Found This: the encyclopedia of weapons of WWII

Discussion in 'Command Ops Series' started by MarkShot, Dec 3, 2015.

  1. MarkShot

    MarkShot Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2015
    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    10
    I posted this on the GTOS forums a while ago. A fantastic PDF resource!

    I found this comprehensive book in both PDF and EPUB. It looks really useful. I am not sure it is still under copy right or not. (I think the PDF is much better.)

    From this site:

    https://archive.org/details/tractors-29177010-Encyclopedia-of-Weapons-of-World-War-II

    This should certainly help with this game and others.

    Admin/Mod: If this posting is a violation, then kindly delete it. Thanks!
     
    #1 MarkShot, Dec 3, 2015
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2015
  2. MarkShot

    MarkShot Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2015
    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    10
    I have fixed the above link as I did not realize that copying my post off of STEAM altered the link.

    Look at this beautiful book. You got have it, if games like this are your hobby.

    [​IMG]
     
  3. Kurt

    Kurt Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2015
    Messages:
    880
    Likes Received:
    36
    Great stuff MarkShot , Useful :)
     
  4. MarkShot

    MarkShot Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2015
    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    10
    This is less useful for CO2 than other games, since Dave added I think with BFTB the ability to access the ESTAB data directly from the game. Of course, the book although having less empirical data contains a lot more history than the short ESTAB blurbs.

    But for other games, it's really essential, since it is just assumed you know. Like I was playing GTOS and I saw my German engineers were armed with some ineffective anti-tank weapon of which I had never heard of. Sorry I cannot remember the German right now. What it was: the heads of five or six of those potato mashers tied around one in the middle which would act as detonator. If you were eager to make it a short war for yourself, you could try getting close to a Soviet T-34 and knock the treads off it.
     
  5. Kurt

    Kurt Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2015
    Messages:
    880
    Likes Received:
    36
    What is GTOS ?
     
  6. daathus

    daathus Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2015
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Graviteam Tactics: Operation Star
     
  7. MarkShot

    MarkShot Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2015
    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    10
  8. MarkShot

    MarkShot Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2015
    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    10
    In summary, it is a two level game:

    Upper Level Operational - It's not CO2, but the upper level is mainly to drive the lower level and provide randomness and replay.

    Lower Level Tactical Combat - It's CMV2, but it is very well done. And in some ways better, and some worse.

    Very fun. Very immersive. High replay value. (not easy)
     
  9. Kurt

    Kurt Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2015
    Messages:
    880
    Likes Received:
    36
    Thanks I will have look
     
  10. MarkShot

    MarkShot Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2015
    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    10
    Kurt,

    BTW, they have a game SABOW. Imagine the two level which I told you about using the same engine.

    When you arrive at the tactical battle, it is not only a battle. You are in the crew position of an M60 American Tank or a Soviet T-72. You can still issue broad stroke commands to everyone from the game map while tactical, but you can also fight as a crew member or take command of the tank platoon.

    I thought this would be a breeze as the same engine as GTOS, but the tank simulation is quite rich and will take time to learn. So, I haven't spent much time on this. But there was this incredible sale and I only paid like $9 USD. So, how could I not grab when I love GTOS.

    The one area where you will struggle, learning curve. If you are serious about it, you will need all the following:

    * The manual.

    * YouTube training videos.

    * Player written guide.

    * The STEAM forums for further insights.

    But I think I will be playing this for years.

    So far, I have only been playing one operation and beat it once. It's been different each time. Also, it has a feel which many games lack. You can win a battle or two, but lose the operation. You must always think economy of force.

    To many games just play out last man standing. Also, the terrain for operations is deformable. If the enemy digs trenches, they are there for the next battle and you can use them just as well.

    Where the tactical differs from CMv2:

    * CM much finer control and richer command set.

    * GTOS more broad stroke commands.

    * GTOS better graphics and performance.

