Scenario development questions re: German Reconnaissance Battalion 1989

[Ssnake]

Have you tried the "Choosing Ammunition" from the "Other Documents" folder?

[Panzer_Leader]

Have you tried the "Choosing Ammunition" from the "Other Documents" folder?

No, I forgot about that resource :oops:

I'll take a look tonight when I'm in front of my home PC.

EDIT: The document suggests either BM-32 (1984) or BM-42 (1986) would be acceptable in this time frame but that "the latter appears to have been the standard round at the end of the Cold War, and up to the present day". On this basis I'll stick with BM-42 but have downgraded the ATGM rounds to AT-8 Songster which would have been standard for the T-64B(V). Thanks for the pointer Ssnake.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Panzer_Leader

[Duke(911)]

Servus Panzer_Leader,

I checked the 1.1 version.

The 3rd ASLAV callsign is SanTrp, and the ASLAVs have now a fire control system?

I changed the name of the callsign here.

best regards

Duke

Area Reconnaissance at Neustadt am Rübenberge 1989 v1.1 (2.654)Duke.rar

[Panzer_Leader]

Servus Panzer_Leader,

I checked the 1.1 version.

The 3rd ASLAV callsign is SanTrp, and the ASLAVs have now a fire control system?

I changed the name of the callsign here.

best regards

Duke

Thanks Duke. It seems I corrected one thing and broke another and didn't pick it up before publishing v1.1. I'll re-upload the scenario with the correction. Thanks for spotting it!

As for the fire control system, I had to re-enable the ballistic computer so that the laser range finder (LRF) can be used. It seems when the ballistic computer is disabled the LRF also becomes unusable. I understand the Luchs didn't have a ballistic computer but it's really a trade-off between vehicle accuracy and playability. I think it's more important the Luchs has a usable LRF, for marking targets in-game for example, than it is for it to have an historically inaccurate ballistic computer.

Similarly, I originally had stabilisation disabled, as the Luchs did not have this, but Gibsonm pointed out in Beta testing that it also disabled powered traverse. Obviously, having powered traverse is more important than historically innacurate stabilisation so I re-enabled it before publishing the scenario.

I guess there's just some limitations to using one vehicle as a proxy for another that it was never intended to be...

[Gibsonm]

Similarly, I originally had stabilisation disabled, as the Luchs did not have this, but Gibsonm pointed out in Beta testing that it also disabled powered traverse. Obviously, having powered traverse is more important than historically innacurate stabilisation so I re-enabled it before publishing the scenario.

It doesn't fire either with no stab, which might be handy.

[Duke(911)]

Servus,

Thanks Duke. It seems I corrected one thing and broke another and didn't pick it up before publishing v1.1. I'll re-upload the scenario with the correction. Thanks for spotting it!

As for the fire control system, I had to re-enable the ballistic computer so that the laser range finder (LRF) can be used. It seems when the ballistic computer is disabled the LRF also becomes unusable. I understand the Luchs didn't have a ballistic computer but it's really a trade-off between vehicle accuracy and playability. I think it's more important the Luchs has a usable LRF, for marking targets in-game for example, than it is for it to have an historically inaccurate ballistic computer.

Similarly, I originally had stabilisation disabled, as the Luchs did not have this, but Gibsonm pointed out in Beta testing that it also disabled powered traverse. Obviously, having powered traverse is more important than historically innacurate stabilisation so I re-enabled it before publishing the scenario.

I guess there's just some limitations to using one vehicle as a proxy for another that it was never intended to be...

Yes I know the problem with the stabilization, but why you need a fire control system to mark things in the map?

In real life without LRF help, you have to find out your postion on the map, to find the distance to the target, to use your compass and you have the grid and can mark it in the map with your own graphics.

It`s back to the roots, but if I left the army (1999), it was the only way to do this.

But it`s your scenario, and I like it.

best regards

Duke

[Panzer_Leader]

Yes I know the problem with the stabilization, but why you need a fire control system to mark things in the map?

In real life without LRF help, you have to find out your postion on the map, to find the distance to the target, to use your compass and you have the grid and can mark it in the map with your own graphics.

It`s back to the roots, but if I left the army (1999), it was the only way to do this.

OK, maybe there's a simple way to fix this; did the Luchs have a laser range finder or not? Perhaps I've misunderstood that it did. If, in fact, it didn't I'm happy to have the ballistic computer and, in consequence, laser range finder disabled in the scenario for maximum realism.

[Falli]

Yes I know the problem with the stabilization, but why you need a fire control system to mark things in the map?

In real life without LRF help, you have to find out your postion on the map, to find the distance to the target, to use your compass and you have the grid and can mark it in the map with your own graphics.

That was a remark, if not every single vehicle is manned. If you play this alone or with up to 6 ppl it´s easier to handle with a range finder on the Luchs. :redface:

[Ssnake]

did the Luchs have a laser range finder or not?

Or not.

At least I never heard that it had one, and I can't find a reference to it in the book by Hans-Peter Lohmann from 2010. Neither does it mention a ballistic computer.

[Panzer_Leader]

Or not.

At least I never heard that it had one, and I can't find a reference to it in the book by Hans-Peter Lohmann from 2010. Neither does it mention a ballistic computer.

Thanks Ssnake. From what I can tell Lohmann's book on the Spahpanzer Luchs looks definitive so if a LRF is not mentioned there's a strong case for disabling the ballistic computer, which the Luchs also didn't have and, in turn, the LRF. That will make the ASLAV-25 as close a proxy as possible given the constraints of the model.

[Gibsonm]

so if a LRF is not mentioned there's a strong case for disabling the ballistic computer, which the Luchs also didn't have and, in turn, the LRF.

