Balm for unhappy Allied players & a thought for BTS

[John Kettler]

I've read what seems like miles of posts by unhappy Allied players raising all kinds of complaints about all the great toys the Germans get (ubertanks, flak, etc.), especially when players get to pick their own troops.

Personally, I'd rather play the game than indulge in endless, unrealistic, escalation-infested force optimization exercises, which is why Kingfish and I usually play QBs, with minimal player input on the forces.

We usually play 1000 or fewer points, and we have no supertank problem. We definitely do have AFVs which give us fits, though. A Churchill CS will, for example, give German infantry all kinds of pain, as will a well sited Jagdpanzer IV/L70. What you will never see, though, is a force composed entirely of nasty AFVs. I've even fought battles in command of a German mechanized force which had no vehicles. The carriers dropped off the troops and guns, then evidently left. We routinely trade off sides and combat tasks.

We highly recommend QBs as a solution to many of the problems which so incense many posters. There is enormous variety, considerable terrain diversity, numerous countries, troop types and weapons, and always tough tactical problems to be solved.

I'd now like to point out a unique advantage that the Allies not only have, but which is, in my view, even more effective than it was in real world combat. I refer to artillery with VT fuzes.

Though I didn't know that VT FOs (real FOs simply ordered different projectile types and fuze combinations) were even in QBs, since I'd played many games and never encountered one, I can assure you that they are in and are most unpleasant, especially if you're being hit by 155mm VT.

Tactical dispersion of foxholed squads which is enough to provide good survival versus even standard 155s simply doesn't get the job done when faced with 155 VT. The high burst covers a lot of ground, and delivery accuracy doesn't have to be all that great to yield significant casualties. This effectiveness jump is further enhanced by the relatively small size of CM battlefields, which simplifies targeting, and the vital fact that there is NO modelling of foxholes with overhead cover in CM, even though the Germans had long since learned to do this based on Eastern Front experience vs. massive Russian barrages.

Taken together these, in my view, make VT the Allied equivalent of the ubertank, in terms of the threat it poses and the lethal effect when it connects. Consider also that, generally speaking, Allied ammo allocations are larger, as are fire support fractions.

I certainly support the effort to model use the use of MT fuzes in the game where appropriate, such as in the recent thread concerning the 88 and TRPs, and I specifically include Allied artillery under that rubric, but given that my reading of the VT development post indicates that the Allies had VT for 75, 105, and 155mm howitzers, as well as 8-inch and 240mm howitzers, the MT approach would probably be of more use to the Germans. I'd guess that it would take several rounds in adjustment to get the burst height right.

In closing, I'd like to note that another VT like capability seems to be missing from the German inventory. I'm referring to the Wurfgranate 39 mortar bomb for the German 81mm

mortar. As described in Ian Hogg's GRENADES & MORTARS, pp.143-145, the projectile detonated a small charge on impact, which hurled the primary projectile, less nosecap, into the air, yielding a combat burst height of 20-50 feet. Could really use that capability right now!

BTS, I shall be most interested in your thoughts concerning my take on VT effectiveness and on the possibly unknown to you Wurfgranate 39.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Warmaker]

As far as the armor was concerned many Allied tankers complained of the fragility of their mounts compared to the Panthers and Tigers who were more survivable. In "Steel Inferno" Montgomery listened to his tankers' complaints about their tanks compared to the Germans'. He said he'd bring it up the chain to get better designs but ended up saying the tankers were quite well satisfied with their mounts.

In CM though I've lost my share of expensive Panthers/Tigers by a well played Allied player who didn't even use M26's or Fireflies (500pt Axis QB attack). In real life allied tankers had to use their wits to win. A good tank is just a tool to implement sound tactics.

Personally I also prefer to play under 700 point games. If I get an elite Tiger I or II I'm certainly paying lots of points for it. You pay for the quality of the unit and the experience remember? When playing the Germans I prefer to use a small, well equipped force. Experience varies depending on my force selection but please keep in mind that these "fancy toys" us Axis players use are EXPENSIVE. How many Shermans can you buy to us buying ONE veteran Koenigstiger? Those Whirbelwinds are still thinly armored and open topped remember? Use the tools you have with good tactics no matter what side you play to win. Don't whine just because the Axis opponent killed off your unwisely used 5 Shermans with a his only Tiger I by using good tactics or by him using the strengths of his weapon. That Tiger was probably THE key element of his small rag-tag force and he properly babysat it to use the maximum efficiency of it. That's why I don't like commanding large formations since it's too hard to keep track of everything. With a good, small force I get the maximum efficiency of my weapons because I don't "throw them away" and properly employ them... and of course I feel the pain when the Tiger II that I desperately needed to survive got taken out by good enemy tactics. No such thing as the ultimate weapon in CM. There's a way to killing anything it's just up to you to think it up. It's certainly capable to kill off the King Tiger with a thinly skinned 75mm Sherman by flank/rear shots. A good head will carry you much further than a "uberweapon." Worse for an Axis player with lots of nice toys is overconfidence in his Panthers and such and ends up using bad tactics and planning. A sure recipe for disaster...