    * GTOS terrain is better. How so? More realistic. CMV2 the terrain looks like it was computer generated. Too regular and even. In GTOS even an open field is not without dips and rises.
     
  11. Kurt

    Kurt Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2015
    Messages:
    880
    Likes Received:
    36
    Impressive stuff !!
     
  12. Perturabo

    Perturabo Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2014
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    How about you deleting it by yourself? It's a commercial book from 1998 that was scanned and OCRed by some random guy and uploaded to Internet Archive. I'm pretty sure copyrights on books don't expire in 18 years.
    You can easily buy the book online.
     
  13. MarkShot

    MarkShot Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2015
    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    10
    I don't know the history of this PDF, nor am an IP attorney, nor do I understand jurisdiction issues of where this is hosted, where I posted it, where the down loader is. You are free to click on REPORT and I am sure the Admin will make a legal or business decision as what to do.

    Thanks. (not everything free on the Internet is illegal or malware)
     
  14. kylania

    kylania Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2016
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    7
  15. kipanderson

    kipanderson Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2014
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    3
    Mark,

    I agree about the Graviteam games, to a degree. A very large degree in fact but I don't think they are quite equal of CM. For the reason you give. For tactics, tactics and more tactics CMX2 has no equal. In my view.

    However, each to their own. The Graviteam games are good, very, exceptionally immersive. But the learning curve is very steep. Never quite conquered it to be honest.

    It is "the.." example in the wargames world of why you need a very well written, easy to follow, Getting Started document with lots of screen shots that you can just print off, note to Dave.. you do need a Getting Started that can be printed off ; ), and near mindlessly follow to learn.

    With the right documentation they would sell twice the games.

    All the best,
    Kip.
     
  16. MarkShot

    MarkShot Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2015
    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    10
    A large part of this is the culture of programmers:

    * to write code but no documentation; ideally user guides are written first, not last

    * To see lots of cool complexity which makes obvious sense to everyone, but the programmers.

    + Complicate that by the fact that the programmers and most of the customer community is Russian

    On the other hand, you have a game that is very complex. Never crashes. And delivers smooth graphic performance across most modern hardware unlike many commercial games from American and European studios. I have to admit that I am very impressed by Russian technical skill; although I have not seen the code, but the results are impressive.
     
  17. GoodGuy

    GoodGuy Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    Messages:
    218
    Likes Received:
    24
    This makeshift solution was called "Geballte Ladung" (the best translation would be "bundled" or "concentrated load", means "charge") and was used against Allied tanks in WW1, already, in cases where Infantry guns or field guns had failed to stop the tanks, means where they had reached the German trenches.

    In WW2, when German inf encountered tanks with sloped frontal armor (T-34) or tanks with relatively thick frontal armor (KV-2, KV-1, KV-1s) in Russia, they were usually unable to knock them out with their "doorknocking devices" (the PaK 38 AT guns), so they started to use that makeshift solution from World War 1 in defensive situations again, when Russian tanks charged towards and over their defensive trench lines.

    Even though you think that these bundles could not damage more than just a track, those grenade bundles were actually effective if thrown/placed under enemy tanks, as the bottom armor of their hulls were not as thick as of those tanks that were produced later in the war (for instance, the bottom of a Tiger I consisted of 25 mm of armor, offering a sufficient level of protection against some AT mines and such improvised devices), but actually highly effective when placed on top of Russian engine compartments, and they were often the only tools at hand when defending trench lines or strongpoints early in the war, before sufficient numbers of 50 mm (and later on 75 mm) AT guns reached the frontlines.

