UshCha | 14 Aug 2017 1:48 p.m. PST |
There are lots of aspects of simulation and how to best get what you want. One aspect is the number of bounds a game takes and the movement that allows. Even in the Horse era deployment from a column and movement were issues. Our own rules to some extent built on some of the past masters. To my mind DBM with its march moves lead the way. On average an infantry unit keeping station close to the enemy may move perhaps 210 paces (distance with an "average" throw of 3.5). Or march something like 840m if moving out of contact range, a ratio of 4 to 1. Our own rules work differently but are in some cases capable of far greater rates for vehicles. Equating to perhaps about 10" to about 40" on a 6ft by 4 ft. board. Note this "device" comes at a price. One issue is that it makes anybody capable of exploiting the gains in a far better position. A good player will find it far easier to out manoeuvre his opponent and exploit his weaknesses. With widely varying player standards this may not be seen as a good thing. Similarly it makes learning the tactics harder as you have far more possibilities to move reserves in in a timely manner. Again perhaps not ideal for players that only play 5 or 10 times a year. Me I play proably 45 times a year. The same can be said generally of bounds. If you game only lasts 6 bounds the ability for instance to reposition and then exploit a reserve isvery limited. 10 to 15 bounds gives far more flexibility if coupled with the potential for longer moves out of contact. This does to some extent mean that "Fast Play" is important as part of an overall simulation which is always a compromise even in engineering simulations. Too much detail can degrade the overall model if it cannot achieve a final result in the time allotted. I have seen game based in WWII where the vehicles cannot practically reach the other side of the board in an evening's game. This itself I saw as a very limiting para meter in the simulation. What is your favourite games movement rate(s) and bounds played in an evening. To me the "record" though not one I would covert is a game for Team Yankee reported in TMP as lasting only 2 bounds. However the players were not that disappointed. It would be interesting to know as additional information how many times a year you play (roughly) and how many different games you play within that number. Again me I play the same game all the time, the period spans WWII to 1990+ but the mechanism is basically the same, it's what suits me. |
MajorB | 14 Aug 2017 2:42 p.m. PST |
For Napoleonic and 19th century warfare I prefer the movement rates as given in the 1824 Kriegsspiel. |
McLaddie | 14 Aug 2017 5:53 p.m. PST |
For Napoleonic and 19th century warfare I prefer the movement rates as given in the 1824 Kriegsspiel. MajorB: That is 250 paces in two minutes for infantry or 97 yards in one minute at 28 inches per a Prussian pace. It that what you are referring to? Not disagreeing, just checking to see if we are on the same page here. I don't buy the fast movement until close to the enemy and then everything slows down. Once under cannon fire, units wanted to come to grips as soon as possible, so they speeded up. Lots of examples of that. Dundas suggests in 1793-8 in his treatise and regulations that crossing 1000-1200 paces of level ground under typical cannon fire by 8 battalions in line formation *should* take around 13-15 minutes. At a British pace of 30 inches, that is an estimate of 832 to 1000 yards or 64 to 76 yards in a minute. That isn't an expectation of slowing down and that is in line formation. After the experiences of the Napoleonic wars, Torrens stated that quick march was the norm [@100 paces a minute] and that 12-13 minutes to cross 1000 to 1200 paces could be expected. Either way, that is is much faster than most all Napoleonic rules sets and in line with a rate somewhere in between ordinary and quick pace. |
McLaddie | 14 Aug 2017 5:56 p.m. PST |
I have seen game based in WWII where the vehicles cannot practically reach the other side of the board in an evening's game. This itself I saw as a very limiting para meter in the simulation. There has been a lot of discussion on this and it seems that a number of designers believe that games *need* to have units that can't cross the table in less than six to 8 turns or the game 'goes too fast.' |
McLaddie | 14 Aug 2017 9:24 p.m. PST |
