Page 2 of 3
RE: Weapons Data
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:13 pm
by Central Blue
OK. I am starting to find sources like Field Manual 6-40. Their standard is a man in the open has a 50% chance of becoming a casualty. I'm guessing the game numbers are something rather more like absolute metaphysical certainty the man will be dead.
Is that about right?
RE: Weapons Data
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:44 pm
by Lieste
The standard is normally 50% casualties in xx minutes/rounds per hectare. We have a probability per round over the beaten area. As far as I can tell that requires a lower radius in order to not exaggerate the cumulative effect. My indicators were for a more restrictive area for most HE weapons (mortars and the thin-walled 75mm being the exceptions to that rule).
I recall an old rule of thumb that indicated area fire being about 10x as expensive in ammunition expenditure compared to direct aimed fire ~ though I don't recall the context, or whether any was provided with that information. Given the very 'peaky' hit probability (as opposed to probability of a kill given a hit) of fragmentation functions this seems highly plausible though. {N decreases at least as fast as R^-1, and the area that N fragments must cover increases as R^2... }
An interesting source is the 'Office of the Chief of Ordnance' "Terminal Ballistic Data" in three volumes published 1944/1945. This not only contains data on artillery fire against infantry in terms of fire-norms, but also has statistically coherent tables of fragment density and diagrams of typical fragmentation 'throw' patterns for the US weapons in use. There is data that indicates the difference between light fragments that are a danger to unprotected infantry and those which are dangerous to material targets.
RE: Weapons Data
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:00 pm
by Central Blue
ORIGINAL: Lieste
The standard is normally 50% casualties in xx minutes/rounds per hectare. We have a probability per round over the beaten area. As far as I can tell that requires a lower radius in order to not exaggerate the cumulative effect. My indicators were for a more restrictive area for most HE weapons (mortars and the thin-walled 75mm being the exceptions to that rule).
I recall an old rule of thumb that indicated area fire being about 10x as expensive in ammunition expenditure compared to direct aimed fire ~ though I don't recall the context, or whether any was provided with that information. Given the very 'peaky' hit probability (as opposed to probability of a kill given a hit) of fragmentation functions this seems highly plausible though. {N decreases at least as fast as R^-1, and the area that N fragments must cover increases as R^2... }
An interesting source is the 'Office of the Chief of Ordnance' "Terminal Ballistic Data" in three volumes published 1944/1945. This not only contains data on artillery fire against infantry in terms of fire-norms, but also has statistically coherent tables of fragment density and diagrams of typical fragmentation 'throw' patterns for the US weapons in use. There is data that indicates the difference between light fragments that are a danger to unprotected infantry and those which are dangerous to material targets.
Thanks Lieste. I see all volumes are available for free at CARL. They ought to keep me busy for a while.
RE: Weapons Data
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:37 pm
by Arjuna
The things that amuse us! [:)]
RE: Weapons Data
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:50 pm
by Central Blue
ORIGINAL: Arjuna
The things that amuse us! [:)]
Absolutely!
And it should shut me up for a while too.
Maybe. [;)]
RE: Weapons Data
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:50 am
by Arjuna
Yeh, right! [:)]
RE: Weapons Data
Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:06 pm
by Perturabo
Is there some kind of a cap on effect of artillery?
I'm working on a Warhammer 40k/Armageddon 2419 A.D. style retro-sci-fi mod with exceptionally powerful "radium" explosives and I have noticed that even when setting burst radius to 200m and shell weight to 10000, the effect of artillery is pretty small.
RE: Weapons Data
Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:15 pm
by RockinHarry
ORIGINAL: Perturabo
Is there some kind of a cap on effect of artillery?
I'm working on a Warhammer 40k/Armageddon 2419 A.D. style retro-sci-fi mod with exceptionally powerful "radium" explosives and I have noticed that even when setting burst radius to 200m and shell weight to 10000, the effect of artillery is pretty small.
Hm...I would think so, as I have messed with some Arty data as well and saw the same lack of big difference in effect.
A work around to try, might be increasing hit effect/area fire in layer data for your maps in mapmaker. Raise it to levels way above 100 and see if it works (..or run into another cap).
RE: Weapons Data
Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:19 am
by Arjuna
Remember this that the bigger the radius the more spread out the shell weight is. Try reducing the radius to 50m with that 10000 shell weight and see the difference.
Also bear this in mind, that the effect varies directly with the overlap between the units occupied area and the bombardment zone. Let's say that an arty unit has a BZ of 300 x 300m and the target unit an area of 300 x 200 but they overlap is only 100 x 100m, then you have only 1/6th of the unit's occupied area and 1/6th of its personnel, vehicles and guns in the BZ. Moreover, you only have 1/9th of the BZs shell weight impacting the target.
RE: Weapons Data
Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 2:14 pm
by Perturabo
ORIGINAL: Arjuna
Remember this that the bigger the radius the more spread out the shell weight is. Try reducing the radius to 50m with that 10000 shell weight and see the difference.
Well, it massively decreased the effect. With 50m a 200 shell barrage just suppresses the enemy and kills about 1-5 of them. With 200m a 200 shell barrage kills about 20-50% of enemies and routs them.
