Rocket inconsistencies.
 

Hi All
Looking at the USA weapon 175 the "Holy Moses 5in" should range be 44 not 96?
The US weapon 174 "FFAR 5in Rckt" should also have its range dropped to 32 from 96?
see
http://www.tarrif.net/wwii/guides/a2g_rockets_2.htm
I also have my doubts about an accuracy of 5 for US weapons 173 174 and 175 they should probably be 1 as
"the rocket projectiles were inaccurate and took some considerable skill to aim properly and allow for the drop after firing"
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Typhoon
Though this is a quote for the Britsh 60 pdr Rocket looking at images of how the Holy Moses, etc are mounted suggests that it too had to be dropped before firing resulting in the same accuracy dropoff. also see
http://www.vmb-613.com/photographs/loading_hvars.html
"These weapons (Holy Moses) were unguided. Post-war survey results showed that they were not very effective against Japanese concrete reinforced bomb shelters and gun emplacements."
German rockets 173 and 174 and Russian Rockets 173 and 175 seem to have a size of 4 maybe this should be 1?
Best Chuck

Re: Rocket inconsistencies.
 

I'll look into the range and accuracy issues but weapon size has no bearing on any aspect of that particular weapon type at all so they could be zero or 100 or anything in between

Don

Re: Rocket inconsistencies.
 

I did notice that the FFAR (Weapon 175) and HVAR (Weapon 176) were identical in OOB12. The FFAR is more akin to the British RP-3.

Also, at Designtion Systems.Net it says that the HVAR's range was 3 miles which is consistent with the 96 range. Andreas Parsch's research is very reliable. The FFAR's range should be reduced though, and its stats should not be identical to that of the HVAR.

Re: Rocket inconsistencies.
 

Yes but.... that website shows this under "warhead" for both rockets

So yes the range should be altered for the FFAR to 32 ( and the 5" HVAR "Holy Moses" is fine where it is at 96 ) but it appears the warhead for both rockets is the same

Don

Re: Rocket inconsistencies.
 

I would think that despite the warhead being the same, the penetration values for a rocket traveling at 485 mph at launch and one traveling at 950 mph at launch would be significantly different. I would think the HE Pen values might be different, even if the HEK remained untouched.

There was also a SAP warhead that Parsch talks about, but does not list in the table beyond "(& others)". I don't know much about physics though beyond what I learned in highschool, so I could easily be wrong.

Re: Rocket inconsistencies.
 

Fair enough. If you find any HE pen numbers for that rocket let us know. In the meantine I'll dig around and see what I can come up with

EDIT >>> OK, looking at the MBT OOB's does indeed show a difference between those two rockets. I'll go with the MBT stats for it

Don

Re: Rocket inconsistencies.
 

Hello again
Hi Thatguy96 I have no doubt that Andreas Parsch's site is correct. However his site is not WW2 specific, for instance the MK 16 zuni wasnt used until after the war. Tarrifs site that I pointed out is restricted to WW2. As the Holy Moses was still in use during the Korean War I suspect that the 3 mile range would be for the post WW2 version. The period between the two wars is probably long enough to have improved the explosive used to propel the rocket giving the greater range. So tarrifs site (2200) is no doubt correct for the WW2 version and Andreas Parsch's site is probably correct for the Korean war version.
The Holy Moses SAP version according to Tarrifs site appears to be a solid shot. At the velocities these rockets traveled at they are not particularily good at getting through armour. for instance the British 60 pounder HE/SAP penetrates 33 mm of steel and the Holy Moses solid shot penetrates 38 mm of steel. This may only equate to half these figures when hitting proper armour. As the solid shot has no explosive you really need to have planes armed with either the HE or the solid shot versions, though I doubt the solid shot version were used much as they are designed to penetrate ships. If you are firing the HE versions then the extra velocity would be lucky to buy you IMHO an extra cm of armour penetration. Of interest from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Typhoon
"Although great things were expected against the heavily armored tanks of the Wehrmacht, the rockets needed to hit the thin-walled engine compartment or the tank's tracks to really have any destructive effect. Analysis of destroyed tanks after the Normandy battle showed a 'hit-rate' for the air-fired rockets of only 4%"
Also I personally would be interested to Know how the HE Penetration and AP penetration values relate, ie a HE penetration of 22 is certainly not the same as AP penetration of 22 Ive found.
Best Regards Chuck.

Re: Rocket inconsistencies.
 

In regards to range. We have two "sources" . One that deals with 5 inch rockets in general and may or may not contain stats for the post WW2 variety rockets and one that deals with WW2 specifically and claims a much reduced range for the same rocket

And then there's "the game "

Time for a reality check.