Rick Priestly gave a detailed account of the movement distance relationship to the table in his book Tabletop Wargames: A Designers' and Writers' Handbook on page 28-29: Fire and Movement scales are best utiliesed by taking a top down approach. The distance moved per turn for a standard wargame playing piece, whether an individual soldier or a unit of soldiers on a movement tray, on flat ground should be of the order of 6"….Movement and weapon ranges can be boiled down to fairly straight-forward mathematical formulae: * Slow units move = M/2 * Standard units move = M * Fast units move = 2M * Distance short range weapons can fire = M * Distance standard weapons can fire = 2M * Distance exceptionally ranged weapons can fire = 3M+ Where M =T/8 and T is the width of the playing table--normally about 48". The problem of game scale becomes a little more convoluted when we fast forward to a modern subject such as World War II because (i) firepower replaces close combat as the primary means of inflicting damage upon the enemy, (ii) weapons have a much greater effective range, and (iii) there is a vast difference between effective ranges of various missile weapons. He goes on to discuss his Bolt Action rules as an example. The point being that designers such as Priestley take a very abstract approach that is all about table size and duration of a game [and thus movement] rather than anything to do with historial movement rates… in fact Priestly, as do others, conclude that "Weapon ranges should be geared to movement ranges rather than some literal concept of scale and that range is M = T/8. So, are there games that do not impose those kinds of restrictions or conceptual design limitations on movement over a 6 X 4 foot table or scale time? |
UshCha | 15 Aug 2017 1:21 a.m. PST |
As mentioned for Horse warfare THE DBM and its clones, our own Maneouvwer Group (Modern /WW2) are two. Mc Laddie, interesting in the american Civil war movement in line was very slow as there was need to regularly re-dress the line, slowing progress in some cases considerably, if calavlry was a threat. Be aware that both effectively prevent high speed movement where significant interdiction from the enemy is present. So its not just a case of moving faster generally, hence your design man has ignored such sublties, indeed he is realy just copying Charles Grant from decades ago. I can assure you that our games still go on for 3 to 4 hours, they also expand the range of playable scenatios. With longer movements you can now do more credible patrols as the distances coverd are much larger increasing uncertainty. Instant responce frfom a convoy is not possible but it never was in the real world. |
UshCha | 15 Aug 2017 2:26 a.m. PST |
I do remember reading a thread on this "design" book. I wrote it off as unuseable for me. He chose to design a particular style of of "game" with no attempt whatever to make any concessions to simulation so was of no use whatsoever to the likes of me. It may be that for his target audience, the irregulat player that the complexities of planning and executing a complex strategy over a wide area was not for him, certainly to be fair he declatred he had no interest or time for simulation, and proably did not understand what one was. |
Winston Smith | 15 Aug 2017 6:24 a.m. PST |
…..he had no interest or time for simulation, and proably did not understand what one was. Do you have any clue how condescending and offensive that sounds? Any??? |
UshCha | 15 Aug 2017 7:33 a.m. PST |
Probably not a condescending as his book title, or his approach. |
Blutarski | 15 Aug 2017 7:35 a.m. PST |
"Do you have any clue how condescending and offensive that sounds?" I did not find it so. UshCha IMO was just highlighting a perceived inability of formulaic "game" design strategies to accommodate simulation-based game design. B |
Winston Smith | 15 Aug 2017 7:37 a.m. PST |
Not for the first time, you are saying that your method of "conducting a simulation" is far superior to how others play a game. Yours is the only way of doing things, and everyone else is being non-serious and silly. |
McLaddie | 15 Aug 2017 7:46 a.m. PST |
Mc Laddie, interesting in the american Civil war movement in line was very slow as there was need to regularly re-dress the line, slowing progress in some cases considerably, if calavlry was a threat. Was it? What brings you to that conclusion? It is well documented that Pickett's Charge was ordered by Lee to attack at quick time. [108-110 paces per miniute]. The divisions crossed 1400-1600 yards in 19-20 minutes while under artillery fire, the divisions stopping to dress lines twice as well as moving at the diagonal twice, targeting the clump of trees. That is 60 to 75 yards per minute. I did read that one ACW officer wrote that lines had to dress every 200 yards over even ground. Dressing lines wasn't that involved or long a process and could be done on the move… and that doesn't note what what level of training or experience. Be aware that both effectively prevent high speed movement where significant interdiction from the enemy is present. So its not just a case of moving faster generally, hence your design man has ignored such sublties, indeed he is really just copying Charles Grant from decades ago. My design man is me. I think the goal would be to mimic how fast infantry and cavalry actually moved on the battlefield regardless of any subtleties. That and what it means to 'move faster.' I can assure you that our games still go on for 3 to 4 hours, they also expand the range of playable scenatios. With longer movements you can now do more credible patrols as the distances coverd are much larger increasing uncertainty. Instant responce frfom a convoy is not possible but it never was in the real world. That is great--all for it. How fast do units move with your rules and how does that work within the limits of the tabletop. |
