Historical Clangers

[Lars]

Originally posted by Ludi1867:

Your quote from Hitler (what source, btw?)

You didn’t bother to look the web page I linked at all, did you Ludi? Scroll down to the date I gave.

Seems your biggest problem is you don’t like that rockets in the game don’t always follow the historical record. I AGREE.

But then, they’re not supposed to. It’s a game.

So, if you leave the one chit in rockets (vastly more than Reich actually spent on development btw), you get sucky rockets. Most players take it out if they’re not going for rockets. Can we agree there is no problem here?

But if you were to start in ‘39, and pour the resources of the Reich into rocket development, instead of the other grandiose projects, the historical record is pretty clear that they would have had an effective weapon system, and much sooner than they historically did.

It probably would have forced the Brits to quit. Scare the living bajezus out of you in ’40, with no way to strike back. Not so much in ’44, when you’ve already been through the Blitz.

Btw, they got the range error down to 0.05% with a simple cutoff. And that was a quick fix, please note. Next easy development step would be to put a transmitter in the rocket, triangulate, and correct the deviation. Gets you down to a CEP of 264 ft over 100 miles. Not great, but good enough to do London from Calais. Better than the average B-17 raid, now that I think about it. So pick your “tactical” target. We’re talking assembly areas, supply dumps or ports at this scale.

Now all you got to do is build a lot of rockets. It’s really not so far out there on the historical alternates that you need a Turtledove to write it. All you really need is a Speer to implement it.

[Scook]

The longer I play WaW, I think 3 is the right number of rockets, and the reduction for USSR is appropriate too. Now, for some theoretical stuff....

1) The 1st prototype of the Panther was used in Norway in 1940, Hit concluded they didnt need something so big or costly, so they didnt manufacture any more for several years. Think of the impact if they adopted that design in 1940 and attempted to mass manufacter it...

2) From that idea, how far did they get in rocket technologyin the war? I would guess maybe tech level 2. So, for comparison, I would think rockets would be tech 2, with maybe 1 bar of experience. You will not do much damage with that. Sooo, in game with tech 4 and 5 bars of xp should do some damage.

3) Experience: Once the Germans observed Russian rocket attacks, they developed nebelwerfers (sp). After about 6 months of use, they developed the concept of stonking, or dropping all the rockets on an area at the same time, or as close to it as possible. This was very psychologicially and physically damaging to the areas hit. This concept didn't pop up overnight, but from lots of time in the field.

Take the example of SCUD launchers from an above post. I would have to say that those would be tech 0 or 1, and no xp, and look at the effects it had. So, give the Axis more time and resources developing rocket technology, and I think many things that took 20 years to develop after WWII might occur a lot sooner.

So, I feel WaW rockets are not so out there, and they do less damage to units compared to SC2. Once tech and xp are added to these units, they can do a fair amount of damage to units, but I feel that could be plausible in the context of our game. Since there are 3 units and not 5, used properly, they can be usfeul, but not necessarily dominant in a game, imo.

[Ludi1867]

Lars

I read through your web page. There are no quotes from Hitler in there. The guidance methodology is reasonably described, and you will note that the optical method discussed does NOT involve TV technology (ie the HS 293 and Fritz-X were not early versions of some Maverick variants). So I still do not know your source, you still have not described a feasible terminal guidance system for the V-2, and even the rather optimistic CEP figures you give in your latest post are problematic in many ways – what are accuracy results in operational use, for example? A number of V-2’s were launched at large stationary targets known as bridges (the ones over the Rhine). None hit that I am aware of. Depots, etc, require accurate location knowledge and even with that accurate knowledge, the V-2 remained an inaccurate weapon. I really think it is pretty optimistic to even discuss the V-2 as a tactical weapon in any sense whatsoever.

When you say “the historical record is pretty clear that they would have had an effective weapon system”, I am clearly in disagreement with you. I have provided a valid scholarly source that is pretty persuasive that it was very unlikely, for technological DEVELOPMENT reasons, for the V-2 to be fielded much earlier than it actually was. What is your source for your sweeping generalization? I have extensive historical experience researching technological advances, and my studies invariably indicate it is very difficult to retrospectively suggest that more resources can definitely secure revolutionary advances (its usually more a matter of sudden intuitive insights – more resources can sometimes lead to pouring immense effort into blind alleys because the resources make them possible, and its “better” to do something than wait for, basically, inspiration, to strike). I also was involved in weapons R&D in a previous period, and real life sure suggested that guessing when designers could actually deliver what they SAID they could deliver is pretty damn difficult. So I neither share your amazing optimism nor your interpretation of the historical record.

Scook

Well, I suppose I cannot really disagree with most of your points. It’s really only the tactical use of strategic rockets that I find unsupportable. Nebelwerfers are not a strategic system, and I would suggest that it’s more appropriate to look at them as one of the advances you can research for Artillery. But three rockets for Germany, etc, all seems sensible, if it were restricted to strategic damage.

Minty

You clearly have not had ships sunk by V-2s in WaW. I have, and I found it strange in the extreme. However, as you suggest, for the most part a German effort in rockets usually results in weaknesses in other areas that the Allied player can exploit. Again, it’s only the tactical effectiveness of strategic rockets that I really cannot support.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Ludi1867:

Lars

I read through your web page. There are no quotes from Hitler in there.

You didn't read it very well then, did you? Sheesh, I even gave you the exact part to look at.

The guidance methodology is reasonably described, and you will note that the optical method discussed does NOT involve TV technology (ie the HS 293 and Fritz-X were not early versions of some Maverick variants). So I still do not know your source, you still have not described a feasible terminal guidance system for the V-2, and even the rather optimistic CEP figures you give in your latest post are problematic in many ways – what are accuracy results in operational use, for example? A number of V-2’s were launched at large stationary targets known as bridges (the ones over the Rhine). None hit that I am aware of.

Closest to the Remagen bridge they came was 300 meters. Granted, no hits, but they only fired eleven rockets. You couldn't really expect one with those kind of numbers. Wouldn't have knocked it out with eleven B-17's at 25,000 feet either. See same link.

Their guidance system was really quite good for the V-2. The US used it for the Explorer 1 launch in '58.

Although, I thought the simple British countermeasure was hilarious. Sneaky damn Brits.

btw, quit getting hung up on the TV system. I was think of that more for the V-1. But they did put film cameras in V-2's also, for later retrieval on the test range. Easy way of doing telemetry, no radio req’d. But, I’m sure a clever mind could come up with something feasible along those lines.

Depots, etc, require accurate location knowledge and even with that accurate knowledge, the V-2 remained an inaccurate weapon. I really think it is pretty optimistic to even discuss the V-2 as a tactical weapon in any sense whatsoever.

True, you would need recon. But that's what recon flights are for.

Btw, you keep saying “tactical”. Exactly what do you mean by that? The users own definition of strategic–tactical have lead to more misunderstandings on this forum than anything else. I’d agree we’re not talking plinking tanks here. Unless you want to go back to Fritz and the Hs, then maybe we could.

When you say “the historical record is pretty clear that they would have had an effective weapon system”, I am clearly in disagreement with you. I have provided a valid scholarly source that is pretty persuasive that it was very unlikely, for technological DEVELOPMENT reasons, for the V-2 to be fielded much earlier than it actually was. What is your source for your sweeping generalization? I have extensive historical experience researching technological advances, and my studies invariably indicate it is very difficult to retrospectively suggest that more resources can definitely secure revolutionary advances (its usually more a matter of sudden intuitive insights – more resources can sometimes lead to pouring immense effort into blind alleys because the resources make them possible, and its “better” to do something than wait for, basically, inspiration, to strike).