In this game the human player has NO input at all on when an aircraft fires rockets of this type. None.. That is entirely under "AI" control no matter if it's the player 2 "AI" or the player 1 it's the GAME that decides when to launch these class of rockets at ground targets

Here's a little test to run as experience is a better teacher. Set up a game with a variety of aircraft armed with rockets. Set the maximum visibility ( 90 ) and set it up on a map with few hills and trees so the aircraft have a clear view of any targets. ( set it up on a perfectly flat map with no terrain other than grass if you like )

Now buy a variety of rocket carrying aircraft using the "allies" button. Buy German FW 190's with RackPzgr 8.8cm, Buy Russian aircraft with RS-132's , Buy USMC with 4.5, 5inch HVAR and FFAR rockets and Brit Typhoons with the 60 pounders and send them out to hunt targets and you will find that the range the game is set to fire those rockets is, on average, five hexes ( 250 yards ) give or take one hex so ALL those rockets, irregardless of their maximum range, are fired at their targets from between 200 and 300 yards so whether the "maximum" range for weapon class 11 "rockets" is 44 hexes or 96 hexes is totally irrelevant.

"Maximum" range for weapon class 11 "rockets" never EVER comes into play for these things becasue the game is programed to get the aircraft in up close and personal before launching.


Don

Re: Rocket inconsistencies.
 

Hi Don
Yes you are very correct the range doesnt seem to have much bearing on anything, though various people have mentioned that it does in the DOS forum. So they put me on a red herring.
However, during my testing I noticed something I think is a bit odd. In 3 sets of 24 typhoons shooting at the fronts of 3 sets of 24 spotted pz 4 g's in March 44 with visibility set to 50. I got 15 16 and 15 tanks hit, with some of the tanks hit multiple times. This is without having a second run to use up the remaining couple of rockets most typhoons still had. For the typhoons (unit 095) I removed the ammunition from the hispano cannons so only rockets were fired. The tanks were spread out so no "shrapnel" hits.
My point would be that the hit rate mentioned above of 4% for typhoon rockets and the information that these 60 pounders were very inaccurate doesnt seem to be modeled very well in the game. Rather than a 4% hit rate the game has about a 65% hit rate for these rockets (per strike).
Now Ill add a bit more on the assumption that FireControl (FC) affects all four weapon slots.
I realise that these Rockets already have the lowest accuracy of 1 and that the planes very high (FC) of 15 (for the hispano cannons) may eclipse the weapon accuracy values. The only way I can think of to model the accuracy of the cannon and the (in)accuracy of the rockets when fired from the single (high FC) plane is to drop the FC values and raise aircraft weapon accuracy values. Perhaps this can be done so that overall the accuracy/fire control value remains similar but the weapons can then be differentiated. Maybe the rocket salvo could be modeled as a single blast rather than eight seperate rockets giving a lower hit rate. Similar concept to having the KWK 38 firing bursts. You of course may see other ways this could be solved.
Problem being of course that maybe all plane fired rockets are way too accurate making the rocket armed planes much better tank kilers/disablers than they really were.
If all weapon slots share the same FC value then bombs are also way too accurate (except dive bombers bombs).
Also I have always been puzzled that purpose designed ground attack aircraft and fighter bombers have the same FC values. I would have though a ground attack aircraft would have a better FC than a dive bomber. And that fighters (fighter bombers) travelling much faster, designed to be twitchy rather than stable and without proper sights would have a way lower FC than a ground attack aircraft.
Please feel free to move this thread to the WW2 General Discussion forum if you think it is about the game system.
Best Regards Chuck.

Re: Rocket inconsistencies.
 

We made alterations to the code of both games weeks ago regarding secondary blast effects of those type of rockets so they are less deadly overall than before.

If you search through the threads I know you'll find other people complaining at one time or another that aircraft are useless at hitting anything which balances out your assertion that they are too deadly.

The Germans knew in 1944 that if you put a tank in the open ( "spotted" "with visibility set to 50" )when there were Jabos in the sky that tank was dead meat. You've rediscovered a historical truth .

We have no plans to further "de-tune" the aircraft .

Don

Re: Rocket inconsistencies.
 

Hi Don
OK I see you are one step ahead of me. I dont know if you have already done so but as well as rockets, bombs would also benefit from having there "secondary blast effects" adjusted. Bombs are of course even less/much less accurate than rockets... when delivered by fighter bombers.
British unit 731, a typhoon has 16 60 pounders attached to it I find this hard to believe. Unit 730 a typhoon and 492 a tempest have a more believable 12. But... I have been unable to find any references anywhere for either of these planes ever carrying any more than 8 rockets.
And lastly do you think that the ground attack aircraft should be more accurate (have a higher FC) than the 'ad hoc' fighter bombers?

