RE: Artillery AP Strengths

RE: Artillery AP Strengths (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design

Message

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/9/2010 3:27:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Central Blue You left out elan vitale, esprit de corps, and joie de vie. That's proficiency. quote: Not that any of your post tells us how Norm arrived at his numbers, ... So what? They're editable. (Norm did that plenty of times.) But I expect that there were a suite of factors considered rather than any simple ROF x Weight formula. quote: ...or how they might be improved. It identifies some of the issues - which is the first step.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/9/2010 3:29:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink Remember the Grognard who "accused" good'ole Norm, that his formulas for the TOAW system are bollox? There are some little bits and bobs that might irk some players... The naval/air system and how it works etc. For monster scenarios, the simple solution for it is the event system. TOAW wasn't designed to create the "Hunt for the Bismarck" or the naval campaigns in the Pacific etc. Neither was it designed to re-create the "Battle of Britain" or "Piercing the Reich" style strategic air campaigns, no? Here's Norm's answer (to this bloke) to many questions that have been addressed or still being addressed in the forum. http://normkoger.com/truth.html And remember - No battle plan survives contact with the enemy... HvM, the elder. Both sides of that argument pertained to TOAW I. A lot of it is obsolete now. Some of the guy's points were actually acted on by Norm later: AT strengths are now applied individually rather than summed, for example.

Central Blue -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/9/2010 5:44:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink Remember the Grognard who "accused" good'ole Norm, that his formulas for the TOAW system are bollox? There are some little bits and bobs that might irk some players... The naval/air system and how it works etc. For monster scenarios, the simple solution for it is the event system. TOAW wasn't designed to create the "Hunt for the Bismarck" or the naval campaigns in the Pacific etc. Neither was it designed to re-create the "Battle of Britain" or "Piercing the Reich" style strategic air campaigns, no? Here's Norm's answer (to this bloke) to many questions that have been addressed or still being addressed in the forum. http://normkoger.com/truth.html And remember - No battle plan survives contact with the enemy... HvM, the elder. And he gets pretty testy about the whole rate of fire thing, going so far as to shout "Let's hear it again: R_A_T_E O_F F_I_R_E" He also has an ROF table in the manual for Tanks.

Oberst_Klink -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/9/2010 6:54:33 PM)
Awww, flashback to TANKS! Age of Rifles, Red Lightning.... and before, SSI's Kampgruppe, USAAF, WitSP... What a pimpled youg lad I was back then... ;)

Central Blue -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/9/2010 6:56:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay It identifies some of the issues - which is the first step. OK. Let's take a look. quote: And accuracy is more complicated than just whether the tube is rifled or smooth or any other tube quality. No doubt. Is it an appropriate factor for the scenario in question? I can see where it might be appropriate for something like a scenario from the Italian invasion of Ethipia or action on the Eastern Front in WWI at 2.5 KM per hex and four turns per day. Should it be handled by editing the weapon, or by editing proficiency? Could you actually show us how such numbers might be arranged at? quote: There's whether the angle is found by pencil and paper then set by hand crank or is it all set up by computer control? How long it takes you to figure out range, angle, and propellants effects ROF. quote: Couple this with the increasing strength of modern explosives, There are equivalency tables for explosives all over the internet. Add in that one of the factors that makes modern artillery more lethal is higher ROF. So, not really an issue. quote: Then there's things like nape and grape. Napalm is an air weapons problem. As for grape, the shells would have a ROF, but no bursting charge, and they would be direct fire, rather than indirect. So I would assume that they were on some different scale using some relatively simple forumula. If I was interested in modeling discrete differences between various muzzle loaders for a given scenario, I would start by looking at what Norm has for the existing muzzle loaders in the game (most of which are ID'ed by country and date range) and compare to the literature available on the internet at place like AHEC, CARL, scribd, and google books. You might prefer some other process for doing that, which you don't seem to be in a hurry to describe. quote: But I expect that there were a suite of factors considered rather than any simple ROF x Weight formula. Because of previous conversations with Norm? Because you think a guy with his degrees in physics would be uncomfortable working with simple, well-known formulas like the square root of the explosive charge, for indirect fire weapons? Because you have run tests that lead you to believe that you have identified enough factors that would actually make up a "suite;" and which you could actually put out there for people to test? Because you have seen things in the code that you can't describe because of non-disclosure agreements?