Er, well I guess we have a very basic disagreement here. Rocket development (in fact, almost all development) was and is mostly "evolutionary", not "revolutionary". Add more designers though, and you usually do get more results. Some quite creative. So the sooner you start, the better. The Germans piddled away their most precious resource. Time.

And I'm going to take the head of the V-2 program's word for that. Would you like quotes?

I also was involved in weapons R&D in a previous period, and real life sure suggested that guessing when designers could actually deliver what they SAID they could deliver is pretty damn difficult. So I neither share your amazing optimism nor your interpretation of the historical record.

Really? Where at? I'm a mechanical draftsman/designer-trades myself.

[ January 21, 2008, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Lars ]

[Tomb]

i regard rocket units on this scale as anything from a load of truck mounted rockets to V1's to V2's, nowhere does it say they are V2's anymore than a Pz Mk111 is unit full of Mk III's, no its a tank unit with infantry, arty and all the rest of the componants and so with a rocket unit, how you use it represent what it is, if you want to blast other units then its truck mounted tactical weapon, from the french coast then a V1, from further afield its a V2, by the way thier is hugh precident using tactical weapons to achieve strategic results and strategic weapons to get tactical results. vietnam and gulf wars to name but two more recent ones.

on this scale the rocket unit represents a caperbility rather than a specific weapon and so it should, as it does for all units, especally navy unit, the capital units would not be on thier own.

on a historic sense any time the axis has deployed such a unit it has been smothered by my allied air power just like operation cross bow, musy try and use them in my current game as axis

cheers whoever suggested that i need to put a dent in the russians

[Ludi1867]

Lars

I guess we will have to disagree. My experience was as a naval officer, and it was mainly with evolutionary designs, and even there the discrepancy between promise and delivery could be quite spectacular. (sometimes things actually came together as expected – this was not all that common.)

My reading of the history of the V-2 is that it was a revolutionary step because it was dramatically different than any weapon before and pretty much all ballistic systems since owes something to the V-2. No country was close to achieving what von Braun and his team, with the protection and pressure provided by General Dornberger assisting him, managed. Reading the history also makes it clear that there were a signficant number of times when debates on the right way forward caused problems and sidetracked advancement along what proved, in the end, to be the workable track. You appear to have much greater faith in ‘some smart guys pulling it all together’ than I do – and I think history has many more examples of failure than many perhaps realize (the successes are what tend to be highlighted).

The ‘applying more resources will make things happen sooner’ school of thought is somewhat akin to the ‘enough monkeys typing long enough will eventually come up with the complete works of Shakespeare’ belief: possibly true, but not really relevant. The problem with really different systems is that it is hard to see the evolution. Rockets are somewhat simple in concept, but ballistic weapon class rockets require advances in many things that shorter range rockets have no need of whatsoever. Simply adding more engineers and scientists does not always equal progress in that scenario – there are a remarkably large number of ways for extra resources to not help when the problem is hard to define.

So it comes down to that you are an optimist about technological development, while I am more pessimistic (I would say realist, but that might not be fair)

Tomb

Quote from the WaW Expansion notes (the manual.pdf file in WaW folder)

“Both sides worked on developing various types of surface-to-air, surface-to-surface, air-to-surface and air-to-air rocket technology. Launched from bases in Holland, the V-1 and V-2 rockets developed by Germany proved to be quite devastating to cities like London. While the V-1 was mostly a nuisance, the V-2 presented a potentially serious threat. Fortunately for the Allies, the V-2 program suffered from many of the common problems Germany faced in the later war years, such as material and fuel shortages as well as disrupted production.

Each level of Rockets research improves the strategic attack, and strike range values for all Rockets. It also increases the chance by 10% that a rocket attack against a resource occupied by a defender will inflict a hit on that defending unit.