It seems I just forgot how small was the effect of ordinary artillery (I just installed the game after a long pause).
ORIGINAL: Arjuna
Also bear this in mind, that the effect varies directly with the overlap between the units occupied area and the bombardment zone. Let's say that an arty unit has a BZ of 300 x 300m and the target unit an area of 300 x 200 but they overlap is only 100 x 100m, then you have only 1/6th of the unit's occupied area and 1/6th of its personnel, vehicles and guns in the BZ. Moreover, you only have 1/9th of the BZs shell weight impacting the target.
One time I saw the 200m barrage kill 100 people in a company in 10 minutes. Would it be a situation where the overlap is 1:0,9 with all the remaining people being outside the beaten zone?
RE: Weapons Data
Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 6:34 pm
by RockinHarry
ORIGINAL: Arjuna
Remember this that the bigger the radius the more spread out the shell weight is. Try reducing the radius to 50m with that 10000 shell weight and see the difference.
Also bear this in mind, that the effect varies directly with the overlap between the units occupied area and the bombardment zone. Let's say that an arty unit has a BZ of 300 x 300m and the target unit an area of 300 x 200 but they overlap is only 100 x 100m, then you have only 1/6th of the unit's occupied area and 1/6th of its personnel, vehicles and guns in the BZ. Moreover, you only have 1/9th of the BZs shell weight impacting the target.
Thanks! That clears some things up for me as well. [:)]
RE: Weapons Data
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:04 am
by Werezak
ORIGINAL: Arjuna
Central Blue,
Re burst radius. By and large if we do not have specific data on a given weapons burst radius, we use the table within Dupey's "Numbers, Preictions and War". So if you have specific sources, feel free to use these.
Okay, I definitely have to get a hold of that book now
RE: Weapons Data
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 6:16 pm
by Perturabo
Does calibre have any influence on damage done by shells?
By the way, I have noticed that direct-firing 1000 of "300kg" shells with burst radius of 35 and a 200 of "900kg" rockets with burst radius of 50 from range of a few hundreds of meters does miniscule damage against enemy infantry - with about 35 enemies killed during test.
Similar with indirect fire - firing 2000 "240kg" shells with burst radius of 35m against two infantry companies results in about 25kills or less (which happens pretty consistently during tests).
Was fire of even heaviest guns really that ineffective as a means of destroying infantry or is that a case of damage not scaling up well with heaviest guns (like 38cm, 240mms, etc.)?
RE: Weapons Data
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 8:19 pm
by jimcarravall
ORIGINAL: Perturabo
Does calibre have any influence on damage done by shells?
. . .
Calibre is the measure of the shell diameter.
The larger the diameter the more possible space to pack a damage capability into a shell, but the actual damage is more dependent on what the shell is designed to do.
Here's a discussion of how shell designs cause damage to their targets:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_(projectile)
Keep in mind that some of the technologies discussed in the article (particularly guided weaponry and some forms of high velocity anti-tank rounds) did not exist in the era that Command Ops models with its currently released Estabs.
Hope this helps.
RE: Weapons Data
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 8:49 pm
by Perturabo
ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah
ORIGINAL: Perturabo
Does calibre have any influence on damage done by shells?
. . .
Calibre is the measure of the shell diameter.
The larger the diameter the more possible space to pack a damage capability into a shell, but the actual damage is more dependent on what the shell is designed to do.
I meant in game.
RE: Weapons Data
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 10:32 pm
by jimcarravall
ORIGINAL: Perturabo
ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah
ORIGINAL: Perturabo
Does calibre have any influence on damage done by shells?
. . .
Calibre is the measure of the shell diameter.
The larger the diameter the more possible space to pack a damage capability into a shell, but the actual damage is more dependent on what the shell is designed to do.
I meant in game.
Well, since the game attempts to model the reality of battle, the answer would be "no."
You can review what I offered as background on that reality to find out why.
Hope this helps.
RE: Weapons Data
Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 1:34 pm
by zwobot
Does anyone else have the problem that the "Load" field is not accessible in the performance tab? It just won't fit on the screen and is not ready for input in the first place as far as I can tell.
RE: Weapons Data
Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 4:18 pm
by jimcarravall
ORIGINAL: zwobot
Does anyone else have the problem that the "Load" field is not accessible in the performance tab? It just won't fit on the screen and is not ready for input in the first place as far as I can tell.
I can't speak to the specific technical issues for handling the graphical user interface (GUI), but know there have been issues (including what affects my desktop computer) with the display of data using windows fonts. The issue revolves around Microsoft's desire to seamlessly migrate Windows XP data displays when it decided to market its Win 7, and later Win 8 "enhancements."
RE: Weapons Data
Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 10:35 pm
by Perturabo
ORIGINAL: zwobot
Does anyone else have the problem that the "Load" field is not accessible in the performance tab? It just won't fit on the screen and is not ready for input in the first place as far as I can tell.
It happened in some previous patch and then was fixed by the newest patch.
RE: Weapons Data
Posted: Tue Nov 19, 2013 3:13 pm
by nepejke
anyone knows whats mean armaments tab in weapon data? If I edit weapon and add new weapon in this armaments tab, it will works?[:D]