Design Issues for Russian IS Tanks

[WWB]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by busboy:

By the way, would anyone be intirested in an ancient warfare mod for CM? I was thinking this before the conversation anyway. It'd be very VERY crude mind you, mostly graphics mods and infantry running around with "low" ammo, but I thre together a Zama scenario last night and it actually functions ok. Just a pet thought, I dunno if I'd find time to do the work.<hr></blockquote>

That would be awesome. You can already use CM to replicate ancient fields (see the CM map case, I am lacking URL). I did a 'Horns of Hattin' map, and I am working on a Granicus map. That one should be sweet, because I have actually been to the proposed site.

WWB

[busboy]

Hehe, one fellow did a "Gettysburg" scenario, apparently while mildly intoxicated...

The way I see it, any ancient combat mod would require a great imagination. Also, setting the ammo to "0" on all those infantry squads is very time consuming (my "test" zama scenario...I didn't bother.)

Anyhoo, you'd have to pretend that grenades are actially pilum. Small arms could be modded into swords and the like, helmetes could be made to look bronze, uniforms to look like chainmail, ect.

Non infantry units are the kicker. I used Greyhounds for Roman cavalry, and flamm-halftracks for the "elephants." However, I'd like to come up with something better.

Sounds would need to be modded (gunfire replaced with steel on steel)

If anyone speaks Latin or ancient carthaginian, a sound mod could go with it.

Volkstrum could be celts, SS could be a phalanx, CM's BMP list is extensive enough to give a colorful conversion.

An interface and unit graphics mod would help too.

This would be a very very fun but very time consuming effort. Secondly, while I could fiddle around and make some graphics for it, anything "scratch built" would be sub-quality on my part, I'm afraid.

However, I've got lots of ideas and eenough skill, resources, and energy to make maps. If anyone is serious about an ancient warfare mod, drop me a line at "busboy@integtechnology.com."

I love CM! I'm sure BTS folks are rolling their eyes, but I love CM!

[Andrew H.]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Dan Robertson:

Piercing weapons would drive a hole throught the stone into the earth but would not spread the damage. HESH would blow a large hole in the outer stone a facing but the earth would not transmit the shockwaves to damage the rear. Only really big HE would be any good, 8 inches plus.<hr></blockquote>

The real ally of gunpowder wall-breaching weapons is gravity and the weight of the wall itself. Meaning that the proper tactic is to fire at the bottom of the wall you want to breach; as it weakens, a strip of wall from the bottom to the top collapses.

So, for example, if you use HESH to blow large holes in the bottom of the outside wall, large portions of the outside wall will eventually collapse, which permits you to attack the rear wall.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Scipio did all that and more because of Hannibal in my opinion. Though Hannibal did not have the same success, what he did was far more important.

He laid down a solid foundation of tactics for the worlds generals to forever build upon. In doing this he in a sense created the Roman Empire, or at the very least catapulted their civilization to the heights it achieved in a far shorter time span.

If not for Hannibal you would not know Scipios name.

[WWB]

Intended to post these responses earlier, but got inturrupted while posting at work and could not complete:

1) Castles & Gunpowder: As has been pointed out, some did withstand cannon quite well. But these were the exception, rather than the rule. Note that, should an opponent be determined and rich enough, any set of walls were penetrable. My pet example is the Theodosian Walls of Constantinople, which had reflected all invaders for 1000 years before Mehmet took the city in 1453. And, having seen the remains, they are still huge (now only ~10m tall, ~15m thick). I doubt if the parties in the English Civil War could motivate even a quarter the resources that Mehmet could.

Bottom-line, executive summary: the advent of the cannon fundamentally changed warfare by ending the impregnability of the castle.

2) Scipio: He was brilliant, and he was a Cornelii. Meaning that should Hannibal have never existed, we would probably know him as Scipio Macedonicus, Hispanicus or Asiaticus.

3) Roman Saddles: good points gentlemen. I was doing the short, sweet version for those who are not so well read in pre-modern history. From what I have read, the Roman saddles fixed riders enough for them to stab, hack and slash. But not quite well enough for one to do a massed shock charge. I could be wrong, and no longer have access to the journal articles where I read this.

WWB

[busboy]

From Iron:

"He laid down a solid foundation of tactics for the worlds generals to forever build upon."

I disagree with this statement, and I guess an agreement to disagree is what is called for. I admit that he was the first to illustrate so potently the value of certian tactics and boldness, he was not THE first. Hannibal is important in military history, but I just can't consider him the "supreme dude to study."

Iron again:

"In doing this he in a sense created the Roman Empire, or at the very least catapulted their civilization to the heights it achieved in a far shorter time span."

Absolutely! This is the most far reaching thing Hannibal did (what a horrible epitaph for such a man!) I agree whole heartedly here, couldn't have said it better if I tried

"If not for Hannibal you would not know Scipios name."

I have to agree with wwb on this one. Scipio's father was a senator and General. Scipio may not have become as famous, and the Rome so powerful so fast, but Scipio would have proved his genius eventually. Perhaps he would have subdued Gaul before Caesar was born, or soundly defeated the Parthians early on. Who knows how well we'd know him if not for Hannibal, but he'd be in Livy and Polybus, I'm sure.

As for ancient cavalry...yes, cavaly were often used as shock troops, but they were more "reliable" in the skirmish, scout, flank, rout, and persue role.

However, violent line breaking charges were performed with cavalry, as in many of Alexander's greatest victories. It must be remembered that the main weapon of a cavalryman of this era was a spear, not the sword. The Roman spatha was used if the spear was lost or broken (often the butt-spike was used as a secondary spear, as archeological finds show square penetrations in ancient helmets...OUCH!) Based on evidence from some Roman tombstones, some cavalrymen may have carried more than one spear into battle, or have a aid waiting in the rear to "refill" his master's hands.

The late Roman era saw the adoption of "Cataphracts" by the Romans, after their experiance against the Parthians. These mounted troops are the first sign of the move toward the "mounted knights" of the middle ages. The rider and horse were both covered with scale armor(in the case of a horse, it was kind of a "blanket") with mail on the joints of the rider.

Again, the primary weapon here was a long spear, which was braced under the right arm, and layed diagonally across the horse to the left side.

Another thing that is worth pointing out...almost all Roman cavalry was made up of non-Roman citizens. Roman citizens joined the legions. A legion generally had 150-200 cavalrymen attached to it. (though all soldiers were trained to ride fully armed) These cavalrymen were used mainly as scouts and messangers. The Romans "hired out" for things like archers, skirmishers, and cavalry.

The reward for a full service in the Auxileria units was citizenship in Rome. So while the nucleus of the Roman armies were the legions, the bulk of the strength was formed by the men of previously conquered nations.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

I can see where your coming from on the first point, i see how i may have come across as Hannibal being the supreme being to all when it comes to generals, but i do not feel this way. I do consider him one of the elite though.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

I also agree with your statement of Scipio achieving fame through another route. Would he have been as great to the Romans history? We'll never know, mabe the Gauls would have somehow given him a crushing defeat, though not likely.

Also the fact that he defeated Romes arch enemy, you can't help but speculate of the confidence this may have instilled in Scipio wich possibly could have had a more positive effect on his career afterwards.

[WWB]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by busboy:

From Iron:

I have to agree with wwb on this one. Scipio's father was a senator and General. Scipio may not have become as famous, and the Rome so powerful so fast, but Scipio would have proved his genius eventually. Perhaps he would have subdued Gaul before Caesar was born, or soundly defeated the Parthians early on. Who knows how well we'd know him if not for Hannibal, but he'd be in Livy and Polybus, I'm sure.

<hr></blockquote>

The Parthians were just emerging from what is now Northern Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan when Scipio fought at Zama. But in the late 3rd century and early 2nd centuries BC Rome was moving down the Balkans and into Asia Minor. It was a good time to be a young roman of patrician status.

Your mention of Livy and Polybius reminds me: one of the main reasons Hannibal is so revered is that we have several extant literary sources on him and his campaigns. Trajan, for example, might well have been his equal, but we have no tome on his Dacian or Parthian campaigns.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

As for ancient cavalry...yes, cavaly were often used as shock troops, but they were more "reliable" in the skirmish, scout, flank, rout, and persue role.

However, violent line breaking charges were performed with cavalry, as in many of Alexander's greatest victories. It must be remembered that the main weapon of a cavalryman of this era was a spear, not the sword. The Roman spatha was used if the spear was lost or broken (often the butt-spike was used as a secondary spear, as archeological finds show square penetrations in ancient helmets...OUCH!) Based on evidence from some Roman tombstones, some cavalrymen may have carried more than one spear into battle, or have a aid waiting in the rear to "refill" his master's hands.

The late Roman era saw the adoption of "Cataphracts" by the Romans, after their experiance against the Parthians. These mounted troops are the first sign of the move toward the "mounted knights" of the middle ages. The rider and horse were both covered with scale armor(in the case of a horse, it was kind of a "blanket") with mail on the joints of the rider.

Again, the primary weapon here was a long spear, which was braced under the right arm, and layed diagonally across the horse to the left side.

<hr></blockquote>

Good point, some ancient cavalry was used for shock effect. One thing to keep in mind, the sight of a mass of horses bearing down on oneself could easily cause infantry to break, stirrup or no.

The Byzantine Cataphractoi you mention did not develop until well after the stirrup arrived in Asia Minor. The Parthians did have some version of a Cataphractoi much earlier, but there is no evidence of a 'charge' in the european mideaval sense.

WWB

[busboy]

Agreed Iron!

WWB, I'm not referring to the Byzintine cataphracts, I'm referring to some of the early units formed in the Imperial Roman period.

Note, I'm not trying to compare tactics to the middle-aged nights, only the "armored horse and rider" appearence.

My sources show, however, that the first regular cataphract units were formed by Emperor Vespasian in 69 AD, and were Sarmatian auxiliaries.

And, of course, the shock effect of a charge of massed cavalry is perhaps the most effective weapon the horse has. In all consideration, awe and terror were probably the elephant's most effective offensive weapons as well.

[Dan Robertson]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

The real ally of gunpowder wall-breaching weapons is gravity and the weight of the wall itself. Meaning that the proper tactic is to fire at the bottom of the wall you want to breach; as it weakens, a strip of wall from the bottom to the top collapses.

So, for example, if you use HESH to blow large holes in the bottom of the outside wall, large portions of the outside wall will eventually collapse, which permits you to attack the rear wall.<hr></blockquote>

The specific wall I was on about has an earth filling, and is roughly as wide as it tall. Very few castles actually have to vertical solid stone walls you may see in famous castles like Winsor or the Tower of London. The castle at the end of my road was captured after a siege with cannons, the outer walls are tapering stone built on an earth bank. In the lower part they are wide earth filled. Cannon balls failed to breach the walls because the lower slope of them were too strong.

The cannons demolished the keep of the castle and damaged the upper parts of the wall but the castle was still too strongly defended to storm. In inhabitants only gave in because they had no food and didn't want anymore damage to take place.

[WWB]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by busboy:

Agreed Iron!

WWB, I'm not referring to the Byzintine cataphracts, I'm referring to some of the early units formed in the Imperial Roman period.

Note, I'm not trying to compare tactics to the middle-aged nights, only the "armored horse and rider" appearence.

My sources show, however, that the first regular cataphract units were formed by Emperor Vespasian in 69 AD, and were Sarmatian auxiliaries.

And, of course, the shock effect of a charge of massed cavalry is perhaps the most effective weapon the horse has. In all consideration, awe and terror were probably the elephant's most effective offensive weapons as well.<hr></blockquote>

Ok, those Cataphractoi. Unfortunately, my copy of "The Roman Army at War" is in a box miles away, so reference is not really possible. But you are correct, they did exist, albeit in small numbers (2 ala, IIRC).

One of the unfortunate problems with the term is it was generally applied to any armored horse and rider setup by any greek writer into the renissaince. Interestingly, the name means 'cooking pot,' IIRC. If you have ever stood about in the Mediterrainian sun in the summer, you will understand why.