Panama -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/9/2010 7:04:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Central Blue He also has an ROF table in the manual for Tanks. Wow, you actually made me look to see if I still had my copy. [:D]

ColinWright -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/9/2010 9:46:42 PM)
I tend to see all this as succumbing to a fallacy, and the fallacy is that what can be quantified is all that matters, and focusing on the completely quantifiable is going to give us the ideal system. I freely modify numbers of weapons, and I focus on what are the most egregious failings in the real world. The Stuka doesn't have anything like the effect it had in real life -- I double the AP and AT values. I don't need to perform any calculations to do that -- and I'm doing a lot more than I would if I eventually determined that the early 76 mm gun in the database should have two added to its AP and its range reduced by 3 km. It's like these elaborate proposed new databases for ships. Well, that's okay as far as it goes -- but it totally ignores the central problem, which how TOAW handles naval/air warfare. It's like having a car with square wheels -- and trying to decide what brand of shocks will most improve the ride. The values in the database probably aren't perfect. Would any set inarguably be? It depends how one weights the various possible factors -- and what set of circumstances the piece is going to be used in. Some immobile World War One monster is going to be just as good as its 1953 successor -- under one set of circumstances. Under another, there'll be no comparison. So I take the database as a given -- and alter it to meet my needs where I perceive some gross inaccuracy. I certainly don't think there is some 'perfect' database out there. That's like trying to pick out the perfect car -- without knowing whether you're planning to run a ranch in Montana or an art museum in Manhattan. Put it this way. The Brewster Buffalo was almost universally reviled -- except by the Finns, who liked it. I don't know why, and I don't care. I would cheerfully make its AA value 4 in one scenario -- and then 11 in one about the Finnish theater in 1942. I wouldn't even blush -- and I certainly wouldn't fret about how many rounds were carried for each gun, or what it's rate of climb was, or anything else. I want those weapons to perform as they did in the scenario I am modeling. How they did or why they did isn't my department. TOAW isn't a tactical wargame.

Panama -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/10/2010 12:33:05 AM)
Well said. [;)]

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/10/2010 4:17:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Central Blue quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay And accuracy is more complicated than just whether the tube is rifled or smooth or any other tube quality. No doubt. Is it an appropriate factor for the scenario in question? I can see where it might be appropriate for something like a scenario from the Italian invasion of Ethipia or action on the Eastern Front in WWI at 2.5 KM per hex and four turns per day. Should it be handled by editing the weapon, or by editing proficiency? Could you actually show us how such numbers might be arranged at? If it is intrinsic to the weapon system, then it isn't a proficiency issue. A more accurate weapon is going to be more lethal than the less accurate one. And this is a factor for why earlier weapons might need to be rated lower than modern ones of the same caliber and ROF. quote: How long it takes you to figure out range, angle, and propellants effects ROF. I don't think that is normally included in ROF figures. And it goes beyond that. The computer controlled system is just going to be more accurate, period. quote: quote: Couple this with the increasing strength of modern explosives, There are equivalency tables for explosives all over the internet. Add in that one of the factors that makes modern artillery more lethal is higher ROF. So, not really an issue. Of course it's an issue. It means that shell weight alone isn't enough to determine the lethality of a given ROF. You have to factor in the explosive power of the charge. It doesn't matter if it's on the internet if it isn't in the formula. quote: quote: Then there's things like nape and grape. Napalm is an air weapons problem. I'm not so sure about that. Can't it be delivered by artillery? Regardless, TOAW does have air equipment, so it's an issue one way or the other. quote: As for grape, the shells would have a ROF, but no bursting charge, and they would be direct fire, rather than indirect. So I would assume that they were on some different scale using some relatively simple forumula. If I was interested in modeling discrete differences between various muzzle loaders for a given scenario, ... By "grape" I was referring to cluster bomblets. quote: quote: But I expect that there were a suite of factors considered rather than any simple ROF x Weight formula. Because of previous conversations with Norm? Because you think a guy with his degrees in physics would be uncomfortable working with simple, well-known formulas like the square root of the explosive charge, for indirect fire weapons? Because you have run tests that lead you to believe that you have identified enough factors that would actually make up a "suite;" and which you could actually put out there for people to test? Because you have seen things in the code that you can't describe because of non-disclosure agreements? Because there are clearly other factors that have been identified. And, I think it's been acknowledged on this and other threads that a simple ROF x shell weight formula doesn't account for all of Norm's numbers. Compare the standard 155mm gun with the Paladin system (32 AP vs. 48 AP). Regardless, even if he didn't factor in everything, that doesn't preclude anyone else from doing so.

