Rail Guns in CMBB

[Gaylord Focker]

Will rail guns be modeled in CMBB? Naval Guns are modeled for the ALlies in CMBO, so will the Axis get thier rail guns in some CMBB scenarios?

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

Will rail guns be modeled in CMBB? Naval Guns are modeled for the ALlies in CMBO, so will the Axis get thier rail guns in some CMBB scenarios?

I believe this has been addressed before, but the short answer is 'no.'

The rail guns were not used in combat on CMBB's scale. They were mainly anti-seige devices with a very slow rate fo fire (2-3 rounds per hour). They are simply beyond the scope of the game.

Steve

[Gaylord Focker]

Then how about one rail gun round per scenario then? How will the Sevastapol scenarios be engadgeable without them?

[ July 16, 2002, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: Gaylord Focker ]

[ParaBellum]

Gaylord, I'd recommend rather posting your questions in one thread than opening four sepearate threads within a few minutes.

To your question:

I'd rather doubt to see railguns in CMBB.

These should be well out of CMBB's scope, which concentrates on tactical fighting.

The famous 'Dora' 80cm gun for example had a maximum fire rate of three rounds per hour.

For the typical 30 minutes CM game not THAT interesting.

Interesting note: all in all the 'crew' of 'Dora' included (including two Flak Abteilungen) more than 4000 men, commanded by a General Major.

[ July 16, 2002, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]

[Guest SnarkerII]

Originally posted by ParaBellum:

Gaylord, I'd recommend rather posting your questions in one thread than opening three sepearate threads within a few minutes.

To your question:

I'd rather doubt to see railguns in CMBB.

These should be well out of CMBB's scope, which concentrates on tactical fighting.

The famous 'Dora' 80cm gun for example had a maximum fire rate of three rounds per hour.

For the typical 30 minutes CM game not THAT interesting.

Interesting note: all in all the 'crew' of 'Dora' included (including two Flak Abteilungen) more than 4000 men, commanded by a General Major.

So there you have it. If the massive guns were included, you would also have to "pay" for 4,000 (or more) troops and equipment per gun. Out of the scope of this game, I'd think. Not saying it wouldn't be fun to see, but I doubt they were of tactical use.

[Gaylord Focker]

Why would you have to pay for 4000 soldiers manning the gun? Why not just the Spotters like everything else?

Also there were smaller rail guns then the ones you made mention to that had a higher rate of fire.

I just want to see both sides have everyhting implemented, not like in CMBO where the allies have some things i think are pretty cool modeled(wich should be) yet the Germans have some key things missing from their arsenal. (best machinegun of the war way under modeled for one example).

In human verse human scenarios, will the Russian player have an advantage? I don't think may human players will simply order thier units to just plain charge.

The Allies should have an advantage in CMBO considering the time frame of the game, but will the Axis be useless against PPsh squads of well led Russians? I beleive that something like 10 Russians died for everyone 1 German causaulty caused. Will we see this in the game? For some reason i doubt it.

[ July 16, 2002, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: Gaylord Focker ]

[Agua]

Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

In human verse human scenarios, will the Russian player have an advantage? I don't think may human players will simply order thier units to just plain charge.

Actually, that's a pretty good point that I've wondered about myself. Assuming early war Russian defenders are poorly armed and trained with low experience and, consequently, very, very cheap, the numbers have a quality all their own. Unless "human wave" has a value peculiarly well-adapted for the quality of the troops and the terrain that gives them an advantage, CM players will utilize the terrain and cover, covered fire tactics they've developed in CM.

[WWB]

Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

Why would you have to pay for 4000 soldiers manning the gun? Why not just the Spotters like everything else?

Also there were smaller rail guns then the ones you made mention to that had a higher rate of fire.

I just want to see both sides have everyhting implemented, not like in CMBO where the allies have some things i think are pretty cool modeled(wich should be) yet the Germans have some key things missing from their arsenal. (best machinegun of the war way under modeled for one example).

In human verse human scenarios, will the Russian player have an advantage? I don't think may human players will simply order thier units to just plain charge.

The Allies should have an advantage in CMBO considering the time frame of the game, but will the Axis be useless against PPsh squads of well led Russians? I beleive that something like 10 Russians died for everyone 1 German causaulty caused. Will we see this in the game? For some reason i doubt it.

1) Who have you been listening to? I would suspect they have seen nothing tangiable.

2) You will see the light after 9/20.

WWB

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Agua:

Actually, that's a pretty good point that I've wondered about myself. Assuming early war Russian defenders are poorly armed and trained with low experience and, consequently, very, very cheap, the numbers have a quality all their own. Unless "human wave" has a value peculiarly well-adapted for the quality of the troops and the terrain that gives them an advantage, CM players will utilize the terrain and cover, covered fire tactics they've developed in CM.

Well, I think there's little you can do about this. At the moment, there is no way you can stop a player from co-ordinating his infantry and tanks better than the British CO did when attacking Cristot with 4/7th Dragoon Guards and 6th Green Howards on June 11th. Incidentally, five days later they had learned the lesson too.

In CMBB, as in CMBO, if your opponent wants to (and can) apply proper tactics, all you can do is call him 'gamey', because his counterparts in Real Life™ did not do it.

[Agua]

Originally posted by Andreas:

In CMBB, as in CMBO, if your opponent wants to (and can) apply proper tactics, all you can do is call him 'gamey', because his counterparts in Real Life™ did not do it.

Good point. Honestly, I can see player agreements to play early war scenarios as Russians utilizing human wave if victory is not just an impossible task under such conditions.

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Agua:

Assuming early war Russian defenders are poorly armed and trained with low experience and, consequently, very, very cheap, the numbers have a quality all their own. Unless "human wave" has a value peculiarly well-adapted for the quality of the troops and the terrain that gives them an advantage, CM players will utilize the terrain and cover, covered fire tactics they've developed in CM.

Well, I think there's two different issues here: "Human Wave"-type attacks, which are sometimes tactically sound, and sometimes not, and bad generalship, which is by definition not tactically sound. The early war Soviet used a lot of Human Wave attacks. They also had a lot of really poor quality officer who ordered their troops to do really stupid things. I suspect most of us will try to use the "Human Wave" command when and where appropriate, and will avoid bad generalship if at all possible.

Cheers,

YD

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by Agua:

Actually, that's a pretty good point that I've wondered about myself. Assuming early war Russian defenders are poorly armed and trained with low experience and, consequently, very, very cheap, the numbers have a quality all their own. Unless "human wave" has a value peculiarly well-adapted for the quality of the troops and the terrain that gives them an advantage, CM players will utilize the terrain and cover, covered fire tactics they've developed in CM.

I've been doing some experimenting with this as well, using green and conscript Volksgrenadiers. I would agree with you IF the command and control system and machine guns are modeled exactly as they are in CMBO (and I suspect that will be one of the first things people will complain about within a week of the release). However, if there are tangible differences in command and control and more effective machine guns, those tactics may not work.

This is particularly true if the untrained units have extremely high delay times and run for cover easily. Remember, a unit that runs for cover loses all previously programmed movement, so it takes a while for him to resume the attack, ceteris parabus.

This also assumes that there will be sufficient cover to use, and that those sneaky Germans are too dumb to drop some artillery or mortars on the trees (really fouling up the advance).

It will be interesting to see this implemented, and is one of the things I plan on testing when I go to the Texas sneak preview later this month.

Steve

[Zitadelle]

And, now that we seem to have opened a thread within a thread (whatever ever happened to the discussion about rail guns???)....

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

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

Assuming early war Russian defenders are poorly armed and trained with low experience and, consequently, very, very cheap, the numbers have a quality all their own. Unless "human wave" has a value peculiarly well-adapted for the quality of the troops and the terrain that gives them an advantage, CM players will utilize the terrain and cover, covered fire tactics they've developed in CM.

