VT Fuzes have been used extensively since WWII with the British leading the way with first their AA weapons. For the U.S. it would be the USN leading the way with wide spread use by 1942 with shore bombardment and AA use. The first real use in the USA to any extent was at the Battle of the Bulge were Pattons quote in the first ref. below is related to. Over
22 Million VT fuzes would be used by the U.S. alone in WWII. This
does not include the ones used by the UK, Germany and Russia.
The "dumb" artillery shell pretty died with the end of WWII. You want a ground impact shell then you set one of the
variety (This means many types thus more expensive to use. VT fuzed shells to that purpose. Very simple to do just not
cheap! The 50's but more importantly the 60's with advances in technology would improve performance and consolidation (Meaning multi-purpose adjustable VT fuzed shells.) with again the affect being...you're correct
lower cost because your reducing manufacturing requirements, labor and logistics (Money.). The 80's and more importantly the 90's would see the greatest impact and in regards to R&D the field an increase in the functionality of the VT fuze mostly in performance. Again doing what? Reducing cost of operations as described above. In my last post how many fuzes were replaced by the M787 fuze? About 9 I believe from memory.
Perspective: My uncle after a career in the USA worked at the Picatinny Arsenal until about the mid 80's at that time I believe he said they had around a thousand employees that number is less than 450 now-see the website in my last the one I recommended if you looked at it said check out the "About Us" section. By the way that's where the
EXCALIBUR is made. Does anyone see the trend here? The biggest advances came in the 2000+ era. To where we and others have EXCALIBUR now: and I've already posted in here on the cost reductions concerning it in this thread from the USA to include by extension the USMC.
What are we left with...
1) VT is nothing more then a "term" to describe a type of and family of fuzes used today and in the past (i.e. India started developing
their own in the mid-60's.) and has been in widespread use since post WWII and certainly by the 60's in widespread practice. The height adjustment allows for very effective targeting of troops, soft targets (Transport, AA/SPAA, FH/SPA and CB ops.
2) The artillery cost calculus
is flawed; the fuze family has gotten much smaller therefore the
cost of artillery should progressively be reduced over the decades at least from the point of the mid to late 90's (Or simply 2000.) to present at minimum. Even in CM we're seeing a major reduction in the number of munitions required to be carried onboard a shell because todays munitions are much more effective now than say COPPERHEAD was in it's day. For game play CM works fine on the board but as pointed when last this was a hot topic it is much more effective in terms of coverage then modeled in the game. But again CM is good in my opinion overall for what it's worth. We need to find a lesser cost amount something in the 3/4 area of current cost. CM arty is good as is. VT as I've said is
not a specialized round it's an adjustable fuze type on all shells therefore VT
should not be in the same price range as CM arty all your getting is a shell set for an airburst.
3) A more realistic cost approach is to attach organic supply units to all artillery as is done in real life. I'm not saying for all types as most off-map arty has sufficient rounds assigned to it to get through even very difficult games but certainly on-map ones should be modeled this way. A mortar platoon would be supported by at least 1 or 2 ammo carriers. SPA/FH for decades has had it's own dedicated organic supply unit like the FAASV or the Prime mover for FH arty which also should be assigned to each FH unit.
Real life in this segment is the true cost equalizer. And the beauty of it is all the equipment is already in the game.
4) This arty penalty issue I wish would go away, however, I feel it's here to stay. I think it should still be reduced by 1/4 min. from current levels and maybe by 1/2 if we go real world.
5. I really don't like some of what I see about the AI. When I have time play and much more so in the past the AI can be a tough opponent. It'll take armor or infantry through areas that have already been "pacified" (Or so I thought.) and the next thing I know I've got flags belonging to the enemy well behind my lines, or use airmobile troops later in the game assaulting my rear area flags. Except to get used to the game mechanics for a handful games I always played against it at the hardest level with other adjustments made for a higher level of challenge.
6. This is the core issue also that ties in here with the AI. Where this notion that the AI won't buy this or that because "it costs too much..." is false. My first battle in my campaign SWEDEN vs. RUSSIA I saw the new T-72B3 on the board we just got in the game this year
(Again Don looks good and performed very well in combat.) but I think the revelation here is that; yes the AI likes armor however I generally see a good mix and it likes mech troops and here's the kicker a fair amount of
arty as well. And this is
really my main problem with the arty penalty; the AI is getting hit with it as well (And mind you I had no artillery of any kind.) and quite frankly I see a degradation in the types of units I'm playing against in later in a campaign. It feels like it's getting away from some of its core force make up just a personal observation.
This is why I hope some consideration will again be given to 3 and 4 above. I want the AI to play hard the penalty is hurting it's ability to do so.
http://pages.jh.edu/~jhumag/0400web/10.html
http://www.inert-ord.net/usa03a/usa6/fuzes/index.html
Well I'm going to enjoy my delayed Fathers Day at a nice restaurant with the family soon so have a great evening!
Regards,
Pat
Re: M777A1 vs M777A2 Excalibur
Re: M777A1 vs M777A2 Excalibur
Hybrid Mode