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

"Uncommon valor was a common virtue"-Adm.Chester Nimitz of the Marines on Iwo Jima

[This message has been edited by Warmaker (edited 01-18-2001).]

[Vanir]

Great post John. Even though I prefer big 3000 point battalion matches I agree with all your points. I think you should have contrived a way of sticking the word "gamey" into the title so more people would read it.

I think most people just don't realize how awesome US arty is. In addition to larger ammo loadouts and VT, they also have much reduced on target times. For regular FOs this works out to about 1 minute less than other nations. Having the murderous US 4.2 inch mortars only 1 turn away on call is almost unfair.

BTW, VT is awesome but expensive. My personal favorite US bang-for-the-buck arty is the fore-mentioned 4.2 inch (107mm) mortar. The US got these originally from the Brits and then improved them. In CM they have about the same power as German 120mm. I have yet to see in any game I have played a platoon remain combat worthy after a full turn of bombardment from 4.2. Once you learn how to time your assaults so that your infantry hit the enemy just at the end of the arty barrage (without catching your own troops in it) life becomes easier.

People get too caught up with armor. Tanks are useful but the precise coordination of infantry and artillery is the key to victory more often than not.

The effectiveness of VT should be looked at. It is more difficult to model arty correctly than say, armor penetration, because testing the effects of it on people is more problematic than shooting a captured tank.

I have a feeling we will not be seeing 88 MT fuses, W 39, or covered foxholes in CM (unfortunately), but they should be considered for CM2. I'm not sure how to handle covered foxholes in the game. Maybe make them available to the defender in assault scenarios only (more time to prepare defenses).

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

You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV

[Guest Germanboy]

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

Great post John.

People get too caught up with armor. Tanks are useful but the precise coordination of infantry and artillery is the key to victory more often than not.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen to both statements.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Gremlin]

An easy and effective way to handle übertank usage is to use Fionn's armor rules in QB's or simply stipulate in QB's that certain tanks like the Jagdtiger or Jumbo are off limits.

Anyway, if you can't find and exploit a unit's weakness, you're just not trying hard enough

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

I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.

--Eisenhower

[aka_tom_w]

Perhaps for the newer members someone could post an explanation of the differences between the MT fuze and the VT fuze.

When did this change come into CM?

Is this a v1.1 thing? or has it been there all along?

This VT availability is news to me.

Do the germans have no VT arty?

VERY interesting.

thanks

-tom w

[Guest Germanboy]

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

1. When did this change come into CM?

2. Is this a v1.1 thing? or has it been there all along?

3. Do the germans have no VT arty?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. AFAIK it has always been in, there were long discussions in December 99 or thereabouts about arty, and new coding for arty and VT were one of the reasons the game took longer than expected.

2. Has been there all along AFAIK - it is very expensive though, and only available beyond a certain date. It is hellishly effective against troops in the open though. Just imagine having guaranteed treebursts with every shot and no cover at all.

3. No, they don't.

AFAIK MT is not simulated in the game.

In the maybe three or four games I played where the computer bought forces, I saw one VT FOO, so I would not have thought that there is a problem based on that insufficient sample. Interesting observation John.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[John Kettler]

I can't go back and change the title, but I can bump this thread and hope BTS and the board members read it and respond to the trenchant points raised.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Lorak]

John,

Great post by the way.

One question. Do german Flak 88's cause airburst? In "company commander" these were described as real nasty, since the germans could have them impact, or explode in the air since they are Flak guns. According to his accounts this was very very nasty. Much the same as american VT fuzes.

Haven't used them before, and was just wondering.

Lorak

[Guest Mr. Johnson-<THC>-]

That would be a big no on 88s firing indirect or using VT fuses in CMBO. There is a movie called "When Trumpets Fade" that has 88s used in the indirect role firing on US troops in heavy woods. Not sure if Hollywood was trying to make them airburst or not but they were bursting in the trees. It is just Hollywood not a documentery so take it with a big grain of salt I guess.

