75mm HE fuses

[Guest tom w]

Well this thread sure is one big hairy flame war...

I'm sure glad all the real work on CM is done and its

in the Bag as Steve says...

Now can we let Steve and BTS get back to work or relaxing

or celebrating or whatever you do just before you release a blockbuster wargame!

I think you will all find that most folks who read these posts

or play the game REALLY don't care exactly what kind of Machine guns they are.

I could be wrong...

Will I get flamed now? (this is a Pretty HOT LZ!)

-tom w

[Guest Big Time Software]

Lewis,

You have satisfied only the first two componants of research:

1. That it existed.

2. That it was used.

But the THRID, and in our opinion the most critical, is HOW MUCH was it used. That is what I meant by conjecture. The fourth point is "did it have a significant effect, enough to warrent simulation". I suspect that if #3 can be proved, #4 would be a "yes". Then we get into the technical questions of how to simulate the thing.

At this point a few quotes, no matter how good, aren't enough to cause us to think we need to make a fundamental change to the game system. And you should be THANKFUL that is the case. If we bent to any wisp of wind that blew our way CM would be unfocused and probably unrepresentional of typical combat in the theater/time we are simulating. Games that have gone this route have generally fallen apart as a whole, or were never released because of the lack of focus.

And as far as what I agreed to in email, it doesn't really count for much since I was basing it only on what you told me, not independent research. As I said, I am not an ammo guy.

Steve

[Kraut]

Hehe ... i find it kinda funny that keith is brought into this discussion. Seems like anytime someone feels the dev's are "not listening" or "being dickheads" keith is the one to compare that supposed behaviour too.

The very fact that steve even replies to these posts in a halfway decent fashion shows that he's far far away from being a keith.

When i submitted some UI ideas during cc3 beta, all i got back from el presitente keitho was a reply stating "thanks for your contribution, but i personally design most of the UI (and a whole lot of other crap)". Pretty much pissed me off (were some decent ideas that would have brought much to the cc UI, IMO)...

I feel if i posted something here, i would at least get a decent turn-off with some factual stuff thrown in just so steve and fionn can prove their so smart ... lol I like that a little better than "you moron, *I* make the UI how dare you contest my ideas!"

Emm ... well, just thought someone out there might like to know what i think about this. Though i doubt it ... lol

MK

ps. If you really read this far, you must be either really really bored, or keith zabaloui himself. Yo keith, we gonna get those flame-hetzers from cc2 back for cc5? Th3y r0x j00 d00d!!!! ... rofl

[Guest Big Time Software]

Thanks Kraut. Having seen Keith in action, I know the difference between he and I (or Charles and Keith). The difference is that if someone makes a good point here, backed up by solid facts, and it is in keeping with our vision AND the balance of the game, then there is a good chance we would like to see it added. Dozens of features have in fact been added in just this way. Some, like the way artillery is handled, were huge, fundamental shifts from the way we had it before. But we are always careful when adding things otherwise things could go very wrong.

Sometimes, of course, even good ideas are not possible/practical.

Gamers that undrestand that there are limitations, larger issues to think about, and that we know what we are doing (CM didn't come out of thin air you know...) get listened to very intently. Even BFG's points have been listened to, responded to, and responded to again. The attitude I toss back is only a reaction to the one pushed at us. The customer doesn't have a right to be disrespectful, and that is that.

This dialog with the customer is voluntary and not manditory. Maybe there is a reason why other developers like Grigsby and Koger tend not to discuss things to this degree? Perhaps they feel it isn't worth it since there is a certain percentage that always think they know more than the developer? We accept the problems that go along with this form of dialong, but feel it is definately worth it. Which is why we put in the effort. Probably 1/3 of the total 43,000 posts are from us. Pretty strong statement about how much we value the gamer's input.

Steve

[Mark IV]

My apparently older version of Hogg & Weeks, Military Small Arms of the Twentieth Century (1973), concludes the MG15 section with: "The resulting gun was long, rather heavy, and definitely clumsy; it was not issued in large numbers". (p. 5.23)

[Guest Big Fat Guy]

Steve,

Your last post to me said a lot. I didn't expect you to be able to come up with anything better than just to bad.

I do think you missed the most important part of my post. The part where I agree with you that the MG34 and the MG15 are not worth being in Combat Mission.

For the record, I know a lot about the game biz, I have met Charles before, in Las Vegas.

I have never had the pleasure of meeting you.

Peace

[Thomm]

Why not call it MG42(15/34)?

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomm:

Why not call it MG42(15/34)? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ouch! Then charges of inaccuracy would be too tempting for some to resist. That would be a little bit like equipping Wehrmacht squads with a single K98/MP40/MP44 (no WAY). Or equipping the US with a single M1/Thompson/M3. Yeccchhh.