However, Rocket units are unique in that their attack values decrease by a percentage with increasing range. This decrease in effectiveness represents the inherent inaccuracy of WWII rockets at extended range. Production and reinforcement costs of Rockets increase by 10% with each achievement.”

end quote

This suggests strongly that the main aspect modeled with strategic rockets in WaW is the V-2, as does the fact that AA has no impact on strategic rockets. Allied AA systems dramatically decreased the impact of the V-1 assault, which is probably (I did not write the above, so this is conjecture) why the notes say the “V-1 was mostly a nuisance’. So I think the main thrust of the strategic rocket unit reasonably equates with the V-2. It was a unique, and dramatically different, weapon in the war in that there was simply no defence once it was launched.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Ludi1867:

Lars

I guess we will have to disagree. My experience was as a naval officer, and it was mainly with evolutionary designs, and even there the discrepancy between promise and delivery could be quite spectacular. (sometimes things actually came together as expected – this was not all that common.)

My reading of the history of the V-2 is that it was a revolutionary step because it was dramatically different than any weapon before and pretty much all ballistic systems since owes something to the V-2. No country was close to achieving what von Braun and his team, with the protection and pressure provided by General Dornberger assisting him, managed. Reading the history also makes it clear that there were a signficant number of times when debates on the right way forward caused problems and sidetracked advancement along what proved, in the end, to be the workable track. You appear to have much greater faith in ‘some smart guys pulling it all together’ than I do – and I think history has many more examples of failure than many perhaps realize (the successes are what tend to be highlighted).

The ‘applying more resources will make things happen sooner’ school of thought is somewhat akin to the ‘enough monkeys typing long enough will eventually come up with the complete works of Shakespeare’ belief: possibly true, but not really relevant. The problem with really different systems is that it is hard to see the evolution. Rockets are somewhat simple in concept, but ballistic weapon class rockets require advances in many things that shorter range rockets have no need of whatsoever. Simply adding more engineers and scientists does not always equal progress in that scenario – there are a remarkably large number of ways for extra resources to not help when the problem is hard to define.

So it comes down to that you are an optimist about technological development, while I am more pessimistic (I would say realist, but that might not be fair)

Well, with 23 years of experience in design, I can tell you great things can be expected when management just gives you money and gets out of the way.

65,000 drawing changes on the V-2. I almost threw up my hands and quit arguing. I get hand cramps just thinking about it.

Do some more reading and I think you will find they were much closer than you realize. If you're willing to grant 4 additional years of development, with multiple teams working on it and full support, they stood a very good chance. Von Braun wasn't the only smart guy they had, it's just that he survived to become famous, others didn't.

[arado234]

From what ive read about the V2(rockets in general)Germany could have had them ready for ww2 IF Hitler was able to see the atvantages of them and go allout to perfect them.Its much easier to test and build something when you are winning and not being bombed although I dont know what effect this would have had on the rest of the rearming program as far as resources go.

[Wicky]

German, Gerhard Zucker was launching liquid fuelled rockets at Harris in Scotland in 1934! Made into a movie 'The Rocket Post'

German's 'air mail' idea goes up in smoke

[Lars]

Ludi, went and built lvl 5 rockets last night, just for giggles.

Went balls to the wall, had them up to lvl 3 for the invasion of France, lvl 5 shortly after the fall.

Strangely enough, I ran in to all the problems the Germans had, or would have had. I can hit anything in England, but I'm getting no feedback on damage caused, Bomber doesn't have the range. Takes two strikes to close a convoy port, and they don't stay closed long. And I can't get squat in results for hitting ships at sea (two tiles away) or in a port.

The down side, I'm sitting with three lvl 0 tanks and the balloon is about to go up in Russia. We'll see how it goes.

[Ludi1867]

A234

There is a class of literature out there that would make you think that German scientists invented almost everything during the war, and only the lack of vision of Hitler prevented this or that secret weapon from winning the war. The scholarly literature is not quite as exciting to read. However, after reading a variety of sources, I am not convinced that it is as easy to develop ballistic rockets as some have suggested in this thread. The A-4/V-2 was an amazing accomplishment, and orders of magnitude more capable than other contemporary rockets. Looking at programs by those such as Goddard, etc simply reinforces how much the German design teams achieved. If you read just one scholarly work, the one by Neufeld, I would suggest you might be less inclined to argue that a ‘little more vision’ by Hitler would have changed things.

