(Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message


AmmoSgt -> (3/10/2001 9:08:00 AM)

Books are good and helpful things ..but books often don't address the problems being discussed I agree to the 250lb per minute per tube calculation by Paul ..But 155mm at 120-150 lb per round and 3 rounds a minute is at least 360lb ..and.. 105mm at 60 lbs ( with powder on average ) at 5 rounds per minute is 300 lbs meaning that the 8" is the least weight of logictics required per minute per barrel .. I learned this moving ammo for 15 years and planing Corp supply and fires and stuff .. BUT I OBJECT to any hint that moving 8" is as hard as Mortar ammo the tiedowns the dunnage the shear labor involved in getting mortar ammo straped down on a truck is unreal..8" takes less men and less time for the equal weight ... anyway 2 1/2 ton trucks are rated 5 tons on paved roads but that would be wasteful of men unless the tactical situation demanded it Most ammo was mmoved on 12 ton stake and platform towed by 5 ton tractors or tank transport lowboys and 12 ton tractors for arty also bear in mind each tube had a tracked ammo carrier Normandy was a choke point for all supplies as was Beluguim before Antwerp ..but that ws for all supplies I think tha fact the Higher HQ would issue a ammo usage advisory as vague and as full of the implication of discertionary usage at lower levels of command as the one cited only strengthens my contention that 8" was used in direct support ... as Pauls figures prove it certainly was the lightest ammo to move per tube per minute and 15 years experience tells me that it is the easiest to load up and tie down taking less men to move than smaller calibers .. But books are nice




Paul Vebber -> (3/10/2001 10:40:00 AM)

Gee, If one can't use books, and can't use math I its impossible for anyone to disagree with you [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img] Well the Allies didn't use attrition? I know who does... [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] Well you will be happy to know that the powers that be have decided that 8in artillery will stay in the OBA ..."fun" being the operative word in artillery, since it already bears somewhat limited relation to reality, better that it at least be fun to stonk on the big bad Tigers...but it will cost you! It was deemed easier for those teh disagree to simply not use it than for those who wanted it not to have it. So rejoice! Your attrition campaign has worked much like the one of the Allies (ooops, they didn't use attrition did they [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img]) But take it from me, go read some of those smelly old books anyway, it really will pay off!




AmmoSgt -> (3/10/2001 11:30:00 AM)

Paul thanks for keeping it in .. aw shucks , i admit it i read all them books when i taught this stuff at Redstone Arsenal ... [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] I know it got a little rough there ..i sure ain't no poet or wordsmith ..thanks for takin the time to wade through it all ...




Paul Vebber -> (3/10/2001 8:12:00 PM)

Well, you certain are never at a loss for words ... and I'm the last one to say a single word about grammer or spelling [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] Heck if everybody always agreed this would be a pretty boring board! We're glad you take the time to share your experience (even if as a Navy Squid I'm genetically predisposed to heavy sarcasm around Army types [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img])




drob -> (3/11/2001 2:57:00 AM)

IMHO it would be nice to have a feature that limited availability on ANY unit that was in short supply. No commander ever gets what they want. Weather wise, troop condition wise, equipment or enemy capability.




CaptainBrian -> (3/12/2001 5:07:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by AmmoSgt: Books are good and helpful things ..but books often don't address the problems being discussed I agree to the 250lb per minute per tube calculation by Paul ..But 155mm at 120-150 lb per round and 3 rounds a minute is at least 360lb ..and.. 105mm at 60 lbs ( with powder on average ) at 5 rounds per minute is 300 lbs meaning that the 8" is the least weight of logictics required per minute per barrel .. I learned this moving ammo for 15 years and planing Corp supply and fires and stuff .. BUT I OBJECT to any hint that moving 8" is as hard as Mortar ammo the tiedowns the dunnage the shear labor involved in getting mortar ammo straped down on a truck is unreal..8" takes less men and less time for the equal weight ... anyway 2 1/2 ton trucks are rated 5 tons on paved roads but that would be wasteful of men unless the tactical situation demanded it Most ammo was mmoved on 12 ton stake and platform towed by 5 ton tractors or tank transport lowboys and 12 ton tractors for arty also bear in mind each tube had a tracked ammo carrier Normandy was a choke point for all supplies as was Beluguim before Antwerp ..but that ws for all supplies I think tha fact the Higher HQ would issue a ammo usage advisory as vague and as full of the implication of discertionary usage at lower levels of command as the one cited only strengthens my contention that 8" was used in direct support ... as Pauls figures prove it certainly was the lightest ammo to move per tube per minute and 15 years experience tells me that it is the easiest to load up and tie down taking less men to move than smaller calibers .. But books are nice
The proper weights (assuming standard square weight) for US 155mm and 105mm Arty ammo is 95 and 33 lbs. respectively. 8" was 220 lbs.




Pack Rat -> (3/12/2001 7:00:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by drob: No commander ever gets what they want. Weather wise, troop condition wise, equipment or enemy capability.
Very true, but no commander worth their salt doesn't try. Some did it at the very risk of their lives. :)




john g -> (3/13/2001 7:26:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: To paraphrase Ian Hogg in "The guns - 1939-45" You can do a little back of the envelope figuring and if an 8in round with powder was ~250lbs that is 8 per ton, and a 2 and 1/2 ton truck could carry about 20 rounds - say 25 if you bent the sprngs a bit, so if you had 6 guns firing a bit better than 1 round per minute, you had a battery of 6 guns expending maybe 400 rounds an hour, requiring an hourly convoy of 16 trucks to supply or if firing continuously 384 truckloads of ammo per day. A truck convoy over a 3 and half miles long. That would be a rather serious logistics drain for 1 battery. [This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited March 08, 2001).]
Paul I won't question your statements about artillery, to me it should be a greater killer in the game, but then it becomes more of a boring sim than an exciting game. However, the 2 1/2 ton truck does not have a 5000 lb carrying capacity. Just a ship doesn't figure it's carrying capacity from it's rated tonnage. I drove a 5 ton truck for years that had a 29,000 lb gross weight rating and that was figured more from the tires that it mounted not from the load the springs could support. The truck weighed about 11000 pounds and could carry about 18000 pounds of cargo. For one short trip it was overloaded with approx 30000 lbs of cargo against my wishes and didn't blow any tires or shocks, it just swayed side to side as it rolled down the road and was a bear to slow back down. A 10 ton truck is perhaps more familiar to you as a semi, 60000 to 80000 lbs gross weight rating depending on which states they are driving through. Locally, one driver overloaded to 120,000 lbs only got caught when he collapsed a bridge he was driving over. thanks, John.




Paul Vebber -> (3/13/2001 9:14:00 AM)

Thanks - I appreciate the correction! Any idea on where to find a table on load ranges for 1 1/2, 2 1/2, 3 1/2 ton trucks? I stand corrected!




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.703125