The day might come when the differences could be modeled (eastern front?). Some of them were substantive.

MG42 had a much higher cyclic rate (1200rpm versus 8-900) and improved first-round accuracy which would merit a little higher "blast" or FP rating.

It was more mechanically reliable, so the dreaded "Jam" ammo status message would appear a little less frequently.

MG42 had no box magazine option (that I know of) so MG34 would remain the vehicle mount. It is interesting that the MG34 had a slightly higher cyclic rate with the box, since the mechanical effort to strip the cartridge from the belt was absent (where would we be with old Hogg?).

MG15 is seriously just an aberration, an oddball wartime expedient. It might take a hit in the mobility department (in addition to sharing the general characteristics of MG34) which could be modeled by building in longer delay times before any move order was executed.

Then take the total production figures (if any exist), subtract a few for non-delivery, divide them over the entire remaining Wehrmacht and Volkssturm near the end of the war, randomly assign them, and expect to see a couple in about every 500th scenario. Then you'd have to do this for every single weird, captured, prototype-rushed-to-the-front-in-April45, oddball weapon there was.

Personally I'd rather see the time that went into MG15, go into something useful like ________ (fill in pet feature).

[Username]

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

Lewis,

You have satisfied only the first two componants of research:

1. That it existed.

2. That it was used.

But the THRID, and in our opinion the most critical, is HOW MUCH was it used. That is what I meant by conjecture. The fourth point is "did it have a significant effect, enough to warrent simulation". I suspect that if #3 can be proved, #4 would be a "yes". Then we get into the technical questions of how to simulate the thing.

At this point a few quotes, no matter how good, aren't enough to cause us to think we need to make a fundamental change to the game system. And you should be THANKFUL that is the case. If we bent to any wisp of wind that blew our way CM would be unfocused and probably unrepresentional of typical combat in the theater/time we are simulating. Games that have gone this route have generally fallen apart as a whole, or were never released because of the lack of focus.

And as far as what I agreed to in email, it doesn't really count for much since I was basing it only on what you told me, not independent research. As I said, I am not an ammo guy.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROTFLMAO!!

It just occurred to me that White Phosphorous Rifle Grenades could be skip fired...only kidding.

Whats really funny is your defensive 'tude and unreceptive consideration of data.

BTS spouts off with this 'we are the revolutionaries' dogma but wants to cling desperately to old tired 'plastic army soldier' notions. YOU should be THANKFUL that diehard posters here share their knowledge.

But to get on with the 'Dentistry' going on here, I am going to reiterate that I am proposing these changes for CM2. I firmly believe (conjecture in your negative jargon) that the russian antitank guns were the german armor (read panzer and sturmartillerie units) nightmare when the germans were on the offense. Tanks they could handle, ATGs were a bitch. The use of HE in the direct fire role maximized the quick suppression and destruction of these ATG units. I believe the delayed action fuse helped.

So you need to know how MUCH it was used? If I had to guess it would be a function of a units training and experience. In case you are unaware everything is drills in military life (So you will react in the best way to save your life and others). The commander calls out target, gunner calls out ammo type (and perhaps heres where the additional command for delayed fuse setting could be put in), gunner does his shooting thing. So now that the problem has been identified better we can address it. This aint researching the sex lives of dinosaurs fraught with speculations and guesswork now is it?

I want a good eastern front game and wonder if CM can pull it off.

So anyway I will wait for Fionn to share his 'ammo guy' knowledge before sharing anymore information.

Lewis

[Guest R Cunningham]

you guys are all wrong!

For CM to be worthy my research indicates it needs to represent the following weapons!

MG42

MG34

MG15

MG81

MG26(t)

MG099(i)

MG100(h)

MG116(f)

MG120®

MG07/12(ö)

MG37(t)

oh and maybe a few leftover MG13 and MG08/15s too!

[Fionn]

Lewis,

I've looked into this and have found some good info. I'll post it in a while but first I'm going to have to discuss methodologies somewhat.

The methodology for doing game research is as follows:

1. Prove the weapon/unit etc existed.

2. Prove it was in use in that theatre at that time.

3. Prove that it was common enough and different enough from other weapons/units to warrant being simulated (Obviously, sometimes a weapon can be so similar to another weapon that it is worth simulating since it only takes 10 minutes to code in since it is 99% the same)

4. PROVE the effectiveness of the weapon using in-field trials. If you want to add something to a game you've got to quantify its effectiveness. Otherwise you're just guessing and then you are 99% more likely to be totally wrong in your guesses than you are to be right.

5. For things such as HE fuses you NEED to examine the doctrine also.

You did 1 + 2. That's simply not enough to make a change in this or any game.

