Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: inqistor

ORIGINAL: herwin

Just curious, because 10% hit probability comes up. Is that the distance to the 10% lethality contour? Or is that (slightly different) a 10% probability of a fragment impacting on an exposed soft target with enough energy to cause a casualty?

There are no such probabilities. What would be point in calculating distance of lethal radius for bomb? Who cares, movie makers? There are different distances for sides, front, and back of vector. Totally useless value.


What army REALLY calculates is called VULNERABLE AREA. It is defined as area (in square feet) on which the average
density of throughs and deep strikes on vertical wooden targets is 1 per 10 square feet. (deep strikes is penetration of at least ONE inch)

Example document you are seeking for:

Ministry of Supply and War Office: Military Operational Research Unit
A theory of fragmentation: comparison with observed fragmentations of service bombs and shells
Covering dates 1943
Report No: 138


Protection is listed for that much of steel plate. Values are VULNERABLE AREA in square feet.

You have me a bit confused. Of course, terminal ballistics were historically a bit confused. However, your definition of vulnerable area makes sense when one realises that measurement of lethality is rather fraught and sensitive to the exact circumstances of the shell exploding. Most experimental studies have to use second or third order proxies for the parameter of interest. If you were to investigate why the exact measure reported is chosen, you discover a long chain of assumptions, probably extending back to studies during 1920-1940 using live pigs or goats.

ORIGINAL: bk19@mweb.co.za

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I suppose that we should all go vegan because there's no ingredients used in that production or storage that aren't vegetable, right? [8|]

Hey, I like meat as much as the next guy, but I draw a line at Hush Puppy.

Dunno where you live, but in my part of the world a Hush Puppy is a kid's shoe brand, and a Slush Puppy is a kids ice drink...

I hope that Hush Puppy of yours is not a hamburger because it could be quite tough if you have actually tried to eat a kids shoe by accident!!

I was referring to my earlier post wherein I related that reports give the McRib sandwich over 70 non-meat ingredients, including one chemical which is a primary component in gym mats and shoe soles. So yes, I was referring to Hush Pupppy brand shoes. [:)]

In the US South, a hush puppy (lower case) is a side dish to seafood, deep fried balls or cylinders of corn meal with some grated onion in the mix. Incredibly good when hot and fresh, a little less when cold and old, but good enough for hangover food. When I lived in New England (OCS) and first ordered a seafood platter it came with something called Johhnycakes. Similar, but not hush puppies. Or Hush Puppies.

ORIGINAL: herwin
Just curious, because 10% hit probability comes up. Is that the distance to the 10% lethality contour? Or is that (slightly different) a 10% probability of a fragment impacting on an exposed soft target with enough energy to cause a casualty?

Since you ask, I assume the contour you mention is for artillery patterning. Bombs follow a different pattern. A better evaluation comparison would be against the larger caliber mortars. The War-II 500lb GP bomb had a charge/weight ratio of 27-31%. The casing was proportional thickness mild steel. Average Impact angle was 70-90 degrees. Aerial bombs often had nose and tail fuses, while mortar bombs only had nose fuses, otherwise very similar in mechanism. My artillery colleagues are very sure that a ‘bomb’ does not work like an arty ‘round’, and they cannot be judged by the same rules.

FYI, in Andy's and PzB's game Andy counted 16 days for the total capture of Christmas Island (meaning eliminating the defenders).

But the last 8 days his troops only carried out a few minor assaults against the totally wrecked remains of the garrison, mainly HQ units.
Total defensive AV after "fall of base" was ~10.

I think one of the things to make note in regards to the speed of ground combat, IRL they always seemed to bring juuuust enough troops to get the job done whereas we in game tend to bring overwhelming force.

ORIGINAL: Sredni

I think one of the things to make note in regards to the speed of ground combat, IRL they always seemed to bring juuuust enough troops to get the job done whereas we in game tend to bring overwhelming force.

That's known as 'right-sizing', although the USMC preferred to get it over quick and the Army took its time.

ORIGINAL: Sredni

I think one of the things to make note in regards to the speed of ground combat, IRL they always seemed to bring juuuust enough troops to get the job done whereas we in game tend to bring overwhelming force.

That is because IRL one is always juggling resources between various competing needs. Usually one is doing very well if juuuust enough troops can be found and spared to get the job done. AE players face only a fraction of the demands placed on IRL commanders.

Alfred

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Sredni

I think one of the things to make note in regards to the speed of ground combat, IRL they always seemed to bring juuuust enough troops to get the job done whereas we in game tend to bring overwhelming force.

That is because IRL one is always juggling resources between various competing needs. Usually one is doing very well if juuuust enough troops can be found and spared to get the job done. AE players face only a fraction of the demands placed on IRL commanders.

Alfred

You didn't want to use excessive anything to complete the mission because it would be added targets or wasted. The game engine loves mass, but in reality too much mass was additional casualties with no concomitant gain.

ORIGINAL: herwin

You have me a bit confused. Of course, terminal ballistics were historically a bit confused. However, your definition of vulnerable area makes sense when one realises that measurement of lethality is rather fraught and sensitive to the exact circumstances of the shell exploding. Most experimental studies have to use second or third order proxies for the parameter of interest. If you were to investigate why the exact measure reported is chosen, you discover a long chain of assumptions, probably extending back to studies during 1920-1940 using live pigs or goats.

There was blast research on pigs? I can understand firearms, to check fragmentation, and penetration of flesh, but blast (well, except dogs in USSR experiments with atomic bombs)?

Anyway, I am not aware of any other WWII Allied studies, except Zuckerman group.


To stay on-topic. Here is table showing needed number of bombs to destroy Japanese bunkers. Not sure about date, it was surely after Tarawa, but probably before Iwo Jima.

Viperpol and I fought a bloody and long campaign in the Solomons with the main action being fights and sieges of Lunga and Kirakira. It was classic in that I rushed in and seized Lunga with a Marine division and Kirakira with a regiment. He then countered with an an invasion of both places where we spent months in a brutal stalemate. It went back and forth we me coming dangerously close to losing both Islands. The real battle was over supply. (Imagine that) In the end it played out pretty historically with me hanging on by a thread until I gradually gained naval and air superiority in mid 1943 and finally overcame him in later 43. The action was intense. Quite frankly, it could not have been better or more exciting for either of us and it felt just like it should have. The game worked exactly like it should have.

But after the Allies gain superiority (1944 in our scen #2 game) Then pretty much any invasion is a foregone conclusion. Should anyone be surprised here? That is pretty much how it really played out. After the shift in the balance of forces, was there really any land based objective that could be denied to the Allies? I doubt it. Japan is then playing solely for time-trading space and men for time. That is the way it should be.

There was blast and fragmentation research on various animals--pigs and goats come to mind--after WWI. The animals were tethered at different distances and the explosive device (shell, bomb, etc.) was set off. Afterwards, the animals were autopsied.