    In WW2, the usual procedure was to throw a bundle of grenades either under the tank (with a fair chance of damaging or penetrating the relatively thin bottom of 1940's and 1941's Russian tanks), or next to the tank (with a high chance of the enemy tank throwing a track), or (the most promising spot) even on top of the engine compartment behind the turret (quite a few soldiers knocked out Russian tanks that way, as the engines either caught fire or got knocked out instantly, it was a pretty bloody/risky business, though). While the Germans had to fall back on using the Geballte Ladungen (plural), they actually had a way better tool for close infantry AT-combat, already:

    Hollow charges .... a cone with a magnetic base plate (used in 1940 for the very first time, during the para raid on the Belgian Fort Eben-Emael) , which could just be placed under a tank (the soldier had to let the enemy tank roll over him, so that he could place the charge somewhere on the bottom - say below the ammo racks or the crew compartment), but also anywhere else where the soldier could expect an effective penetration or damage (say on top of the engine compartment, on the thinner side armor - often with parts of the ammo racks right behind it - or even on the relatively thin rear armor with either the fuel tank or engine right behind it, etc.). If placed right, these HC cones delivered instant tank kills or immobilized tanks, usually.

    The Germans were pretty reluctant to use/issue these hollow charges, at first, because they were scared of the possibility that the Russians/Allies could use the technology against their own tanks, especially against their upcoming heavy tank designs. It seems like the Germans became less reluctant, after they had figured that the US Army had deployed their own lightweight/handheld AT system (bazooka) in North Africa, and it seems like magnetic AT hollow charges then saw some more widespread use (in Leningrad and in Stalingrad, for example). The Germans put the famous "Zimmerit" coating/finish on their tanks, as protection against Allied magnetic mines/charges, even though the Allies - except for naval special ops - did not use the concept of magnetic charges.

    The Russians only developed special HC grenades (with pointy tips and wings) that could be thrown by the soldiers, for instance, where then the RPG-6 (October 1943) was pretty much the counterpart (most likely copy) of the German Panzerwurfmine (PWM) introduced in May 1943, where the RPG-6 had cloth fins or wings serving as stabilizers, just like the PWM.

    Whatsoever, the idea with the Zimmerit coating was to create as much distance between the armor surface and a potential magnetic mine base plate, but also to create a rippled, uneven coating, where flat mine base plates could not stick.

    A rumor, which came up in 1944, saying that the Zimmerit coating could start to burn on (tank or AT) grenade impact, made the Germans cease to apply the coatings in September 1944, even though results of subsequent firing tests could discount that claim. The absence of Allied magnetic HC charges and the attempt to shorten the production cycle may have been other factors for the decision to do without Zimmerit coatings.

    Later in the war, the Germans used only one stick grenade (either a Model 24 or a Model 43 stick grenade) and bundled it with several Model 39 Eierhandgranaten ("egg hand grenades", like in this picture, taken at the "Atlantic Wall" in 1943 or 1944), as it was easier to handle/throw these bundles:

    Bundesarchiv_Bild_101II-M2KBK-196-34,_Atlantikwall,_Fliegerabwehr_durch_Gewehrbeschuss.jpg

    Only the stick in the middle served as fuze/trigger.

    A Nationalist Chinese soldier preparing for his suicide run against Japanese tank units, in 1938, wearing a vest packed with Model 24 stick grenades during the Battle of Taierzhuang (China), where a number of suicide bombers managed to get under Japanese tanks, ignite their suicide packs and knock out several tanks (at least 4?) instantly, in the process:

    Chinese_infantry.jpg

    If I am not mistaken, in the South Corean movie "My Way", Corean - unarmed - soldiers pressed into service by the Japanese Army - do something similar during a scene depicting a major battle during the Russian-Japanese border incident (1938 - 1939), as these Coreans are forced to carry bags with explosives and run towards (and under or next to) the Russian tanks (BT tanks?) and trigger their charges, knocking out several Russian tanks in the process.
    Not sure if this is an accurate depiction of the Battle of Nomonhan, but the Russian experiences during that conflict led to the development/design of the T-34, at least, as the Russian generals were not satisfied with the performance of their BT tanks.
     
    #17 GoodGuy, Apr 11, 2016
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2016

Share This Page