I've looked into 3, 4 and 5 also and passed on my findings to Steve.

The fact that I won't recommend a change until I've checked 1 to 5 but that you demand one after only proving 1 and 2 is why you're not close to a team making a wargame.

You've GOT to be able to back up your statements and findings with multiple references when wargamers come questioning them.

[Fionn]

Cunningham,

The sad thing is that's only about a third of the MGs I could name them using. At a certain stage an MG is an MG is an MG.

[Guest Big Time Software]

BFG, OK. So we understand each other better now, and looks like there is no need to tustle anymore

Lewis... you still don't get. What is wrong with our process? You poke fun at it, but WHERE is the flaw in our thinking? That we aren't sticking in anything and everything that someone can find 2-3 quotes about?

I take you back to the famous Bovine MG Spong example where GIs used cows to block fire from an MG42 long enough to flank them. This passed tests 1 (they exist) and 2 (they were used) and 4 (they were effective) as well, but we aren't sticking it in just because of that.

So stop your whining and wait until someone else has rendered an informed opinion about this. You should know that you can't beat us into doing what you want, so why do you bother with that strategy? You have to be logical, rational, and present a documented case. And *that* is why CM is what it is.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 05-08-2000).]

[DesertFox]

Ok,

I jump in for a quick sentence

Are you aware that MG 15s were predominantly used only by Luftwaffenfelddivisionen alongside with the MG 81 ?

BTW: both were used in field service only because of a lack in regular MG 34 and MG 42s from 1944 on in the Luftwaffe, since they (the MG15/81) redered useless in Air-Air combat.

Do we have any Luftwaffenguys except the Flyboys in the game ? Not ? Well then we don´t need any MG 15s either

Helge

Source: Fritz Hahn "Waffen und Geheimwaffen desDeutschen Heeres 1933-1945" Bernhard & Graefe Verlag 1998

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

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/

[DesertFox]

Ah well,

on the HE fuzes thing (it´s fuzes not fuses <G>)

I give you a tip: have a look for the AZ 23v fuze and how it works.

The answer is obvious !

Helge

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

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/

[Guest R Cunningham]

Aha, an infidel! I have gone back to the scriptires and found additional weapons that the Germans in CM ABSOLUTELY MUST HAVE!

7.92mm Maschinengewehr Knorr-Bremse

7.65mm leMG 125(

7.9mm leMG 145(j)

7.92mm MG30

MG34/41

MG34S

MG 17

MG146/1(j)

MG148(j)

MG30(t)

MG104(g)

leMG152(g)

MG105(f)

MG102(n)

MG103(n)

MG106(f)

MG107(f)

MG127(

MG136(e) and (g)

MG137(e)

MG138(e)

MG154/1(p)

MG154/2(p)

MG28(p)

MG156(f) and (g) and (j)

MG126(

leMG147(j)

MG157(f)

MG158(d)

MG159(d)

Kampfwagen MG 311(f)

Kampfwagen MG320®

sMG248(j), (p) and ®

MG131

MG151/15

sMG247(j)

sMG261(i)

sMG247(j)

MG M38(t)

MG39

MG490(j)

MG200(i) and (j)

MG201(n)

sMG240(n)

MG216®

MG218®

MG43®

MG220(

MG230(e) and ®

MG231(h)

MG241(h)

MG242(h)

MG243(h)

Kavallerie MG244(h)

MG245/1(n)

MG245/2(n)

MG30(p)

MG249(p)

MG255(i)

MG256(f), (g) and (j)

MG257(f), (j), and (p)

MG238(p)

MG259(i)

MG268®

MG271(f)

Kampfwagen MG 341(e)

Kampfwagen MG 350(i)

Kampfwagen MG 376(e)

There, I think I got them all. Anybody see any I left out? I think CM should be delayed until they are all in!

Remember standardization is very important when equipping the troops.

[This message has been edited by R Cunningham (edited 05-08-2000).]

[Guest Scott Clinton]

This has nothing to do with the HE fuses issue, but more regarding what has been posted by Steve and Fionn regarding the criteria for a weapon system to be included in CM.

Specifically regarding a weapon system's PROVEN effectiveness and its PROVEN actual use in combat situations.

The Nahverteidigungswaffe fulfills these requirements?

Please forgive me. This is NOT a rhetorical question and the perceived contradiction (by me of course) begs the question.

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[DesertFox]

Bob,

What´s that for a shoddy research

You forgot the:

MG 26(t)

MG 37(t)

MG 30(i)

Hehe all in fun

Helge

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

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/

[Guest R Cunningham]

Incoming! (another nahverteidigungswaffe thread!)

Helge,

I had two of those three in the first stupid post.

