Panzer Leo
Posts: 526
Joined: 6/13/2001 From: Braunschweig/Germany Status: offline
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by AmmoSgt [B]Panzer Leo as it happens check the dispersion on the 4.5 inch rockets fired from tubes in the link .. it is 15 mils in the game the rockets are fired at 150 and 100 yards they are boresighted and harmonized ( Rockets from either wing being aimed to cross at a certain point in front of the aircraft ) using the aircrafts boresight.. they can be single fired , Zuni Rockets I believe , but cannot documant right now ( Those are the 5" ) are a little better accuracy wise( They certainly stayed in service as a standard air to ground weapon much longer and were still being used extensively in Vietnam) and the Brits used some big 6" ( the ones you see in pictures with the warhead bigger than the rocket body ) on Typhoons and Tempests .. Rocket can be fired singlely and repeat runs can be made , check the link. btw a 15 mil dispersion is about 50 inches at 100 yards 75 inches at 150 yards I agree about the APDS being over issued , I'm Not sure about any tanks being intro'ed to early .. maybe the Wolverine is a month or so early.. as to the AT Pen rating of the various ammo . all I know is that Paul has a formula he applies to all the rounds from all the countries uniformly , so if any one country is over pen'ing then they all are .. same with armor equivalent .. I simply do not have the formulas and the math to contest Pauls calculation on that. As far as APDS goes IIRC the supply figures in a mega sense for the ETO from the History of the US Ordnance Corp was 2 rounds per tube per month ... that does not mean 2 rounds per tank per month .. it is a supply level .. and in Theater supplies would be 60 days idealy. Distribution would be by Corp and by the likely hood of actaully engaging Enemy Armor . However you basic point is VERY VERY Valid .. US tanks should be forced to maneuver for side and rear shots .. force to map area should be low enough to allow such maneuver and arty support should be sufficent to suppress enemy assets to the degree manuver is feasible .. If it isn't most sane commanders will refuse the engagement , The US had that luxury unless suprised ( didn't happen often , the Bulge come to mind ) . My understanding is that APDS is a universal over issue to all nations and is an offset to the fact that every battle is a tank battle and that nobody is getting a 5 to 1 tank ratio with the point system disregarding production .. But Like I said I support Historical issue of all ammo types .. and the US should have to work for side shots and the map should be large enough for maneuver .. You can do that now in Battle ( 100x 240 and maybe 5000 points say) but not campaign . Frontally you can find occasions where the 76 did pen Panthers but it should be rare .. and you should have German tanks running out of fuel and ammo on the battle field .. that happened a lot . Basically US Tanks could use a relook on ammo if not pen ( I really hate to take on the pen and armor thickness issue because those formulas are just not available ) .. but it would have to go hand in hand with Arty rework .. I have no problem with breaking the Bazookas out from the squads so long as the Company Total remians about the same .. so much of the US Infantry Fire Power was either at the HQ Co or Weapons Co and distrbuted down to Platoon and Squad based on the mission , and those formation are not even in the game. You start adding in the Bazooka Plt from HQ and Players start whining about too many bazookas . The Point though is to differentiate the various Armies in the Game to the Maximum extent possible so fighting the Brits is not the same as fighting the Russian or as the US . Different priorities in weapons different doctrines , different philosphies make very different armies .. US tanks become Overwhelming Monsters when they support Infantry against an Infantry only oponent, US without Air and Arty should be taking it in the shorts against a Tank heavy German Force. Germany should have to sacrifice Infantry to clear US Infantry to get the tanks thru .. Thats was German doctrine, On offense , Infantry makes the hole .. not the tanks .. the Tanks exploit the hole. On Defense later in the war it was different .. anything at hand was thrown in to fill gaps . But whats the most played setup .. meeting engagements with Heavy tanks up front running into over ammoed Shermans like nobody ever did recon .. and I don't mean running a few 222's and jeeps 10 hexes in front of the tanks .. The whole set up stinks as far as running anything resembling actual tactics , mostly