McLaddie | 15 Aug 2017 8:23 a.m. PST |
…..he had no interest or time for simulation, and proably did not understand what one was. Do you have any clue how condescending and offensive that sounds? Any??? Winston: UshCha is really overstating Priestley's view, as Priestley did devote an entire chapter to scale issues in the book. Blutarski probably has the idea. Having said that, Priestley wrote: Not only is the ground-up approach unworkable in practice, it is also unrealistic….Now, one can spend hours fiddling with turn length and ground scale to achieve something workable but the compromises are so vast you have to ask whether it is worthwhile. Priestley does ask that question and concludes that it isn't worthwhile at all which is the point of the entire chapter and that a 'feels right' approach skewing any issue of 'scale' is the only answer. He writes: The success and popularity of various rule sets covering World War II and more recent conflicts suggests that players like to field tanks, artillery and other heavy equipment regardless of model scale. Manufacturers are equally enthusiastic when it comes to providing these larger models. Games designers who don't allow for such things on the basis of scale realism are onto something of a loser so far as the public is concerned….That is why games like Bolt Action are obliged to use such a heavy, non-linear reduction of scale at the upper end of weapon ranges. As for whether Priestley knows how simulations work, from reading his book [which has some great design stuff in it, by the way], I would conclude that he doesn't understand how they work in a number of ways. |
Extra Crispy | 15 Aug 2017 10:01 a.m. PST |
I play 40+ times per year. Our club has the luxury of leaving games set up over time so we never worry about finishing in an evening. Probably 2/3 of our games run over 3 successive weeks. |
McLaddie | 15 Aug 2017 11:49 a.m. PST |
Extra: That is a great luxury. |
MajorB | 15 Aug 2017 12:20 p.m. PST |
For Napoleonic and 19th century warfare I prefer the movement rates as given in the 1824 Kriegsspiel. MajorB: That is 250 paces in two minutes for infantry or 97 yards in one minute at 28 inches per a Prussian pace.
Partly, the rates I have from the 1824 Kriegsspiel are: Infantry: March – 200 paces In action – 250 paces Cavalry: Walk – 200 paces Trot – 600 paces Trot and walk – 300 paces (heavy cav) 400 paces (light cav) Either way, that is is much faster than most all Napoleonic rules sets and in line with a rate somewhere in between ordinary and quick pace. Yes. It is my contention that the movement rates in most napoleonic rules are too slow. |
UshCha | 16 Aug 2017 12:02 a.m. PST |
In our own rules infantry in combat using fire and movement about 1 to 2 mph gross, pushing the envelope maybe twice that but at some cost in order. In a move to position not under fire and not fighting 3 to 5 mph i.e walking continiously. Vehicles (capable of at least 20 mph on the ground they are traversig) around 20 mph average (allowing some acceleration and decelleration and the practical limit to the length of travel, typicaly the length or width of the board. |
McLaddie | 16 Aug 2017 8:44 a.m. PST |
In our own rules infantry in combat using fire and movement about 1 to 2 mph gross, pushing the envelope maybe twice that but at some cost in order. In a move to position not under fire and not fighting 3 to 5 mph. UshCha: You'll notice that von Riesswitz 1824 has troops moving faster in action than on the march.[250 vs 200]
That 250 paces per minute comes to @95 yards a minute or 3.25 miles an hour. I can imagine that 20th century soldiers are spending a lot more time going to ground and moving cautiously in action, so the comparison between the two doesn't equate. The French argument for staying in column was that troops could traverse the approach under cannon fire faster, thus suffering fewer casualties. The same was argued facing infantry fire. |
McLaddie | 16 Aug 2017 9:10 a.m. PST |
