GHQ Models Forums

I think that all of us in wargaming do a lot of research. Some it is researching history books and trying to find out as much about our period of interest as we can. Others that like to write rules study the tanks and vehicles. Others try to find a better mouse trap on the table top.

So the question for discussion is where to you spend your extra brain power?

For example I have burned many brain cells trying to get the "gods eye view" out of the table top wargame. I have some ideas that still need play tested and tweeked but I keep intellectually play through how they will work. I'm working on my own rule system and this will eventually be an optional rule in the system. (Hopefully one of those always used ) .
So fes up is it TO&E's History game mechanics or something else entirely?

My primary interest is hardware. Fortunately, I have had sufficient income to collect a fairly sizable library on the topic. I spend most of my time going through secondary sources to find information on whatever weapon I happen to be interested in at the moment. Recently I have been using more internet searches, but hard copy is still my favorite.

Don S.

Anywhere I can find primary sources whether it's pictures from a book or writeup from the Center for Military History website.

...for years its been books, and then veterans. Most of the veterans are Vietnam veterans of course, but I've also talked with cab drivers, friends relatives, and so on in Germany when I was there in the '70s. Even here in town where I live I got information from some WWII, and Korean vets that ride the bus.
Lately the internet is probably the best source.
I like Mr. Scheef love the books.

It dipends on what are you looking for. I am interested in Military histiry in general with all the possible details on equipment, TO&E and operations. I prefer books but now I am making some very detailed research on the Web mainly because I have few space remaining in my house for books.(My library has a bit more than 5.000 titles, mainly land and naval).

It is also a question of langiage. I can read Italian (of course), English, French and a bit of Spanish but i don't know German or Japanese and on the net I can use a translator. Very often the result is funny but can be understood.

One important point with a large info base is the recovery of what you are looking for. Luckily I still have a good memory, even if I am sixty, and generally I can find what I am looking for within three attempts and,often at the fiirst one. For this reason my project to have tyhe information organized on a computer has not gone very far.

If I can't pull a fact out of my head (...you wouldn't believe the stuff stored in there!) or from one of my many, many reference books it is off to the internet to search and sometimes someone on this forum will have the information I need or can point me in the right direction. I enjoy being able to lend a hand if I know or can find the answer for someone.

Lately I have been trying to get the casualty radius for air dropped ordnance. Trying to find a source on the internet that is not some World of Warcraftish fantasy non-sense is proving to be quite challenging. But since this is the last part of my rule set to build charts for I’m determined to get it finished. But still finding casualty and bursting radius data not to mention casualty probability is hard to find in the internet. (Of course it might be because I’m not that good at key words. )

I agree veteran accounts are the best. I feel I have to be careful though. I have known several veterans for whom talking about their experience is not something they want to do.

From the historical side I really like to learn the Tactics from the Field Manuals and then look at how they were applied & or modified to the soldier’s situation. I think this is one of the reasons the Cold War is so fastinating for me.

I had the same problem 2 years ago when I was reworking the data for Tractics. I eventually settled on a formula that I'm sure is not accurate, but I'll live with it.

Here's a chart I found at the Homeland Security Website (posted for planning safe zones for your business or home). If you know the weight of the explosive in the bomb it will help. Military Field Manuals might also prove to have useful information, there are a few sites that post them freely. Type of warhead and filler also changes the lethal range. Example: a RG0 grenade with 9.2 ounces of RDX is suppose to have a Effective Fragmentation range of 100 meters, while the F1 grenade with 6 ounces of TNT filler has a EFR of 15 to 20 meter. (FM 23-30 Dec. 1988; courtesy of my local Army Surplus store)

Good Luck

www.fas.org has a fair amount of information. Plus you can find fun things like who we are selling tanks to........

Mostly TO&Es, and doctrine. I like to read combat narratives to see if the doctrine was followed and what happened as a result.

Yeah, I'm an amatuer, I like tactics, we don't need no stinkin logistics on the game table.

Although I have come across a couple of articles on the cargo capacity of the Red Ball Express that were really fascinating...

After a long time on research of TO&E and doctrine, I started to search for communications and logistic. The subject is very intersting and may be surprisingly limiting for modern thinking peoples.

Introducing them in a wargame of course dpend on the lengthe in real time scale of the scenario you are playing. For ex<mple you may consider an infantry unit constantly supplied of ammunition, but a tank will need fuel and ammunitions. At which level of fuel or ammunition a tankist will start tio think to refill?

With this I do not intend to keep track of every shot or move: it can be done in hours or with a dice. This may make the difference in a long lasting scenario unless you make the general consideration that you refill in the pause inplicit in the game.

Naval rules are my current principal interest, and mostly I rely on the library of about 10,000 military history books I've built up over 40 years. However, there are a lot of really good reference sites on the web - like navweaps - where you can get detailed info in one easy to research place. One of the frustrating things is having a really good reference source - in this case 40 years of Warship International magazine, and no really good up to date index to the articles and responses to questions.

I mentioned on another forum the archive.org website, which has thousands of books scanned from the 1800's and early 1900's. For references like the official RN report on Jutland or early Brassey's Annuals, this is a must-check website. And the books can be downloaded in PDF format for future reference.

There are also excellent books being published on a regular basis - for WW1 naval information, Friedman's 'Naval Firepower' and Brooks 'Dreadnought Gunnery and the Battle of Jutland' are outstanding recent references. I was also very impressed with 'French Battleships 1922-1956' by Jordan and Dumas. Friedman's two volume series on British Destroyers was also very detailed. I understand he is planning one or more volumes on British Cruisers - I will be looking for those.

I have thought about requesting copies of original naval manuals from the British Archives, but their reproduction costs are astronomical. Perhaps with all the uncontrolled stimulus spending in Britain, they might make some of those references available in PDF format on the web.

TO&Es along with battle specifics and paint jobs!