because of map/ force ratios, to say nothing of games set to short for a dismounted infantry advance , but also all the little compromises and averaging and offsets and the outright ignorance of tactics by the players . US was different it had the Mechanization and the Tanks to support Infantry Directly in the Breakthru and in the defense .. Could you imagine a German Army with 150 foot Infantry Divisions each with enough attached transport and a Tank Bn a TD Bn a mech AAA Bn and a Regiment of Arty Plus thier Tank and Mech Infanty Divisions ? Scary .. The Germans almost always held their Armor and Mech back either as reserves to counter breakthrus or as the Breakthru exploitive force .. not as the contact force or spread out to support the line. Infantry if it was lucky and elete got a smattering of stugs at divison to handle breakthrus Until Army reserves could show up and they defended in depth 10's of kilometers ... all of this is ignored , units are twisted to accomidate the map and packed sholder to sholder and fiddled with to somehow make it work . All that aside Infantry weapons should be right .. break the bazookas out of the squads if that works for you .. Rates of fire for things like Sturmis ..hey and a Hellcat only shoots 5 times in 2 minutes, all the rates of fire are way off . PZIV's should be popping 20 times a turn tigers maybe 12 57mm every 4 seconds Flak 88 maybe 20, intsead we got sturmis shooting twice. go figure ... Everybody should pick a country and work to make it right .. I am concerned with the US I support reducing the AT ammo IF the Arty gets right . [/B][/QUOTE] Don't get me wrong, the penetration ratings are excellent. I just put them up to show the difference between a conventional AP shot and an APCR (HVAP), so everyone can see what an impact it has, when the latter gets overdistributed. Technically you're right about the rockets being able to fire only one at a time. But honestly, how many times of the hundreds you have seen from the shots taken from aircraft cameras on History Channel did a pilot fire one rocket, looked if it hit, fired a second and save six for the next three runs ? I'm sure you have seen these pictures more times then I have and I saw many...Once I saw a Wildcat in the Pacific fire only two...once ! And never I saw just one rocket leave a plane in a run...honestly, did you ? Well, and the accuracy of rockets...did you ever sit in a small plane...how much it moves up and down and even sidewards...you know better then me what a nick of just 1 degree up or downwards means for the rockets chances to hit an area of only a few square meters... But with all you said above, you will find that H2H adresses 99% of your issues...all the things you mentioned drove me mad in 7.1 games...tank heavy...wrong tactics...meeting clashes...just nuts ! (Did I already mention, that I raised the ROF of guns (tank and AT) by one across the board) H2H is a slower paced game, infantry based and national doctrines following. If you do not base your forces in H2H on infantry (as you said...they do all the work to let the mechanized troops shine) and your opponent does (and knows to handle them), you will loose... Germans are weaker in H2H, have less fancy equipement, more focused to the standard, tough to play when not infantry based US are much weaker (then in 7.1), an Army based on mobile infantry that is not a spectacular force of it's trade, but has the best support from all nations (arty, air, infantry tanks). If you know how to handle that kind of support, you can handle most situations. Russians stayed about the same in lethality. The only Army that actually can deploy tank based forces without having a disadvantage, arty though not as good as US is a major factor, too. British forces stayed unchanged in strength. Because Germans and US got weaker, the British got competitive again...a good mix of weapons is what makes them dangereous...they win battles because they have no weaknesses...and no strengths also :) This list goes on even for smaller countries...in H2H you have to "learn" to use a nation...they differ much more then in 7.1 Give up your crusade against Tigerkiddies and for a completely overhauled SPWAW v8. H2H is by far not perfect, but somehow I got the feeling it comes much closer to your likings than you might think... Wanna play a battle ? H2H fr, C&C ON, you US, me GER...infantry based with real tactics :)
_____________________________
[URL=http://www.theblitz.org/member_sites/panzer_leo_spw@w/spwaw_h2h_modrework.php] [IMG]http://www.theblitz.org/member_sites/panzer_leo_spw@w/PzLeos-H2H-Title-1.jpg[/IMG] [/URL] Mir nach, ich folge euch !
|