If anything, the Germans invested far too many resources in rockets. The result is, in some ways, not all that different than the usual result in WaW, as Lars is experimenting with. The aspect that I continue to disagree with is tactical impacts. Lars pointed to the Remagen bridge (specifically, the 325 M Ludendorff bridge over the Rhine there). 11 V-2s were launched at this large stationary target in March 1945, and the CLOSEST one fell 300 yards from the bridge (about 500 yards from the aim point). So less than 10 percent of rockets launched, at a well known stationary target, came even mildly close, within a quarter of a mile. There are all kinds of problems with this example, small sample size, etc, but the basic point remains that even late in the war, aiming at large stationary targets, the V-2 was not very good. So to have strategic rockets in WaW do damage to ships, etc, is ludicrous.

Wicky

Interesting post – I was not aware of this particular experiment. However, the small rocket that they attempted to use here was comparable to the ‘state of the art’ in that period, and is simply not in any way close to the A-4/V-2. Suggesting that you just have to ‘increase the size of everything a bit’ from the Scottish postal rocket to get a useful Ballistic Missile is rather similar to saying a Sopwith Camel could be a Spitfire with a few improvements – true if you ignore all the technical problems.

Lars

Interesting experiment. You certainly have better luck with R&D than I do, but it is clearly a drain of scarce German resources in WaW to follow the path you are on. Again, my main gripe is the tactical effectiveness of this weapon.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Ludi1867:

Lars

Interesting experiment. You certainly have better luck with R&D than I do, but it is clearly a drain of scarce German resources in WaW to follow the path you are on. Again, my main gripe is the tactical effectiveness of this weapon.

Considering everything I gave up to get them, they dang well better be.

[Scook]

Originally posted by Lars:

Ludi, went and built lvl 5 rockets last night, just for giggles.

Went balls to the wall, had them up to lvl 3 for the invasion of France, lvl 5 shortly after the fall.

Strangely enough, I ran in to all the problems the Germans had, or would have had. I can hit anything in England, but I'm getting no feedback on damage caused, Bomber doesn't have the range. Takes two strikes to close a convoy port, and they don't stay closed long. And I can't get squat in results for hitting ships at sea (two tiles away) or in a port.

The down side, I'm sitting with three lvl 0 tanks and the balloon is about to go up in Russia. We'll see how it goes.

Because you are German, you really would like to have accurate test results, it's in your blood! (well, ok, any scientist would really want to know). So, move those rockets to a place you can see what is happening: Malta. After firing a few thousand rockets at the island (and get to at least two bars of xp and pump them up to str 12)your teams will have valuable data to help ensure a more devastaing attack with rockets. By that time, you will want them in the Eastern Front to help slow the Red Tide. Blast some economic centers down to 0, find the HQs and *ahem* disrupt their supply capabilities.

Game play, I find rockets, no matter what tech level, very useless until you get to 2 bars of xp, and overstrength them. I think the way combat is calcutated the multipliers from those two facets are what give the oomph to rockets.

[Marty Ward]

When rockets gain experiance what exactly are they gaining, better crews? Did the experiance of rocket crews help make the V1 & V2 much more effective in real life?

[Lars]

Why not just blast the convoy ports as I'm doing?

Still get the xp, and you keep England prostrate. Add up what comes in and out of those two ports and it's pretty devastating. Not a war winner in the game, but a great long term delayer.

[Sombra]

Perhpas I have not played many games where rockets have been used against with much effekt. I have much more problems with the huge damage "Stukas" can deal in this game. To get rockets to be effective you need to build them ...invest R&D and protect it against airstrikes or commando raids ... its role is strongly limited to bombard Londress as it is hard to moce rockets around...

[Lars]

Well, I got lvl 2 mech too. They move out pretty good with that.