Well, I think there's two different issues here: "Human Wave"-type attacks, which are sometimes tactically sound, and sometimes not, and bad generalship, which is by definition not tactically sound. The early war Soviet used a lot of Human Wave attacks. They also had a lot of really poor quality officer who ordered their troops to do really stupid things. I suspect most of us will try to use the "Human Wave" command when and where appropriate, and will avoid bad generalship if at all possible.

Cheers,

YD</font>

[StarFleet Captain]

IMO, it would be a good thing to use Human Wave tactic when you are relatively close to some arbitrary objective and you just wanna take it in kind of a rush. Something similiar to doing an assault in a more operational level game like Talaonsoft's Camapign Series. In other words, instead of shooting for enemy casualties at range, to do a hand-to-hand kind of rush.

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

...I just want to see both sides have everyhting implemented, not like in CMBO where the allies have some things i think are pretty cool modeled(wich should be) yet the Germans have some key things missing from their arsenal. (best machinegun of the war way under modeled for one example)....

So, you want to have everything implemented? OK,let's wait another two years for the release. I want horses, minedogs, field kitchens, the ability to cut barb wire, indirect fire for on-map arty...

So you think the Allies have an advantage in CMBO? You might elaborate on that?

And you know that the problem with current MG modelling concerns all MGs?

[ July 16, 2002, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]

[John Kettler]

Hate to break it to those assembled here, but railway guns are already in CMBO, in the form of the German 280mm gun. In reality, that is the 28cm K5E ("E" for eisenbahn=railroad), of precisely the type known as "Anzio Annie," a restored example of which is at Aberdeen Proving Grounds. The Germans had lots of railway artillery, and it featured prominently in the initial Barbarossa attacks, being easy to mass. The Russians had quite a bit of their own, as can be seen by visiting various sites. Those interested in German railway guns should refer to WEAPONS OF THE THIRD REICH, by Chamberlain and Ellis. Now that we've got railway guns out of the way, I'm hoping for armored trains.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

The Germans had lots of railway artillery, and it featured prominently in the initial Barbarossa attacks, being easy to mass.

Lots of them?

According to Feldgrau.com 21 were produced between 1939 and '45.

What numbers do Chamberlain&Ellis give?

BTW John, you're sure about the 280mm gun in CMBO?

All I can find is the 240mm gun, which isn't a railroad gun.

[ July 16, 2002, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]

[Kingfish]

But the 280mm weapons used in CMBO fire the standard 4 shot volley. AFAIK, the rail guns (at least the ones used in the ETO / Med) weren't arranged in batteries, but individual weapons.

[John Kettler]

ParaBellum,

When I said "lots" I meant railway artillery of various sizes, excluding flak and armored trains.

There were some five different series of 28cm railway guns alone, and the 28cm was but one in a host of artillery sizes found among the railway guns, many of which could be used in a CM context, having ROFs equal to one round every five turns and being no bigger than the already in Allied 14" battleship guns. If I have the time, I'll try to get you a rough count on German railway guns, but we're talking hundred of tubes.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ParaBellum]

Thx John, I'd really like to see some figures.

But I still have a problem: I can't see a german 280mm gun in CMBO. Not from June '44 'til May '45.

Am I missing something here?

The biggest gun I see is a 240mm calibre.

[ July 16, 2002, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]

[Gaylord Focker]

Originally posted by ParaBellum:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

...I just want to see both sides have everyhting implemented, not like in CMBO where the allies have some things i think are pretty cool modeled(wich should be) yet the Germans have some key things missing from their arsenal. (best machinegun of the war way under modeled for one example)....

So, you want to have everything implemented? OK,let's wait another two years for the release. I want horses, minedogs, field kitchens, the ability to cut barb wire, indirect fire for on-map arty...

So you think the Allies have an advantage in CMBO? You might elaborate on that?