MG30(i). hmmm. you know we could just start making these things up.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Well, I beg to differ. There is no contradiction. One fell slightly over the line and the other (fuze thing) is falling short at least for the moment. We do not expect 100% documented "smoking gun" research for something to go into CM. For some things there will always be a debate.

Nafahrfignugens are in because they were a set feature on the vehicle. In that regard, it is just the same as a bow MG or a smoke discharger. So *not* including them is clearly historically incorrect, in a way that MG15s or the like can't be compared to. The whole fuzes thing is still being debated, so it isn't wrapped up yet (even though Lewis thinks it should be).

As to their nahfarwhatistcalled's effectiveness... it is clear that they were effective based on the imperical evidence of the shell and its method of delivery. It basically is a standard mortar bomb, so it is a no brainer to simulate from a physics standpoint. The only possible debate, and it is the one that has happened here, is if the weapon truly was usefull. Like many such things, there is two camps and we happen to be in the one that sides with them being of limited, but still usefull, effectiveness.

The fact that we know exactly what vehicles it was on, how it worked, and to a better than average degree how effective it is from a physics/mechanical standpoint pushes it comfortably over that line. Perfect? Nope, but neither was the case for AT rifle grenades, which is a similar thing.

Narfluffywiggins passed the test, Lewis' HE thing so far has not. So unless you want to call any feature we have put in a contradiction because we didn't put in something else, I don't see there being a problem at all. We are methodical, rational, logical, and as consistant as we can possibly be.

And the proof is in the pudding, since if it were not CM would suck or probably wouldn't ever be released. And since you are all here following its progress, we must be doing more right than wrong, so give us a break.

Steve

[Guest R Cunningham]

Man, Steve, show some respect!

Nafahrfignugens

nahfarwhatistcalled's

Narfluffywiggins

Three unforgiveable abuses of the German language in one post!

But I must call your attention to your statement:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It basically is a standard mortar bomb<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is clearly not the case. The actual round was only 27mm and fired from a Leuchtpistole Z. Those rifle grenades you mention were demonstrably more powerful.

http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891/NahVtdgW/artnahvtdgw.htm

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Yeah Steve, lighten up.

This is not BFG or Lewis you are addressing now.

You mention quite a few things...that I did not take issue with (like the fact it was standard equip. on some AFVs), why you bring this up...

And no, the contradiction (as I see it) has NOTHING to do with the HE fuse issue (as I clearly stated).

I will restate it again for clarity: "Specifically regarding a weapon system's PROVEN effectiveness and its PROVEN actual use in combat situations."

Proven effectiveness and actual use in combat. Presence of a weapon on an AFV does not mean it was actually used especially when its main purpose was for some other purpose (i.e. smoke). Even more so its use does not mean conclusively that it was effective enough to be modeled (for example are the better fighting knives of the commandos modeled Vs the standard bayonet?)...And most importantly...why am I telling YOU this??

I can only assume that you have access to substantial research that others do not, and it refutes what I and others have read, and if that is the case then fine. But lighten up man.

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 05-08-2000).]

[Mark IV]

Of the two MGs that matter (34 & 42), it could be argued that the difference is worth modeling, someday. If there were no substantive difference, the Germans wouldn't have switched from one model to another, with both produced and issued in the hundreds of thousands.

If the difference is that a burst at an enemy squad might hit two guys instead of one, or one instead of none, it would be significant at CM's level.

If higher reliability meant the weapon would be more likely to be available in a charge situation, that would be worthwhile, especially on the Eastern Front. Quick barrel changes would factor in there, somewhere.

The gamer might think a little harder about where to place his 42-equipped squads, assuming both models were present in a scenario.

But it wouldn't make or break the game. I'm done with this.

[guachi]

A few more to the list:

sMG 07/12(o)

leMG 099(i)

leMG 100(h)

leMG 116(f)

leMG 120®

leMG 126(

leMG 145(j)

leMG 147(j)

sMG 201(n)

sMG 221(

sMG 230(h)

sMG 238(p)

sMG 246(j)

sMG 261(i)

About the MG 30(i), my info says that it was a 6.5 mm Breda modello 30 (leMG 099(i) to the Germans) rechambered to 7.92mm. A whopping 270 were made in 1945.

I personally think it would be sweet if Volkssturm units were equipped with the awful Volksgewehere weapons. Or at least if their pictures showed them with these weapons.

Jason

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

If there were no substantive difference, the Germans wouldn't have switched from one model to another, with both produced and issued in the hundreds of thousands.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could be because the MG42 was more efficient to produce than the MG34? I have no idea whether that was the case, but you can start the reasoning for such a switch at two ends, use or production.

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

Andreas