One interesting thing about charging horses: they cannot be made to run through a solid object. Which means if you had a line of men, buck naked and standing shoulder to shoulder, they could stop a cavalry charge dead if they were willing to stand.

WWB

[busboy]

WWB, also, horses don't like unusual smells. Camelry (cavalrymen mounted on camels! no foolin'!) and Elephants were very useful against horses who hadn't foguth them before. A row of emephants stretched across a battle line will block the advance of cavalry just by the smell (unless the horse has gotten used to it.)

If I recall, no, thats incorrect. I was about to say that I recalled, Cataphract meaning "armored man" but thats the translation of "Hoplite."

I can certianly understand "cooking pot," though.

You mention "Roman Army at War." That by chance isn't one of the men at arms series is it? I just bought a cluster of those on the Roman era of warfare. My other extensive sources are "Warefare in the Classical World" and "Greece and Rome at War," the latter by Peter Connolly. Excellent resources, all of them.

A side note on the siege debate, didn't the walls of Constantinople stand up to Arab cannon until well into the 1000s?

[WWB]

Very true about horses. There is little wonder why horses disappeared from the battlefields so soon after the advent of the internal combustion engine. An interesting side note to the unreliability of horses discussion happened when Western Europeans first met the Arabs in battle. There was a slight problem because the Europeans rode steeds, while the Arabs rode ungelded mares. And 10% of mares are in heat at any given time. Needless to say, that put a stop to fighting at times.

I will see if I can dredge up a source on source of the term Cataphract tonight.

"The Roman Army at War"(A.K. Goldsworthy, Oxford UP) is a rather new, and very, very good comprehensive work on well, the Roman at War. You seem to have a decent enough background in Roman history to understand the work, and I highly reccomend it. The Graham & Webster work Amazon is offering as a companion is great as well, for techinical and organizational detail and is a great buy as well.

Constantinople fell on 30 May 1453, after the first determined assault supported by cannon. Those cannon included "Urban's Bombard," a cannon which threw a 1 ton stone 1 mile. It backfired one day and that was the end of John Urban and his bombards.

WWB

[ 01-10-2002: Message edited by: wwb_99 ]</p>

[busboy]

Thanks for the recomendation WWB. I just got back from the bookstore (usin up a Christmas gift cirtificate) I just bought Caesar's Commentaries, and the translated histories of Polubus and Liby. That, with a new book on Greek warfare should keep me busy for a while. But, again thanks for the link.

[Mr. Johnson--]

I've got an Antieam scenario if anyone wants to take a look. Just the morning fight. Plays pretty good. I think Its just infantry and guns, but I might have given the Federals a few tank reinforcments towards the end of the battle. Its got a nice ebb and flow to it.

[Bastables]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by wwb_99:

Very true about horses. There is little wonder why horses disappeared from the battlefields so soon after the advent of the internal combustion engine. An interesting side note to the unreliability of horses discussion happened when Western Europeans first met the Arabs in battle. There was a slight problem because the Europeans rode steeds, while the Arabs rode ungelded mares. And 10% of mares are in heat at any given time. Needless to say, that put a stop to fighting at times.

[ 01-10-2002: Message edited by: wwb_99 ]<hr></blockquote>

The Arabs by the time of the crusades were no longer in control of their own destiny never mind the Islamic civilisation. At this point in time the most important force were the fractured remains of the Seljuk Turks that had taken control of the Kaliphs and Baghdad. From then there are no Arab luminaries in the Islamic world, the Kaliphs became puppets to whatever military clique held Baghdad at the time.

[Hanns]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Again, the primary weapon here was a long spear, which was braced under the right arm, and layed diagonally across the horse to the left side. <hr></blockquote>

I thought this style of spear or lance use was invented by William of Marshall. The Bayeax tapestries show the Norman "knights" fighting with the spear held over hand. This would have been even more important with the lack of stirrups due to the inability to stand or strongly brace oneself in the saddle. If someone could post some examples or links to the opposite I would be very interested. Thanks,

Hanns

[karch]

So were the different models of JS2 both production models and do you think we will have 2 JS2's depending on game date with differing rate of fire?

Sorry guys, didn't mean to hijack the thread with JS2 talk.

Scott