Yes. It is my contention that the movement rates in most napoleonic rules are too slow. MajorB: Yep, I agree. Most 19th century rules have troops traveling at 30 to 40 yards a minute. For instance, Regimental F&F has units traveling at 12 to 16 inches per 10-15 minutes scale time at 25 yards per minute. That comes to 300 to 400 yards per ten to fifteen minutes for a range of 18 to 40 yards per minute [that 40 yards is Double Quick Time for ten minutes] Considering that Double Quick Time was something like 150 paces per minute for the ACW, that *should be* 125 yards per minute. A huge discrepancy. The argument is often 'friction', unseen delays, 'hurry-up and wait' dynamics etc. Unfortunately, there isn't anything to suggest that anything close to the 'average' movement rate for units from the ACW. Napoleonic rules do the same thing. Now, the 'real' reason is that to have units move historical rates would lead to units at 1" =25 yards, scooting at across a 4 X 6 foot table in ordinary rates [75 yards per minute] of 40 to 50 inches per 10-15 minute turn. So, units are slow, creating the problem of units taking 4 to 8 turns just to come into contact. To avoid the problems this creates, RegF&F scenarios have opposing sides setting up within 300 yards of each other. Now, I am not singling out RegF&F other than giving it as an example. Rules from Snappy Nappy to Napoleon's Battles and AOE share this same issue. The solution is seen in the typical movement rate of 6-12 inch movement rates for infantry, regardless of scale or period. The movement restrictions created by the tabletop is a real issue. The question is whether the slow unit solution is the only one or even the best one. One thing it does is reduce the opportunities for maneuver. I would think that one attractive thing about faster unit movement rates would be to bring units into contact faster, speeding up the game. Even Priestley has done this with Black Powder and the 1, 2 or 3 x the movement rate ability of units. He says that one reason for it is the large tables his group play on. So, how can longer movement rates be handled on the table top? Reducing scales, time periods, or other ways? |
MajorB | 16 Aug 2017 12:53 p.m. PST |
So, how can longer movement rates be handled on the table top? Reducing scales, time periods, or other ways? I have been experimenting with longer movement rates in wargames. One thing that it does seem to do is force the players into thinking more tactically. With shorter moves the opposing force has TIME to react to your every move leading to stilted games. With a longer move, suddenly your flanks become much more vulnerable and you need to start thinking about defence in depth, holding reserves and being able to counter an unexpected thrust deep into your position. I think that's more realistic … |
Wolfhag | 16 Aug 2017 1:10 p.m. PST |
MajorB, Game mechanics wise I'd agree. However, I don't think the ability to immediately react generating a stilted game is from the movement mechanics but from the command & control rules not reflecting the decision loop between command expertise. Poor commanders take more time to decide and act giving the initiative to the enemy. Depending on your time scale, it should take a certain amount of time to react to enemy movement and flank attempts or an activation rule. Having your commander in the front allows for more tactical flexibility in his immediate area and less in the rest of the battlefield. Poor leadership generates a command and control delay allowing better commanders the initiative of maneuver by getting inside his opponents decision loop. This is why Alexander the Great rode in the front with his best cavalry. That's my 2 cents as I don't play anything in the 1800's. Wolfhag |
UshCha | 16 Aug 2017 1:40 p.m. PST |
MajorB, I am with you in that the whole point about longer moves is as you say. I can only speak for WWII but it may have parallels. Deploying to column of march to battle formation takes a significant time. In WW II the units can be well apart and the distances are significant. With longer moves a reserve unit can be deployed to move out directly into a column of march and move fast (if motorized) and because the road march can be fast the reserves can be in place before the other side has got back from a deployed position into column of march, to move off to the new destination. This forces more strategic thinking as both sides need to deploy some forces to frustrate such actions or keep reserves to counter such actions. In short movement game,strategic ie. large distance moves on the table can be negated on a bound by bound basis so you cannot get inside the opponents decision loop. With some form of long "fast movement, reserves can be in position quickly (as they almost always were in time to impact the situation. Its no not possible to counter the effect almost before it starts. In effect it imposes command and control limitations while speeding the game up. |
McLaddie | 16 Aug 2017 2:02 p.m. PST |
