GHQ Ruleset vs The Other Guy's
Moderators: dnichols, GHQ, Mk 1
-
- E5
- Posts: 158
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:59 am
- Location: Leavenworth,KS
-
- E5
- Posts: 158
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:59 am
- Location: Leavenworth,KS
-
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 4:35 pm
there is a website where you can get it from:
http://axisdomain.0catch.com/Threat_main.html
I believe in adapting rules. I use the Battlegroup as a base and adapt it to my needs. Smoke not good enough look around, well Mobuis's smoke rules are nice, how can I adapt them to fit in in my game mechanism. (I am actually working on updtaing the smoke rules from 3 or 4 different rules sets and sources among them US FMs because from my personal knowledge the current stuff doesn't cut it)
I follow with interst the arguments around the multiple hits and evasive movements. Just some of my opservations.
Well I would like to see a tanker get of more than 3 rounds of aimed fire in minute. I do not doubt the fact that it is possible to get a hit within 7 seconds I just wonder if it is possible to get 3 first round hits in under a minute if not stationary for at least more than 10 minutes before hand. Here I want to give info from a friend of mine working at our Armor school in Bloemfontein. He told me that with carefull preperation they could hit a target out to 4km with the 76mm gun on the rooikat but that it took about a hour to achieve this. Now I would say it will be the same in this situation. If that Leopard had been there for a while and had been able to set up properly it would have gotten off 2 maybe 3 shots. If it took snap shots no dice.
Now to mechanisms. On the battlegroup rules the player moves then the enemy fires. Then the player fires. Then the enemy moves. So in this case the M1s moved so the Leopard fires. Before the leopard can react the M1s that remain can return. If the leopard survives the onslaught it can now duck outta sight while the M1 can try a fleeting shot. It is all a mater of timing your firing just right.
At present the rules don't alow more than one shot in a turn. But I believe this will be remedied soon.
http://axisdomain.0catch.com/Threat_main.html
I believe in adapting rules. I use the Battlegroup as a base and adapt it to my needs. Smoke not good enough look around, well Mobuis's smoke rules are nice, how can I adapt them to fit in in my game mechanism. (I am actually working on updtaing the smoke rules from 3 or 4 different rules sets and sources among them US FMs because from my personal knowledge the current stuff doesn't cut it)
I follow with interst the arguments around the multiple hits and evasive movements. Just some of my opservations.
Well I would like to see a tanker get of more than 3 rounds of aimed fire in minute. I do not doubt the fact that it is possible to get a hit within 7 seconds I just wonder if it is possible to get 3 first round hits in under a minute if not stationary for at least more than 10 minutes before hand. Here I want to give info from a friend of mine working at our Armor school in Bloemfontein. He told me that with carefull preperation they could hit a target out to 4km with the 76mm gun on the rooikat but that it took about a hour to achieve this. Now I would say it will be the same in this situation. If that Leopard had been there for a while and had been able to set up properly it would have gotten off 2 maybe 3 shots. If it took snap shots no dice.
Now to mechanisms. On the battlegroup rules the player moves then the enemy fires. Then the player fires. Then the enemy moves. So in this case the M1s moved so the Leopard fires. Before the leopard can react the M1s that remain can return. If the leopard survives the onslaught it can now duck outta sight while the M1 can try a fleeting shot. It is all a mater of timing your firing just right.
At present the rules don't alow more than one shot in a turn. But I believe this will be remedied soon.
-
- E5
- Posts: 158
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:59 am
- Location: Leavenworth,KS
I just wonder if it is possible to get 3 first round hits in under a minute if not stationary for at least more than 10 minutes before hand. Here I want to give info from a friend of mine working at our Armor school in Bloemfontein. He told me that with carefull preperation they could hit a target out to 4km with the 76mm gun on the rooikat but that it took about a hour to achieve this.
I have to ask this...What is your friend DOING for the HOUR it takes him to PREPARE to engage a target at 4K? I could take an instruction manual into an M1A2 and get 9 first round hits within 1 hour. (Reading for 59 minutes and engaging 9 targets in the last minute).
I have to ask this...What is your friend DOING for the HOUR it takes him to PREPARE to engage a target at 4K? I could take an instruction manual into an M1A2 and get 9 first round hits within 1 hour. (Reading for 59 minutes and engaging 9 targets in the last minute).
-
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 4:35 pm
Ok we don't have such advanced computer aiming stuff as on the M1 we are a bit of a back ward nation. The preparations involve the cleaning of all external sensors which takes a bit of time. Waiting for the sensors to get a good reading (a minute or two) setting up the computer with all the input variables such as ammo temp, wind direction, wind strenght and so forth. And then pulling the trigger. Now this is a recon vehicle and won't even fire it's 76mm gun exept on extreme cases. In a MBT with modern computer systems it may be possible to get 3 hits a minute. I just would like to see it do it in combat instead of on the range.
-
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 4:35 pm
I would aslo just like to add. I don't doubt that the M1A2 can achieve this, but what about that Leopard 1A1A. It was built in the 60s. Or the Chieftain, Centurion and many of the Russian stuff one would face on the battlefield today. One must never rules around just one vehicle. If the Abrahms can do it great, what about the rest.
-
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 11:03 pm
- Location: Charleston, WV
Well, never been on an M1 in combat, but I've been on a Bradley. I've also been on M1s in exercises. I'll grant you that loading the M1 while it's moving across country is going to be a mjaor pain in the butt.....trying to shove that 120mm round into the breech as it's moving up and down (assuming the gunner is tracking something and has the stabilization engaged) has to be rough.I just would like to see it do it in combat instead of on the range.
But as far as in the defense, or perhaps moving slowly over fairly even terrain......3 hits in a minute is easy.
-
- E5
- Posts: 481
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 1:02 am
- Location: Glendale CA
- Contact:
I guess it would depend on the terrain density. You are using a fairly compressed game scale so there is not very much clutter. If you used the scale and the amount of blocking terrain in a typical FOW or Crossfire game (which often looks like it is all taking place in a city park) your avenues of fire would be severely limited.GMills wrote:You are correct. The BRDM COULD go another 12 seconds and COULD dodge into cover. But there was no cover that close. Plus the BRDM of course, has to also see the launch and react to it. This takes away from his 12 seconds say between 5-10 seconds.
Even my scale of 1:2000 or 500mm = 1000 meters is said to favor the Germans because it allows for longer range shots.
BTW, the person who said that was John Reynolds, the designer of Men in Armor, and the person who taught Brian Stokes (Tank Charts) all about tanks.
It is true in a degree because players usually add terrain to their tastes not from a map. So they sprinkle around terrain until it looks good. So two woods 6" apart in one scale may be 300 meters in one scale, 150 in another or half a kilomenter in another.
Mk_1 I've added some more examples:
http://www.panzer-war.com/page28.html
All your tanks are belong to us.
Panzer War rule system
Panzer War rule system
-
- E5
- Posts: 2160
- Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:13 am
- Location: Antananarivo
In regards to multple shots (first round hits/kills). I was a tanker '71 to '77. I was trained on the M60 series.We were trained to engage 3 targets under 15 seconds. The targets were 1000 to 1800m out. I used to do that with a crew in 11 seconds. Yeah ,I know what you're thinking(Not under combat conditions). I agree,but this is training. When the combat happens your training pays off. I'm sure that our M1s are quite capable of doing likewise or better.
Any tankers from the gulf to elaborate?
Any tankers from the gulf to elaborate?
John
-
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 4:35 pm
Ok I guess that was the point I was trying to make. Things are alot different in training than on the battlefield. But Suvurovs maxim of "Train Hard - Fight Easy" does ring true. I think the thing is when dealing with such complex things as rate of fire which realy is dependant on the system and the men feeding the machine training and expierence plays a big role.