[Guest Mr. Johnson-<THC>-]

Oh yeah and John, I have not heard many allied players complainging about Flak guns, unless its a 88mm your talking about. Seems like most players underuse both allied and axis Flak guns in the 20mm to 40mm range. Bet those 40mm bofors can stop a Stug attack pretty easily.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Any "quick" fused shell will provide the airburst effect in the woods. The VT does the same thing in the open.

On the general comments in the tread, I agree with some of them. U.S. forces are designed for combined arms combat and anyone playing the U.S. that does not get full use out of their artillery is selling his guys short.

I personally prefer a mix of 105mm and 81mm to the 107mm, though, because in fact the 107s were much less common/fewer issued. Every battalion could call on assigned 81s and their were enough 105s to support just about every front-line battalion, when up-n-back deployments and higher level artillery assets are taken into account. It feels more realistic to me.

The Brits get awesome guns on a portion of their tanks, which properly handled should be a considerable edge.

The Germans have all kinds of tricks besides frontal armor impervious to short 75s. SMGs, 2 LMG squad types used split into small teams, fausts, mortars, rockets, 20mm and 88mm FLAK and halftrack supports with this or that added.

It remains the case that use of super vehicles is boring and gamey to me. I do not doubt there are plenty of people who enjoy playing with their favorite item. I just am not that sort. I want fights that present me with tactical problems that men were likely to face in 44-45, or the interest just is not there. My prefered solution to this is setting a maximum "rareness factor" for equpiment (as assigned in ASL, and reported in available CM unit databases), like 1.3. There are undoubtedly other ways to handle it.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Amen to both statements.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

DOUBLE Amen - a few people here have been saying that all along.

I've been thinking about the ASL rarity factors a lot, too - it's a great idea, but could be handled on a per unit thing - ie a complete troop of tank support as opposed to one or two superheavies, etc.

[This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 01-18-2001).]

[Stefan Fredriksson]

I take it "VT" is some kind of airburst-fusing? But what does "VT" really mean?

[Skott Karlsson]

To help offset the Ubertank problem, couldnt two players agree that the Allied player could have planes and not the German player? The Allies did have air superority most of the time from mid '44 on. On the History Channel the other night about tanks they mentioned the best way to take out a Panther was with aircraft. I would assume the same would apply to any heavy German Ubertank. Just a thought anyway.

~Skott~

[Forever Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stefan Fredriksson:

I take it "VT" is some kind of airburst-fusing? But what does "VT" really mean?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

VT stands for "Variable Time". It is a small radio emitter/receiver fitted to the shell's fuze. The emitter transmits a signal which is then picked up by the receiver after bouncing off the target. Using the Doppler Effect to determine distance, the device ignites the fuze and detonates the shell at a pre-determined range from the target.

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

Massada Lo Tipol Shenit

[Subvet]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Forever Babra:

VT stands for "Variable Time". It is a small radio emitter/receiver fitted to the shell's fuze. The emitter transmits a signal which is then picked up by the receiver after bouncing off the target. Using the Doppler Effect to determine distance, the device ignites the fuze and detonates the shell at a pre-determined range from the target.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, now I'm confused. Wouldn't what you describe be a proximity fuse??? Variable time fuses used time didn't they?

[Guest Germanboy]

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

One question. Do german Flak 88's cause airburst? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lorak, have a look here:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/015004.html

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Forever Babra]

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

Ok, now I'm confused. Wouldn't what you describe be a proximity fuse??? Variable time fuses used time didn't they?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, a VT fuze is a proximity fuze. It is called Variable Time as opposed to a mechanical "fixed time" fuze, which uses a timer to detonate. The gunner calculates the flight time to the point where he wants it to detonate and then sets the time. Not nearly as precise as VT.

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

Massada Lo Tipol Shenit

[Subvet]

Ahhh, thanks for clearing that up for me Babra. It's amazing what I can learn on these boards.

[Ellros]

From what I've heard/read about the Wurfgranate 39 shell, it required fairly firm ground in order to be effective. If the ground was muddy or too soft in any way, the round would bury itself and fail to get the "bounce" effect.

[Slapdragon]

The allied variable timed shells were a misnomer, to protect their real method of detonating. Artillery has always had timed shells to try and achieve airburst, or a non contact explosion. Cannon balls had fuses, and timers were built into shells. VT shells used small radars to tell the approach of the ground and trigger an explosion.