And you know that the problem with current MG modelling concerns all MGs?</font>

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

Parabellem, the MG-42 is not all machineguns for starters. That would be like saying that a Newport-17 is like a P-47. THe MG-42 was central to the German army on a tactical level and was feared by all who opposed it. Since this is a tactical based game then you have already discovered what i meant. The closest equilvelent i could think of is making the American VT arty not work right, and even that is'nt an equal enough comparison.

Hm, I just checked the FP ratings for the MG42 on tripod, the US M1917 heavy MG and the british Vickers HMG.

At 100m the MG 42 gets an FP of 125, the M1917 and the Vickers an FP of 76.

So that's about 60% more firepower for the MG42. Doesn't seem too bad.

So, in what way is the MG42 undermodelled in CM in a way the other MGs aren't?

[ July 16, 2002, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]

[John Kettler]

ParaBellum,

Eek! Good catch. That's what I get for trusting my memory. I was half right, though, in that the Germans had very few 24cm anything on land mounts, as opposed to railway mounts. The 24cm Kanone 3, for example, amounted to six guns total and was confined to a single motorized artillery battalion in three two gun batteries. ROF was a round every 3-4 minutes. Adding in the 24cm Theodor Kanone (Eisenbahn) adds three more guns to the pool and the 24cm Theodor Bruno Kanone (Eisenbahn) a further six. Thus, the entire German produced 24 cm pool is a whole 15 guns. If we throw in the 24cm Haubitze

39 and 39/40, the count goes up a bit, but the reference lists no Eastern Front service. We can be more sure of at least two guns, though, of 24cm Kanone L/46, for they're tied to a specific unit and battery. That makes 17 known 24cm land mounts of all German types.

Here's a quick breakdown of German railway artillery, in ascending size.

15cm K(E) = 8

17cm K(E) = 6

20.3 cm K(E) = 8

21cm K12(E) = 1 in service at any given time

21cm ThK(E) = 3

21cm ThBK(E) = 6

28cm kBK(E) = 8

28cm lBK(E) = 2

28cm BnK(E) = 3

28cm K5(E) = 25

38cm SK(E) = 3

40.6cm K(E) = 1

80cm K(E) = 2

TOTAL = 76 German produced guns

To this total we must add substantial quantities of railway artillery captured from the French, the other leader in railway guns. Unfortunately, the source for all of this information, WEAPONS OF THE THIRD REICH, by Chamberlain & Ellis, doesn't list many quantities or much on deployment.

19.4cm K(E) models 486(f) and 93(f)

24cm K(E) models 557(f) and 557/1(f)

24cm K(E) model 558(f) or KM 93/96(f)

land carriage for latter

27.4 K(E) model 592(f)

28.5cm K(E) model 605(f)

32cm K(E) models 651(f)or 651/1(f)

32cm K(E) model 652(f)

34cm KW(E) model 674(f)

37cm H(E) = 5 model 711(f)

40cm H(E) = 6 752(f); 2 additional for spares

52cm H(E) = 1 model 871(f)

Still, it is clear that for critical operations the Germans could martial well over 100, if not my prior hundreds, of railway guns and howitzers of 15cm or greater, with most of the tubes being 21cm or larger. Being railway mounted, not only were they easier to move where needed, but they were far easier to supply and maintain than most of their land mount counterparts, where such existed.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ July 16, 2002, 08:07 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[ParaBellum]

Thx for the info, John, very interesting.

I didn't take into account the captured french guns. I'm quite impressed with the production number for the 28cm K5(E)gun, though. 25 is quite a lot for such a heavy gun.

To bugger you even more, do you have any info when and in what quantity (year/number of guns) the 28cm K5(E) was produced?

[ July 16, 2002, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]

[John Kettler]

ParaBellum,

According to the same source, 8 were in service by 1940, and 2 were employed in the siege of Leningrad from 1942-1943. No additional details on production rates by year, other than the best estimate of some 25 completed by the end of the war. Maybe someone can find more at the National Archives, IWM or Bundes Archiv. Another approach would be to contact Friedrich Krupp AG, the original manufacturer.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ July 17, 2002, 01:52 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]