Now I have never, and never will disparage another man's weapons and believe the M1 to be a good tank. I might not believe it's the best but that is just my opinion. All I am saying is take a look at the whole system - the men (regulars with battle expierence will feed that gun much faster than the reserve bloke who is in the shooting match for the first time), the machine (the age of the system, how well it is maintained and how new it is especially for instance barrels which need to be changed after a certain amount of rounds) and the situation (has the crew had time to set up the machine correctly - even the M1 needs to be boresighted and system checked - what is the terrain, hows the weather what is the battlefield sittuation).
.
All of these variables tend to make the simulation very complex and would be very time consuming on the gaming bord. (I had some expierence with this early in my engineering studies when we tried to model the fall of an unguided round - in the end we had to make many assumptions and just said there it is it aint perfect but it works most of the time) And the problem with this is that nobody, and I repeat nobody, will be happy with the rules because all of us will find some kind of fault with it. In the end it is about compromises. We must find that golden midway which is the most acceptable to all.
Ok just for some fun. I calculated last night that one M1 company, at the given rate of fire of 9 rounds a minute, can destroy the whole South African Armored Corps in 2 minutes.
Remind me never to wage war against you fellows.[/i]
Now I have never, and never will disparage another man's weapons and believe the M1 to be a good tank. I might not believe it's the best but that is just my opinion. All I am saying is take a look at the whole system - the men (regulars with battle expierence will feed that gun much faster than the reserve bloke who is in the shooting match for the first time), the machine (the age of the system, how well it is maintained and how new it is especially for instance barrels which need to be changed after a certain amount of rounds) and the situation (has the crew had time to set up the machine correctly - even the M1 needs to be boresighted and system checked - what is the terrain, hows the weather what is the battlefield sittuation).
.
All of these variables tend to make the simulation very complex and would be very time consuming on the gaming bord. (I had some expierence with this early in my engineering studies when we tried to model the fall of an unguided round - in the end we had to make many assumptions and just said there it is it aint perfect but it works most of the time) And the problem with this is that nobody, and I repeat nobody, will be happy with the rules because all of us will find some kind of fault with it. In the end it is about compromises. We must find that golden midway which is the most acceptable to all.
Ok just for some fun. I calculated last night that one M1 company, at the given rate of fire of 9 rounds a minute, can destroy the whole South African Armored Corps in 2 minutes.

Remind me never to wage war against you fellows.[/i]
-
- E5
- Posts: 2160
- Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:13 am
- Location: Antananarivo
Right you are on all this! I would like to add that allowing ALL complexities of reality has NO ROOM in a Minaiture wargame,IF you really want to play a tactical situation. It is just too much time wise to run effectively and ends up turning into litugation . On the battlefield there is no litugation,so why should it be in a game that tautes reality?Vorster wrote:Ok I guess that was the point I was trying to make. Things are alot different in training than on the battlefield. But Suvurovs maxim of "Train Hard - Fight Easy" does ring true. I think the thing is when dealing with such complex things as rate of fire which realy is dependant on the system and the men feeding the machine training and expierence plays a big role.
Now I have never, and never will disparage another man's weapons and believe the M1 to be a good tank. I might not believe it's the best but that is just my opinion. All I am saying is take a look at the whole system - the men (regulars with battle expierence will feed that gun much faster than the reserve bloke who is in the shooting match for the first time), the machine (the age of the system, how well it is maintained and how new it is especially for instance barrels which need to be changed after a certain amount of rounds) and the situation (has the crew had time to set up the machine correctly - even the M1 needs to be boresighted and system checked - what is the terrain, hows the weather what is the battlefield sittuation).
.
All of these variables tend to make the simulation very complex and would be very time consuming on the gaming bord. (I had some expierence with this early in my engineering studies when we tried to model the fall of an unguided round - in the end we had to make many assumptions and just said there it is it aint perfect but it works most of the time) And the problem with this is that nobody, and I repeat nobody, will be happy with the rules because all of us will find some kind of fault with it. In the end it is about compromises. We must find that golden midway which is the most acceptable to all.