Although not specifically mention in the book Friendly Fire, about a woman who wanted to find out why here son died in combat, her sone probably died because a VT shell was fired on too low an arc, resulting it in coming to close to the ground of a hill her son was on and exploding before it was suppose to.

[Lorak]

Ahh, thanks for the link Germanboy. Don't know how I missed that thread.

Lorak

[Bullethead]

As a long-time advocate of the inclusion of MT fuzes in CM, I'd like to point out just how extremely prevalent they were. MT fuzes had been around for like 60-80 years by the time of WW2, and even then simply replaced burning fuzes cut to length, which had been in widespread use since at least the 1500s.

As an example of the sheer ubiquity of MT fuzes in WW2, take the German arsenal. The short story is that except for PAKs, light flak, the monster railroad guns, and for some reason the 15cm sIG, every single German weapon that could be classed as arty under the broadest sense had MT fuzes as standard equipment. This even includes coast defense weapons ranging from pre-WW1 antiques to modern 15" left over from the Bismarck program, neither of which needed MT fuzes for their original naval use.

So hopefully someday we'll see MT fuzes in a CM game. Maybe not CM1, but I sure hope by CM2.

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

-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

[This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 01-19-2001).]

[John Kettler]

Wow! People actually read one of my posts!

Some of this has already been covered, but it might help newcomers if I recast matters slightly.

VT=Variable Time=radar proximity fuze; contains a miniaturized radar transceiver (transmitter and receiver) which senses the proximity or closeness of a target by the strength of the returned signal. When the target detection threshold is reached, the fuze detonates the shell. Originally developed for use against aerial targets, the radar proximity fuze, or "prox" to those in the trade, was released to ground combat units in November of 1944. It first saw combat during the Battle of the Bulge and was devastating. Release for ground combat was delayed until the Allies were convinced the Germans wouldn't have time to copy it if a dud were captured.

As noted in my original post, VT greatly multiplies the effectiveness of artillery against troops in entrenchments, troops in the open, in open top AFVs, and allows the conduct of deadly surprise fires at night and in almost all weather against crossroads, supply routes, assembly areas, etc., without needing to fire adjustment rounds which give the foe time to take cover. Think of it as having treebursts without needing the target to be in the woods.

MT=Mechanical Time=clockwork fuze, hence the name. As a former(?) Redleg (artilleryman,so named for red stripe on uniform pants back when), Bullethead has done himself proud with his detailed post. When I speak of MT fuzing, though, I usually think of it in terms of setting a timer and firing a shell to some defined range, at which the shell will then burst. This is how large caliber AAA functioned until the advent of VT.

Someone would determine the altitude of the bombers through either rangefinder or triangulation. That information would then be converted to a time of flight setting, which would then be input via a fuze setter. Representative guns would include the 88 (Flak 18,36,37), U.S. 90 mm. and British 3.7 antiaircraft guns.

From this, it isn't too big a leap of logic to conclude that though the air is certainly thicker close to the ground, projectile ballistics are known, as is time of flight. This allows one to do things like create a bursting barrier of steel over your target's head for things like stripping infantry off tanks and nailing infantry in halftracks.

Based on veterans' accounts I read years ago in AFV-G2 magazine, it was standard practice on the Eastern Front to do just that by firing first an MT round to remove the infantry, then the armor piercing projectile to kill the tank underneath. Note that this was in a direct fire role. There is,though, no fundamental reason why MT fuzing couldn't be employed for indirect fire, unless time of flight would've exceeded the setting limits of the fuze. The effectiveness certainly wouldn't equal that of VT, though, given the considerable variations in the fuzes themselves and the need to adjust them for optimum burst height.

Please further note that I am not talking here about the difference between firing a shell with superquick fuzing(instantantaneous detonation on contact) and delay fuzing (.05 second or so to allow shell to pass through walls, cover, etc., before detonation).

Ellros, you are correct about the terrain requirements for the Wurfgranate 39. My post was so long already that I saw no point in gilding the lily, especially since I had already provided a detailed page citation.

I hope this clears up any confusion I may have started. Would still love to hear from BTS, though.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler for clarity and typos.

[This message has been edited by John Kettler (edited 01-20-2001).]

[This message has been edited by John Kettler (edited 01-20-2001).]

[This message has been edited by John Kettler (edited 01-20-2001).]