I agree with all that has been posted. The question is how to have units and a defense in depth if unit can move, say 20 or more a turn and the table is only 48 to 72 inches deep. That's two to four turns to cross the entire table, only two if you have one to two feet of deployment area per side. It isn't an easy question, which is why any number of designers simply go with slow units. |
UshCha | 16 Aug 2017 7:18 p.m. PST |
McLaddie, it does force defence in depth adn pickets to hider such high speed movement. Note as in DBM (which I am told has an unofficial Napolionic version) this sort of movement is not possible in proximity to effective enmy. Certainly as in Chess there can be issues of "fools mate" can in our rules by not "closing the door" to in depth penetrations, but using more representative defence strategies prevents except in credible situations. |
Extra Crispy | 16 Aug 2017 9:21 p.m. PST |
@McLaddie: The joys of a big table! I play WW2 in 6mm on a 6x9 table AND I convert everything to half inches. I had special rulers made. They are marked 1,2,3,4 etc. but the lines are 1/2" That way I don't have to remember the math of multiply or divide? Easy enough but I know I'll double of halve a range and screw it up. So using my Flames of War variant, my table is effectively 18 feet long and 12 feet wide. Even allowing a one foot deployment area that leaves 17 feet of table to conquer! A tank with a movement rate of "12" moves 6 actual inches per turn. Now you can deploy in depth, do off table flanking maneuvers, even a mini para drop to take out a vital bridge deep in the enemy's rear. Granted the movement can feel a bit of a crawl at times, so proper scenario selection is critical. |
Whirlwind | 16 Aug 2017 10:01 p.m. PST |
What is your favourite games movement rate(s) and bounds played in an evening. To me the "record" though not one I would covert is a game for Team Yankee reported in TMP as lasting only 2 bounds. However the players were not that disappointed. Probably Polemos Napoleonics. The authors in the Polemos series are a bit cagey about exact scales. but for the base = c.1 battalion game, then the max infantry moves is the proverbial 6", which represents c.300m and thus a turn represents about 5 minutes. For the base = c.1 regiment/brigade game, then the max move is c.9", or about 1200-1250m, so a turn represent c.15-20 minutes. Either way, I'd normally get through about 15 – 25 turns in 2-4 hours, so representing 75 minutes – 2+ hours for a Corps action, or 4 – 8 hours for an Army action. |
Whirlwind | 16 Aug 2017 10:05 p.m. PST |
I always felt that the most egregious sign of design failure was in the rules (WRG 1685-1845; WRG 1925-1950; Bruce Quarrie's Napoleonic Rules) where it said a turn represented about 2-2.5 minutes of action, but half an hour for campaign purposes. I could never get my head around that, because it is like admitting that there must be massive gaps in the rules ability to deal with the warfare in the period (I'm picking on those three because they were all quite good rules for their time, rather than the reverse). In fact, my intuition is that if you can get the scales (time and ground and casualty rates) to match what you need them to do for the game, you have probably got a decent model of how a battle of a period really worked. |
UshCha | 17 Aug 2017 12:07 a.m. PST |
Whirlwind, I have to disagree. I an not a milairaty man but have read a lot and for the last year or so came close to being "management" with a very keen team. On that basis I believe that, briefing you team on who does what and when, and the time taken Looking around and planning next steps, even waiting while th MG changes its barrel before the next bound, while it could be directly modeled takes a significanmt time. I would not want to directly model all that as its not a bit I want to simulate accurately, so I do subscribe to the Barker approach. Indeed our pre-planned high speed movement is based on this assumption. However in return, all hell breakes lose if such movement is interupted as there is no time for carefully thought out responces or even much spotting. Even the gun barrel can only be "stowed" fgorward or aft for fear of hitting obsticles, so little thinking time is available. It is perhaps one of the Great Philosophical debates about wargames design. They underpin the fundamentals of Wargame design and yet do not get a great deal of air time. In Napolionics as I understand it at some level issue of orders is be writtrn command. I would guess with a quill and proabley in duplicate this would take some time. Again all fundamental to wargames design. This is proving an interesting thread. Ground scale is a key issue. For combat using Tanks we prefer 1mm = 1". so a standard table 8ft by 6 ft is 1.8km by 2.4 km. Given intravisibilty limiting range to about 500 to 1500 yds close on 2 extreem gun ranges along the table.