Ok just for some fun. I calculated last night that one M1 company, at the given rate of fire of 9 rounds a minute, can destroy the whole South African Armored Corps in 2 minutes.![]()
Remind me never to wage war against you fellows.[/i]
Also I don't understand this "setup" you guys are talking about. Boresighting and zeroeing are done before battle. Your firing positions are already picked out if you are defending,and secondary and third positions also picked. As for picking out targets,well its reltively easy when they are moving on you,even in the old tanks if you see it you can hit it... I've got to run ,and I have a lot more to say...Later
One other thing right! don't mess with the US on the Field,I've also spent time in the 354th Panzer battalion and those boys are even more bad

John
-
- E5
- Posts: 481
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 1:02 am
- Location: Glendale CA
- Contact:
If you are interested in the ballistics of unguided projectiles of WWII check out my Naval Armor and Ballistics program. (I think later this year I may make it into a computer assisted naval game.)Vorster wrote:All of these variables tend to make the simulation very complex and would be very time consuming on the gaming bord. (I had some expierence with this early in my engineering studies when we tried to model the fall of an unguided round - in the end we had to make many assumptions and just said there it is it aint perfect but it works most of the time)
http://www.panzer-war.com/Naab/NAaB.html
As for rate of fire one can find many examples in WW2 to the Golan Heights of 5-8 rounds a minute being fired in some intense battles. Obviously after a few minutes of this fatigue sets in. I think the record ROF for a Centurion 105mm is 13 rpm of firing and hitting a target, (but that was training).
All your tanks are belong to us.
Panzer War rule system
Panzer War rule system
-
- E5
- Posts: 158
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:59 am
- Location: Leavenworth,KS
Ok just for some fun. I calculated last night that one M1 company, at the given rate of fire of 9 rounds a minute, can destroy the whole South African Armored Corps in 2 minutes.
Remind me never to wage war against you fellows.[/i][/quote]
Vorster,
I played a game back in '91 where we tried to simulate the Iraqi defense that our troops would be up against (the ground war had not started yet). We had M1A1s leading the attack and they cut though the Iraqi's defense without losing a single vehicle. Destroyed the enemy bn (behind berms, burning oil pits, wire ETC) in less than 2 minutes. We thought we had made a mistake, "it couldn't be that easy!" But it WAS. They could't SEE us but WE saw them! I don't game much anymore with M1's It's not fun.

Remind me never to wage war against you fellows.[/i][/quote]
Vorster,
I played a game back in '91 where we tried to simulate the Iraqi defense that our troops would be up against (the ground war had not started yet). We had M1A1s leading the attack and they cut though the Iraqi's defense without losing a single vehicle. Destroyed the enemy bn (behind berms, burning oil pits, wire ETC) in less than 2 minutes. We thought we had made a mistake, "it couldn't be that easy!" But it WAS. They could't SEE us but WE saw them! I don't game much anymore with M1's It's not fun.
-
- E5
- Posts: 481
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 1:02 am
- Location: Glendale CA
- Contact:
Sounds like what we did. In the Convention in LA early Feb'91 we did a battle of a company each of M1s and M2 attacked a battalion of dug-in T-72s and dug-in infantry. Another 2 companies of T62s and T-72s were to come in as Iraqi reinforcements.GMills wrote:I played a game back in '91 where we tried to simulate the Iraqi defense that our troops would be up against (the ground war had not started yet). We had M1A1s leading the attack and they cut though the Iraqi's defense without losing a single vehicle. Destroyed the enemy bn (behind berms, burning oil pits, wire ETC) in less than 2 minutes. We thought we had made a mistake, "it couldn't be that easy!" But it WAS. They could't SEE us but WE saw them! I don't game much anymore with M1's It's not fun.
The on board Iraqis were destroyed in a few turns. But I think two M2s were a total loss and 2-3 M-1s had some sort of track/mobility damage. Most of the M-1 losses were from infantry armed with RPGs firing from the sides or mines.
A T-72 column was obliterated on the road by A-10s and the T-62 column came on saw the carnage and immediately ran off. The Iraqi players didn't like the game one bit.
Two weeks later the real battle occurred and confirmed our results except that we had over-estimated the determination of Iraqi infantry.
All your tanks are belong to us.
Panzer War rule system
Panzer War rule system