Central Blue -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/10/2010 6:30:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay If it is intrinsic to the weapon system, then it isn't a proficiency issue. A more accurate weapon is going to be more lethal than the less accurate one. And this is a factor for why earlier weapons might need to be rated lower than modern ones of the same caliber and ROF. If it were my goal to reform the entire db of generalized artillery weapons in the existing database, I agree with you. But I tend to think that the problem you identify is most likely to show up where there is a significant disparity between the two sides in the indirect artillery. Making the artillery work for pre-WW I models is not high on my list, though I am awfully suspicious of that Austro-Hungarian piece from 1899 that has an AP value of 140. quote: The computer controlled system is just going to be more accurate, period. I'll let the slide-rule guys argue that with you. I was interested in how Norm arrived at his numbers, at least for the period I am interested in. I doubt he included accuracy in his calculations. If there were some way to figure it, and put it to use, I wouldn't be against it. But that would be in the realm of improving on Norm's numbers, and for a more weapon-specific DB than we have to begin with. quote: Of course it's an issue. It means that shell weight alone isn't enough to determine the lethality of a given ROF. You have to factor in the explosive power of the charge. It doesn't matter if it's on the internet if it isn't in the formula. Well, since my spreadsheet includes the weight of the charge, as well as the weight of the shell, you'll have to take that up with someone that relies on shell weight alone. I was trying to improve on Norm's original formula that extrapolated the bursting charge from the diameter of the projectile, by replacing it with available data on the actual weight of the charge. The same Technical Manuals that provided my data on the weight of the charge, also have information on the composition of the charge. So, it wouldn't be hard to plug that information into the spreadsheet that I uploaded. I don't know when I will get around to it, but I published the spreadsheet as a theory for others to play with. quote: I'm not so sure about that. Can't it be delivered by artillery? Regardless, TOAW does have air equipment, so it's an issue one way or the other. Right. But I wasn't trying to solve every question in the game before posting the spreadsheet. I didn't notice any napalm shells in the WWII artillery data I was looking at. There was certainly the nasty Willie Pete, but since you only get to pick one shell to measure for range and effect, you have to make a choice. quote: By "grape" I was referring to cluster bomblets. Ah, submunitions. I tend to agree that they would probably not scale in quite the same way. I don't know if that is the most common shell fired these days, but I'll bet that there is a fair amount of information available through sources like the Fort Sill Field Artillery Journal, so that the resulting numbers wouldn't look like something that had to do with the color of my mood ring when I was editing that piece. quote: I think it's been acknowledged on this and other threads that a simple ROF x shell weight formula doesn't account for all of Norm's numbers. You'll have to take that up with someone who is making that argument. Since this thread started with a question about Norm's AP value for artillery, I believe that I am on to something that answers that question, at least for artillery between WWI and, perhaps, the widespread use of submunitions or other significant post-WWII technical multipliers. I've tried to answer questions that relate to that original question. And you have raised valid points about artillery. If people want to argue with the work because they think it's a Theory of Everything or doesn't answer their questions about the air model . . . [>:] quote: Regardless, even if he didn't factor in everything, that doesn't preclude anyone else from doing so. I think he tried to keep it simple. If others think it can be refined to see real world differences, I just want to know if the change is made by mood ring, or by some factor that others can test and use.