Wile not a game I have played much of, at least in its inception, where it claimed to model only in urban areas within rifle range, Crossfire had a unique and plausible approach, with no distance limits at all on movementas the timeframes are relatively short. It does work efficently and plausably. |
Whirlwind | 17 Aug 2017 4:32 a.m. PST |
I would not want to directly model all that as its not a bit I want to simulate accurately, so I do subscribe to the Barker approach. Well, anyone following the AARs on my blog will definitely not conclude that I don't like Phil Barker's rules! But my point isn't that you can't include time in prep – it is more that if you understand why units moved over the time and distance they did in practice in your chosen period – and your rules reflect that – you will have sorted out your game. Motorized troops in contact rarely move more than 5mph – to my mind, the worst thing is to make vehicle speeds 5mph, because then you have to change the tactics of the period to achieve the result. |
UshCha | 17 Aug 2017 10:20 a.m. PST |
Whirlwind, I really am not being funny but I did not understand the last comment. We use (sort of) 3 speeds, fast, slow (maneuvering speed if you like) and transit, the latter is for long distances where speed is critical but at such speeds it about getting somewhere not fighting on the move. Interestingly the LAW 72 Manual says that it has leads for up to 12 mph. It notes you are unlikely to meet vehicles doing more than 12 mph in combat. |
Whirlwind | 17 Aug 2017 10:34 a.m. PST |
@ UshCha, Because the reasons that make vehicles go slow in WW2+ combat are not because the vehicles couldn't go fast; and sometimes they *do* go fast; but by making their speed in the game 5mph, one has converted the vehicle from a Sherman or M60 into a Mk IV or a Maus. |
McLaddie | 18 Aug 2017 8:20 p.m. PST |
Interestingly the LAW 72 Manual says that it has leads for up to 12 mph. It notes you are unlikely to meet vehicles doing more than 12 mph in combat. And is that because the vehicle is headed at the shooter or that tanks designed to go 20-30 mph never do? I think this 'averaging' of combat behavior, so everyone HAS TO always move at the statistically average or 'expected' speed creates ahistorical behavior rather than the issues that actually had troops deciding what speed to travel at. |
Wolfhag | 18 Aug 2017 9:56 p.m. PST |
I'd think that if you were in an infantry defensive position being attacked by tanks the terrain would most likely preclude a tank moving at more than 12mph. Even at that, he's out stripped his infantry escort. If you selected a defensive position where tanks can zip by at 30mph someone really screwed up. Wolfhag |
UshCha | 19 Aug 2017 1:35 a.m. PST |
However that being said if yo need to scoot f room one prepared position to n another say half a kilometer away on a pre surveyed track out of sight of the enemy you would use more of the tanks speed, which is I guess what this n post is about. Infantry in column is proving to be way beyond my knowledge, certainly in Napoleonic times. |
Andy ONeill | 19 Aug 2017 5:38 a.m. PST |
ww2 tanks should creep along when expecting contact. Except maybe early British and those expecting to have to close to have a chance against enemy armour. You then need some mechanism penalises fast movement. Much lower spotting chances and longer reaction times eg. |
UshCha | 19 Aug 2017 6:58 a.m. PST |
As mentioned above we have those and more limitations when moving fast. Striking the gun barrel on objects can become an issue hence the need for the gun to be fore or aft when moving at high speed. |
Wolfhag | 19 Aug 2017 7:43 a.m. PST |
UshCha, Shouldn't the barrel be at max elevation too so it does not dig in on a bump? Especially modern Russian MBT's. Hey, it's Snarky Saturday. Wolfhag |
UshCha | 19 Aug 2017 7:59 a.m. PST |
Wolfhag, Probably but the Swedes with the S tank said you just needed to train the crew. Mind you that probably does not apply to Russian conscripts. Can yo imagine the grief if you made wargamers have elevating barrels. Some won't even allow turrets to move even on 20 mm+ models. |
McLaddie | 19 Aug 2017 8:42 a.m. PST |
So the speed has something to do with the terrain. I have read accounts of Desert Storm where US armored vehicles would charge the enemy rather than standing off and firing depending on the terrain and tactical situation/suprise. |
Wolfhag | 19 Aug 2017 8:49 a.m. PST |
McLaddie, You are probably right about the charge. However, the terrain in the desert was very flat and with the torsion bar suspension and stabilizer system I'm pretty sure the Abrams can take out a target at 2000 km or more while moving at 40mph and the enemy fire control cannot hit them. I don't play modern armor games. If the rules are even close to reality the Abrams and tanks like it are a game killer. Wolfhag |
UshCha | 19 Aug 2017 10:18 a.m. PST |
To be fair there are not many places with totally unobstructed spaces that are as flat as a road. |
McLaddie | 19 Aug 2017 3:58 p.m. PST |
To be fair there are not many places with totally unobstructed spaces that are as flat as a road. Very true and tanks during WWII were not Abrams. Even so, does that mean that tanks move at 12 MPH regardless of terrain or tactical situation? |
UshCha | 19 Aug 2017 11:13 p.m. PST |
It means that tanks, with limitations, go from stop to perhaps 20 mph+ depending on the situation and terrain. You are not going to do even 12 mph crossing a fence/ditch combination or go round a hairpin bend on a road at 20mph. Neither are you going to have infinite iproability drive and go from stop to full speed without limitations. The point is that you need to be able to have all the options avaiable. 1 move fits all denys the flexability of vehicles. Plus it does not assist in getting inside the oppositions decision loop. |
McLaddie | 20 Aug 2017 9:56 a.m. PST |
The point is that you need to be able to have all the options avaiable. 1 move fits all denys the flexability of vehicles. Plus it does not assist in getting inside the oppositions decision loop. Agreed. Averaging has its uses unless you end up with all families with 2.4 children or all tank traveling at 12 miles an hour.
|
Wolfhag | 20 Aug 2017 11:34 a.m. PST |
To get an idea of tanks movement and maneuverability I've watched various historical and training videos, read over manuals and talked to tankers. I rate max speed depending on terrain types. The Panther had torsion bar suspension and a shock absorber that could travel 20 inches. The Tiger's and T-34's 9 inches and first Shermans only 4 inches (Panther: Germany's Quest for Combat Dominance by Michael Green). This alone enabled the Panther to effectively move more quickly over rough terrain than other tanks – as long as it did not break down. Overall I think a tank would normally travel at a safe speed that put the least amount of strain on the engine, transmission, and tracks. Turning at high speeds quickly wore out the brake lining on tanks using clutch/brake turning. But then consider tactics. If you're outside the effective range of your gun and the enemy is hitting and penetrating you the most likely tactic would be to go as fast as you can to close the range. Travelling at 25kph will allow you to move 400-450 meters in 60 seconds. Throwing a track or breaking down is not much of a consideration in that time while under fire. Wolfhag |
UshCha | 21 Aug 2017 1:39 a.m. PST |
You have to remember that at its current optimum, Maneouver Group battle fields are 1800m by 2400m. By careful use of terrain that aims to mimic tytpical battle ranges of 500 to 1500m (defined by Nother Europe intravisibility) there is often covered routes available to travel quikly between positions out of sight. These are the conditions when speeds of around 20mph may be achieved. Again faster speeds are needed when closing with the enemy if needed. However at the higher speeds hitting an obsticle is bad news and the vehicle needs to slow down to traverse difficult obsticles and/or tsake up an un-surveyed hull down position. We do have an advanced option we found neccessary and supported at least anecdotaly by at least one tank crew. That was the move to a secondary pre-surveyed position (its given more detail in our free bulletins) basicaly the comander gives the driver the command on the next shot move. The