Re: Rocket inconsistencies.
 

Rockets are the same weapon class as bombs, the difference is they have a range >1 which makes them "rockets" so lowering the secondary effects of that class affects bombs AND rockets.... yes?

Re Typhoons. There are twelve Typhoons in the game. 8 of which have the correct weapon loadout. You managed to find two of the four that didn't. They have been corrected

All Typhoons have 15 FC.( Shturmovik and HS129's are 15 as well ) There are 656 attack aircraft in the game with FC of 2 or more ( no.. the number is not made up )and 378 with 10 FC or more there are over 40 aircraft with higher FC than Typhoons. That's the way the game works and has worked for years and it's not going to be changed

OK?

Don

Re: Rocket inconsistencies.
 

Ok, pending new info of course.
Best Chuck

Re: Rocket inconsistencies.
 

Don't bother looking for "new Info" to "prove" whatever point you are trying to make. We are NOT ( repeat.... N O T ) changing the way ground attack aircraft are set up

Don

Re: Rocket inconsistencies.
 

Hi Don
OK, but what about old points? In my thread "ME262 wrong guns?" if you read my last two posts you will see that I tested and proved that it is possible to give the ground attack aircraft guns their correct armour penetration characteristics by removing the HEK value and substituting a sabot value. With the current set up using a HEK instead of a sabot value they may as well be firing plasticine not tungsten shot.
Thanks for your time, Chuck

Re: Rocket inconsistencies.
 

I'll tell you what Chuck, I will go back and wade through that thread, run some tests and make some decisions as to what may or may not be justified and then when the patch is release you can be happy, or not and if you're not then you can do what we have been telling you to do since you first started complaining about the OOB's in this game..... change your OOB's to suit yourself.

Sometimes we both wonder why it is you bother to spend so much time with something you so obviously dislike or disagree with so much of.

Don

Re: Rocket inconsistencies.
 

Hi Don

Here is an interesting table, table v page 75.
Please note that .05 percent of rockets fired on a firing range from a typhoon at a panther sized target hit the target.

Thats one rocket in every two hundred fired hit the target.

In your game a typical typhoon salvo lands about 2 "hits" on a panther tank.

Thats one rocket in every 4 fired hits the target.

You are out by two significant digits.

The book is "Air Power at the Battlefront By Ian Gooderson"
The URL is broken up as otherwise it doesnt disply fully

http://
books.google.com.au/books?id=0Eb_uqFyWBgC&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=20mm+fla k+engagement+range&source=web&ots=npFMCP3UIH&sig=x YvnMPkqVmToEymc7T2icEujtts&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_resu lt&resnum=9&ct=result#PPA75,M1

I think that the correct portrayal of the effects of air power on the tactical scale will greatly enhance the playability of the game because it will emphasize playing good solid all arms ground tactics rather than relying on your ace up the sleave air power card. Especially for late war allied players, who always seem to be offerred plenty of air strikes every game.

The book later states how bombs are even less acurate than rockets.

Best Regards Chuck.

Re: Rocket inconsistencies.
 

What you are suggesting is we "de-tune" air attacks in the game so they are virtually useless yet we get a dozens of complaints a year about both games from people who already think air attacks are a waste of time and points because they can never hit anything.

Strange though the Germans didn't consider the jabo threat to be insignificant.

Now go back and read post #14. Apparently you've forgotten what was written there then go back and re-read #16 becasue it's obvious you're forgotten that as well

Don

Re: Rocket inconsistencies.
 

Good day all,

Test vs. Combat conditions for WWII Rockets. IIRC rockets seemed to be a good bet during their trials, but when put into use the results were rather poor in so far as actual armour killed. With that being said, if I understand correctly, their main effect (outside of scoring direct hits on armour and soft skin vehicles) was scaring the bejesus of those on the receiving end of a rocket attack. IIRC the warheads tended to be equal to roughly 5inch naval shells or worse in effect. At times this caused troops to abandon equipment even if not destroyed.

As far as game play goes, I find roughly the same effect tends to happen. As a result I tend to target embarked or massed troops with rockets, saving cannons for actual anti-armour work. As the Germans I tend to fear cannon armed CAS aircraft more than rocket armed in regards to losing Panzers. The Hurricane with the 40mm Cannons, Typhoons and Stumoviks have had great effects on my units at times. Even when launching my own airstrikes kills are a bonus but breaking the enemy is always more my aim.

Bob out :D