Panama -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/10/2010 7:20:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Central Blue I think he tried to keep it simple. If others think it can be refined to see real world differences, I just want to know if the change is made by mood ring, or by some factor that others can test and use. Yes, that's the thing. He tried to keep it simple and mostly generic. Some of the stuff you are forced to use in WW2 is marked as WW1 equipment. So how accurate can that be? The reason for the question in the first place was to get past the generic for the equipment in a single scenario. Like, what exactly is a HMG? Does a tripod make a 7.92mm gun a heavy machine gun equal to a 12.7mm? Some scenario designers think so and it will certainly throw off combat results. There's never a Norm around when you need one. [8\|]

Central Blue -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/10/2010 8:31:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panama Yes, that's the thing. He tried to keep it simple and mostly generic. Some of the stuff you are forced to use in WW2 is marked as WW1 equipment. So how accurate can that be? The reason for the question in the first place was to get past the generic for the equipment in a single scenario. I think he kept it simple to appeal to a wider range of people. Back in those days a relatively small number of gamers were willing to make the investment required to collect the kind of data that is now widely available for free on the internet -- and most of those grogs were probably playing minatures. Why open a can of worms about the differences between five or six different 105mm artillery pieces or machine guns when you're targeting people that grew up with generic cardboard chits that gave you an offensive, defensive, and movement rate? I'll never understand why he included muzzle-loading cannons and lancers, except that he was coming off Age of Rifles. [Like, what exactly is a HMG? Does a tripod make a 7.92mm gun a heavy machine gun equal to a 12.7mm? Some scenario designers think so and it will certainly throw off combat results.] It's hard to understand the .50 M2HB by ROF or weight alone. I think that Norm must have been taking into account the gaudy effect of the ammunition described at the bottom of this link. quote: The .50 caliber round can penetrate all of the commonly found urban barriers except a sand-filled 55-gallon drum. Continued and concentrated machine gun fire can breach most typical urban walls. Such fire cannot breach thick reinforced concrete structures or dense natural stone walls. Internal walls, partitions, plaster, floors, ceilings, common office furniture, home appliances, and bedding can be easily penetrated by .50 caliber rounds. You can run, but you can't hide, from Ma Deuce. But you are right that approximating the AP value of the MG42 by using the existing HMG value gives it a penetration and AA value that it didn't have. And German machine gun units take a big hit if you use the mmg. Is there a penetration factor or kinetic energy factor hidden in the AP value of the exisitng "HMG?" Or did Norm consult his mood ring? quote: There's never a Norm around when you need one Like why divide the gross AP value by 8? I wonder how many fingers he has?

ColinWright -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/10/2010 9:58:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Central Blue ...I'll never understand why he included muzzle-loading cannons and lancers, except that he was coming off Age of Rifles... My understanding is that his original ambition was to make a system that would cover everything from the Franco-Prussian War to modern times. I think that's a tad impractical, but that is my understanding.

ColinWright -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/10/2010 10:18:13 PM)
There's also the point that Norm didn't have supernatural powers.� My life over the last ten years would be quite different without his system, and depending on how one looks at it I'm either eternally grateful or hold him responsible -- but he wasn't God in either case. Those values are his research.� Sometimes obviously hasty and superficial, and in all cases, excessively determined by the quantifiable attributes of the system (shell weight, weight of fire, HP/weight ratio, etc.)� I don't blame him at all:� more care and the game never would have appeared.� However, the values are not Holy Writ. Moreover, the purely World War One era systems:� Spads, A7U's, etc appar to have been hastily tacked on to squeeze another release out of the series.� That there was both a WGOTY and an ACOW was obviously a money-making ploy.� I'm not concerned what Norm's involvement in that was, nor am I passing judgment, but I wouldn't assume the game fairly compares a Sopwith Camel to a CR-42. To repeat, nothing Norm did is Holy Writ.� Some of the changes since have made matters worse rather than better, but it's still mildly absurd to act as if some value in the program is a passage from the Torah on the grounds that it was decided by Norm. If it looks strange, it's entirely possible that it's off, and happily, we have the Bio-editor.� Fix it and use the corrected value.� Make an MG-42 if you want an MG-42.�

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/11/2010 5:08:46 PM)
And another factor: Proximity fuses. A shell that bursts at just the right altitude is more deadly than one that wastes most of it's power moving dirt. This was only generally available after WWII or very late in it by the US. Then there's how much of the shell weight is explosive vs. casing. More charge = more powerful. Some very late shells might have no casing at all, since research showed that the shock wave generated by the blast is actually more deadly than any shrapnel. Again, all of this tends to require more and more lethality for later and later weapon systems of, otherwise, the same caliber.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/11/2010 5:12:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright quote: ORIGINAL: Central Blue ...I'll never understand why he included muzzle-loading cannons and lancers, except that he was coming off Age of Rifles... My understanding is that his original ambition was to make a system that would cover everything from the Franco-Prussian War to modern times. I think that's a tad impractical, but that is my understanding. Shermans were still in use late in the 20th Century. Just because a weapon system is obsolete doesn't mean you can't still run into late uses of it. So, in the year 1900, in Outer Mongolia ...

Panama -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/11/2010 6:17:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Central Blue ...I'll never understand why he included muzzle-loading cannons and lancers, except that he was coming off Age of Rifles... The Polish cavalry used the lance as a weapon until 1934 and continued to use it as a training device until the outbreak of World War 2. It took German tanks and machine guns to convince them to totally eliminate the lance. Also, if I recall correctly, the Italians faced muzzle loaders in Ethiopia.

ColinWright -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/11/2010 7:03:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright quote: ORIGINAL: Central Blue ...I'll never understand why he included muzzle-loading cannons and lancers, except that he was coming off Age of Rifles... My understanding is that his original ambition was to make a system that would cover everything from the Franco-Prussian War to modern times. I think that's a tad impractical, but that is my understanding. Shermans were still in use late in the 20th Century. Just because a weapon system is obsolete doesn't mean you can't still run into late uses of it. So, in the year 1900, in Outer Mongolia ... Yeah -- but that doesn't mean OPART can represent them correctly in their new context.

ColinWright -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/11/2010 7:05:52 PM)
...

ColinWright -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/11/2010 7:23:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panama quote: ORIGINAL: Central Blue ...I'll never understand why he included muzzle-loading cannons and lancers, except that he was coming off Age of Rifles... The Polish cavalry used the lance as a weapon until 1934 and continued to use it as a training device until the outbreak of World War 2. It took German tanks and machine guns to convince them to totally eliminate the lance. Also, if I recall correctly, the Italians faced muzzle loaders in Ethiopia. I doubt if these weapons systems are assigned values that correctly assess their value relative to World War Two weapons. More likely, they make sense with respect to each other. Lessee here...yeah. A 24 pounder rifled muzzle-loading gun has an AP value of 6. A British 25 pounder has an AP of 21. I would definitely rather be on the side with the one 25 pounder. You can have the side with the four 24 pounder muzzle loaders -- unless we are in TOAW-land, of course. I think the system will fall down if you have weapons from widely separated eras having at each other. After all, one MG 42 could probably dispatch a hundred 'saber cavalry squads' in reality -- but not in TOAW. If such match-ups are actually a major part of your scenario, you'd probably best pull out the ol'Bio-editor and get to editing. I don't think things are going to work very well with stock values.

Panama -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/11/2010 7:36:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright quote: ORIGINAL: Panama quote: ORIGINAL: Central Blue ...I'll never understand why he included muzzle-loading cannons and lancers, except that he was coming off Age of Rifles... The Polish cavalry used the lance as a weapon until 1934 and continued to use it as a training device until the outbreak of World War 2. It took German tanks and machine guns to convince them to totally eliminate the lance. Also, if I recall correctly, the Italians faced muzzle loaders in Ethiopia. I doubt if these weapons systems are assigned values that correctly assess their value relative to World War Two weapons. More likely, they make sense with respect to each other. Lessee here...yeah. A 24 pounder rifled muzzle-loading gun has an AP value of 6. A British 25 pounder has an AP of 21. I would definitely rather put up with four 24 pounder muzzle-loaders having at me than somebody playing 'where's the Colin' with one 25 pounder. I think the system will fall down if you have weapons from widely separated eras having at each other. After all, one MG 42 could probably dispatch a hundred 'saber cavalry squads' in reality -- but not in TOAW. If such match-ups are actually a major part of your scenario, you'd probably best pull out the ol'Bio-editor and get to editing. I don't think things are going to work very well with stock values. To be honest, the game doesn't work real well in any scenario that covers a long period of time. It's good for a few months but I think that's about it. It doesn't handle change very well because many things that change in a campaign over time are not allowed to be changed by the sceanrio designer in a practical way in a scenario. So people muddle along, do the best they can. And while that may work 'ok' it does not work well. In any event, looks like I'll take Collin's advice and do what fits a scenario best to make it better reflect history.

ColinWright -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/11/2010 7:44:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panama To be honest, the game doesn't work real well in any scenario that covers a long period of time. It's good for a few months but I think that's about it. It doesn't handle change very well because many things that change in a campaign over time are not allowed to be changed by the sceanrio designer in a practical way in a scenario. So people muddle along, do the best they can. And while that may work 'ok' it does not work well. It's a pain, that's for sure. I've got one going that covers two years, and I'm combining equipment types that stop and start appearing in the pool with TO's to withdraw and entirely requip units with just fudging a bit. It'll work out in the end I imagine -- but it sure would help if a global limit on equipment for each unit could be set in the editor. That way a unit couldn't wind up with a full complement of the new Pz IIIJ's and still have sixteen of its old Pz -38's. As matters stand, if I notice that my Army Tank Brigade still has 78 of its Matildas in September 1941...well, I could take it into my head to pull it back and wait until it has 152 Valentines too and only then commit Uberbrigade Wright to action.

ColinWright -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/11/2010 7:48:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay And another factor: Proximity fuses. A shell that bursts at just the right altitude is more deadly than one that wastes most of it's power moving dirt. This was only generally available after WWII or very late in it by the US. Note that it depends what you're shooting at. Air-burst shells have been around since 1803, but if the troops are in dugouts they're not going to do much good.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/11/2010 11:08:06 PM)
And one more thing I remember: there's some sort of new bomb that first shocks gasoline into an aerosol - then ignites it. The yield is close to tactical nukes.

Panama -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/11/2010 11:58:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay And one more thing I remember: there's some sort of new bomb that first shocks gasoline into an aerosol - then ignites it. The yield is close to tactical nukes. They have a lot of names. We called them foo bombs. They don't work real well in the rain. And they're not all that new. Take 1k pounds of jet fuel, turn it into a mist, then ignite it. Very impressive.

Central Blue -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/12/2010 4:32:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay Then there's how much of the shell weight is explosive vs. casing. More charge = more powerful. Some very late shells might have no casing at all, since research showed that the shock wave generated by the blast is actually more deadly than any shrapnel. Again, all of this tends to require more and more lethality for later and later weapon systems of, otherwise, the same caliber. I don't think you'll find any examples of anti-personnel artillery shells that have no case, unless they are nuclear or top secret and haven't been used. I've been fiddling with your latter point trying to figure the AP jump for the Paladin. Given the big jump in range, I believe he is modeling the HERA M549 or M549A, which has a charge of 8kg per round vs. 6.6kg for the M107. Another factor would be the increased ROF -- whichever doctrine of ROF he is following. The M109 series starts at 1 RPM sustained fire vs. .66 RPM for the WWII 155mm howitzer. The main problem is that increased ROF starts with the very first of edition of M109 in the early 1960's, and the HERA is added in the early 70's. I caught something from the kids, so I won't be posting numbers tonight. But there's about 25 gross points of AP for the Paladin that aren't covered by the increase in the charge, and the increase in the ROF, that might be attributed to better comms, computations, accuracy, shoot-and-scoot, or whatever. Or he might have had the follow-on M795 shell in mind with it's 10.8kg load of TNT. Hard to say how hard they were digging for data for the upgrade editions. I'm done digging for the day. I believe this shell finally gets close to what was identified in WWII as the ideal ratio of charge to shell body.

Panama -> RE: Artillery AP Strengths (12/12/2010 1:49:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay Then there's how much of the shell weight is explosive vs. casing. More charge = more powerful. Some very late shells might have no casing at all, since research showed that the shock wave generated by the blast is actually more deadly than any shrapnel. Again, all of this tends to require more and more lethality for later and later weapon systems of, otherwise, the same caliber. And now they're getting close to fielding railguns. Ranges will be huge. Curse you military research man. [:D]

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.578125