engine is reved, the shot fired and the clutch engaged. The driver reverses on a pre-surveyed path until he sees a strategicaly placed marker (typical a platic bag or a beer can) where he knows he can quickly turn, and then moves off forwards to the next position. This was a late addition to the rules as really plausible tank battles are not easy with 20mm+ vehicle without severe conflicts of model and ground scale. However as the US manuals point out this option is best exploited in the presence of counter mobility engineering to stop the enemy closing too fast or to be on the flank on the enemy attack. Again typical wargame movement make this impractical and hence severely degrades the ability to simulate such tactics. Phil Barker paid lip service to this tactic in his 1925 to 1950 rules (which is more than a lot of modern rules) but it never seemed to work for us. Not sure the gains were not outweighed by the losses. Again appropriate movement is a key driver to provideing an adequate simulation. I have never been attracted to 6mm but advocates could use 1mm=2mm ground scale and the area covered would be 3.6km by 4.8lm with no loss of fidelity. However one issue is to maintain the same intravisibility now requires 45 times as much terrain. Storage is not the issue its the placement of may kilometers of hedges ditches and bridges that cne be an issue unless you have acces to a prmanent or semi permanent room. Fighting on terreain that does not mimic at least in part the real thging again severely limits the plausibility of the terrain and tactics. A simulation is only as good as the weakest link it is attempting to simulate. Good movement helps but only if the terrain is adequate to start with. |
Wolfhag | 21 Aug 2017 12:50 p.m. PST |
Ushcha, From US FM 18-20 Tactical Deployment of Tank Destroyer Platoon Self-Propelled ALTERNATE FIRING POSITION. This is a firing position from which the same fire mission can be executed as from the primary position. It should be selected prior to occupation and with the same care as is given the selection of the primary position; routes to it also are selected. An alternate position may be occupied when the enemy- a. Brings such heavy fire upon the primary position that to remain in it would probably cause loss of the destroyer. b. Covers the primary position with smoke. c. Has been driven off and another attack or an artillery concentration is an enemy capability Of course, obstacles to slow down the attacker are almost vital. I've run scenarios where German Assault Guns tried to fall back to alternate positions against attacking T-34's. The T-34's were just too fast for it to work. What did work was for the German Assault guns to pull into a concealed position when they got close, let them pass by and then pop out and shoot them from behind. Wolfhag |
UshCha | 26 Aug 2017 1:54 a.m. PST |
It's to my shame I tried to find the section in global security covering some lessons learnt about tank alternate positions. This said that 50m apart was minimum and 75 yds + better. No smoke on leaving as it could obscure the alternate position. We finally added the 40m rule so closer than 40 m to an existing target is much easier to hit. This forces us to about 50m spacing, with the width of the tank being about 20 we get about 60m not too bad. Interestingly the site of smoke was set well before this data was found and yes at 50m smoke does obscure a secondary position. It just goes to show how complex a wargame is, movement must support all the other aspects of the game. |
Wolfhag | 27 Aug 2017 11:56 a.m. PST |
UshCha, What about popping smoke from the tanks smoke projectors to cover their withdrawal? That should cover about 25 meters. Wolfhag |
UshCha | 28 Aug 2017 3:17 a.m. PST |
Wolfhag, The said article was about smoke projectors, so 25m spead may be an underestimate. The manufactures quote 60 to 70m for an 8 shell screen. So 35m ither side) With some drift in wind this could be an issue. Plus as its a covered route out it said not too make a too fast a withdrawal to minimise dust and exhaust plume. I guess also if its well designed you are out of sight in the 2 seconds it takes for the smoke to bloom. |