You might want to test that on an ASLAV before going firm on it.

IIRC, disabling something simple before broke everything (no power traverse or elevation, no gunner's primary siight, no ability to fire at all, etc.).

If the Luchs is meant ot have only hand crank traverse and elevation, fine - but you probably should put that in the notes in bold or everyone will complain.

[Panzer_Leader]

You might want to test that on an ASLAV before going firm on it.

IIRC, disabling something simple before broke everything (no power traverse or elevation, no gunner's primary siight, no ability to fire at all, etc.).

If the Luchs is meant ot have only hand crank traverse and elevation, fine - but you probably should put that in the notes in bold or everyone will complain.

Tested: As far as I can tell disabling the Ballistic Computer and Laser Range Finder (LRF) has no unintended side effects. It simply means you need to lay the gun and adjust for the fall of shot manually. It also means you can't mark targets in-game but, given the Luchs didn't have a LRF, I'm OK with that in this scenario.

It still has power traverse; it was disabling Stabilisation that killed this.

[Panzer_Leader]

Standartweapons for this Time Infanterist are:

- P1 / Walther P38 (MG Gunner)

- MP 2A1 / Uzi (Sqt Leader)

- G3 / Heckler und Koch G3

- G3 ZF (Sniper)

- MG 3

- PzFst 44 / lePzFst

- schPzFst 84 / Carl Gustav

Ammo carried by the Soldiers:

P1 = 16 Rounds

MP 2A1 = 224 Rounds

G3 = 140 Rounds

MG 3 600 = Rounds

lePzFst = 4 Rounds

schPzFst = 3 Rounds

even more on the APC !

A question for my German kameraden: which vehicle of the three-vehicle platoon would have carried the "schPzFst 84 / Carl Gustav" and which would have carried the "PzFst 44 / lePzFst"; 1,2 or 3?

Also, how may Milan teams would normally have been carried in a Fuchs - 1, 2 or more? I know the Fuchs-equipped 5th company of a panzer reconnaissance battalion had three Milan teams so my baseline assumption is one per Fuchs. Having said that, I image there's room in a Fuchs for more, including their ammo. Any insight greatly appreciated, thanks.

[Falli]

Aloha ohe, I´ll try to hopefully answer this correctly. :clin:

A question for my German kameraden: which vehicle of the three-vehicle platoon would have carried the "schPzFst 84 / Carl Gustav" and which would have carried the "PzFst 44 / lePzFst"; 1,2 or 3?

At my time, we already had the PzF3 but I remember, that a mech. infantry platoon had 1-2 schPzFst, the rest was equipped with lePzFst (normally 1 per group).

Best way to simulate would be to give one plt ldr´s or section ldr´s dismounted troop a schwPzFst, all others get the light one.

Also, how may Milan teams would normally have been carried in a Fuchs - 1, 2 or more? I know the Fuchs-equipped 5th company of a panzer reconnaissance battalion had three Milan teams so my baseline assumption is one per Fuchs. Having said that, I image there's room in a Fuchs for more, including their ammo. Any insight greatly appreciated, thanks.

In Heeresstruktur 4 until 1990 the 5th coy of a PzAuklBtl consists of 3 platoons with each 3 Foxes. Only the plt ldr had a MILAN system, which could be used mounted (not possible in SB) or dismounted. A Fox in this role is carrying only one MILAN troop including extra ammunition and equipment for dismounted action (and additional dismounted "normal" infantry).

[Panzer_Leader]

Aloha ohe, I´ll try to hopefully answer this correctly. :clin:

At my time, we already had the PzF3 but I remember, that a mech. infantry platoon had 1-2 schPzFst, the rest was equipped with lePzFst (normally 1 per group).

Best way to simulate would be to give one plt ldr´s or section ldr´s dismounted troop a schwPzFst, all others get the light one.

In Heeresstruktur 4 until 1990 the 5th coy of a PzAuklBtl consists of 3 platoons with each 3 Foxes. Only the plt ldr had a MILAN system, which could be used mounted (not possible in SB) or dismounted. A Fox in this role is carrying only one MILAN troop including extra ammunition and equipment for dismounted action (and additional dismounted "normal" infantry).

Thanks very much Falli, just the answer I was looking for :drink:

It complements an interesting thread I found (http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=286348) but that didn't make it clear it was the platoon commander that had the Milan in Jaeger platoons. I'm considering a few minor tweaks to my Area Reconnaissance scenario (mainly introducing a third Fuchs with Milan) so wanted to understand the balance of anti-tank weapons throughout the platoon. I think I've got it now; thanks again

[Panzer_Leader]

A Fox in this role is carrying only one MILAN troop including extra ammunition and equipment for dismounted action (and additional dismounted "normal" infantry).

OK, sorry, one more question on this so I can represent it correctly: when you say "and additional dismounted "normal" infantry", do you mean the way I should represent the Milan-carrying Fox in Steel Beasts is with 1x ATGM team with Milan and 1x normal Rifle Squad?

Thanks

[Falli]

Jap. Normally - like on the Marder - the MILAN system would be used mounted on the Fuchs, but also can be operated dismounted.

As it is not possible in SB to use role 1, I would place mentioned 2 troops for this Fuchs in order to use it as a simple ATGM transport vehicle.

[Panzer_Leader]

Jap. Normally - like on the Marder - the MILAN system would be used mounted on the Fuchs, but also can be operated dismounted.

As it is not possible in SB to use role 1, I would place mentioned 2 troops for this Fuchs in order to use it as a simple ATGM transport vehicle.

Thank you sir! :cvcsalut: