One of the things that I am looking at doing for GZGECC VI is modeling some
realistic terrain based on topographical maps and pictures taken of the area.
(Yes, I know I will probably never finish it, but one can dream).
Some of the hills are steeper than 45 degrees. They can be climbed by
appropriate vehicles, but the slopes cannot be ridden across side to side. I
have see tractors tip over trying to do this, so I know that it is dangerous.
I am thinking of modeling these in a different color flock to indicate that
these are passible only in a more or less up and down axis only. Has anyone
else try to model this?
I could be _really_evil_ and place the game in winter (with freezing
rain/ice storms). Try to go up the hill, make a save or it slides down
(hits
vehicles/soldiers below, etc.). Don't laugh, I've gone miles out of my
way to go around a steep hill in icy conditions.
What kind of tractors? This hearkens me back living on a farm in high school.
*snip*
> Don't laugh, I've gone miles out of my way
On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 10:38:41AM -0500, Bell, Brian K (Contractor)
wrote:
> I could be _really_evil_ and place the game in winter (with freezing
I've heard stories about this from US troops posted to Germany. "We don't want
you using snow chains on your APC because it damages the
roads". "OK." (Later:) "See that APC-shaped hole in the wall of your
church at the bottom of the hill?"
Farming tractors, I don't know which brand (I'm a city boy, but my
grandparents live on a farm). Luckily (?) most newer tractors have rollbars
(so you usually don't get killed, just very hurt). The hills are decieving.
They look less steep than they are. I have also seen quadrunners do the same.
When my grandfather took me out on the tractor, the first thing he said was
not to jump off. The second was to only drive up or down the hills, not around
them.
> From: "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil>
> Farming tractors, I don't know which brand (I'm a city boy, but my
Your grandfather knew what he was talking about. I learned to drive on a 1940
Farmall.
2B^2
> Brian.Bell
Correct. My sister ignored that and tipped over a tractor on a slope
which I believe is about 25-30 degrees. And that was without ice.
Driving on ice can be an exciting experience too, especially if there's a
steep slope near the road.
Bell, Brian K (Contractor) schrieb:
> When my grandfather took me out on the tractor, the first
I think tractors are especially prone to falling over because they are
relatively narrow and high, with a high center of gravity. Most military
vehicles won't fall over that easily. But it can still happen.
Greetings
Roger Burton West schrieb:
> I've heard stories about this from US troops posted to
Possible inaccuracy: AFAIK, the US only have used tracked APCs, and snow
chains are for wheeled vehicles. Either the story was about some other
vehicle, or about snow pads added the APC tracks, rather than chains.
Greetings
KH Ranitzsch schrieb:
> Possible inaccuracy: AFAIK, the US only have used tracked APCs,
US Army, true. USMC, no - they use the LAV 25 (a variant of the Mowag
Piranha), though I don't know if the USMC manouver(s/ed) in BRD.
and
> snow chains are for wheeled vehicles. Either the story was about some
Possible, the gist of the story's the same.
2B^2
On 7-Mar-02 at 12:54, KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de
(KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de)
wrote: > Bell, Brian K (Contractor) schrieb:
> > When my grandfather took me out on the tractor, the first
> relatively narrow and high, with a high center of gravity. Most
That depends on the tractor. The small Oliver tractor I drove when I was on
the farm had a fairly low center of gravity as do most of the tractors sold in
the Ozarks. The hills preclude the bigger tractors.
Something amusing was watching them run Caterpiller 'Dozers for clearing
hills. Cable at the top and two cats cabled together working up and down. Of
course this was stupid, cattle couldn't graze on the slope and you couldn't
make hay on it. It should have been left uncleared.
> At 6:20 PM +0100 3/7/02, KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:
Hmm. Tell that to folks that have gotten tanks upside down. Doug's Heavy Metal
Gallery has an interesting story by a USMC tanker who had to off load ammo
from a tank that was driven over a steep hill in the dark and ended up
inverted. They had to off load the ammo with battery acid dripping around
them.
True. Tractors have a fairly high center of gravity (about 0.75m-1m off
the ground).
I do not know where the center of gravity on a tank is. With modern tanks
(Abrams, Chalenger, etc.), I would expect it to be fairly low (just above or
along the top edge of the tread prehaps). Wheeled vehicles (LAVs & such) and
older tanks appear a little more top heavy. GEVs, I imagine, would balance at
the top of the aircushion. Grav would be either balanced upon or hanging from
the gravity engines. Walkers would have a fairly high center of gravity (duh!)
and would have to constantly adjust to keep it over thier
legs/feet.
In all cases all you have to do is to get the center of gravity to a point
where it is not over the supporting mechanism of the vehicle (past the bottome
of the tread in the case of a tank) to tip it over.
A wide (1.5x as wide as tall*) tank may not tip over on the hills while
standing still, but going over the rocks, ruts, etc. at speed just add
inertia toward the tipping point. I know that _I_ would rather not be in
it while it goes around the hillside.
But back to my question, has anyone modeled this before?
On Thu, 7 Mar 2002 14:00:31 -0500 , "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)"
> <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil> wrote:
> But back to my question, has anyone modeled this before?
I haven't modeled it in miniature hills, mostly because I have manufactured
hills, SG2 doesn't have it built in (though it's an excellent idea for a
scenario), and I just never thought of it.
As for game systems that model it, yes, Phoenix Command Mechanized had rules
for vehicles climbing or crossing slopes based on the angle of the slope.
Depending on variables, including weather, a tank could slip down the slope
or, in the worst case, flip over. I wouldn't imagine a tank would handle
rolling over very well, even if it landed tracks down (for one thing, damaging
the barrel would be a nasty possibility).
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> As for game systems that model it, yes, Phoenix Command Mechanized had
Sounds interesting. Is that game still available?
2B^2
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 11:29:18AM -0800, Brian Bilderback wrote:
> rules
No; Leading Edge Games went out of business a few years ago. I have a copy and
will be glad to discuss any relevant bits by email.
On Thu, 07 Mar 2002 11:29:18 -0800, "Brian Bilderback"
> <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Sounds interesting. Is that game still available?
Nope. It's been out of print for a while, though it does show up on eBay a
fair bit.
It's an interesting system. It started life as a combat system for roleplaying
games, but it was quickly used as a small scale skirmish system.
I used to enjoy playing it. Some hate it because it is very chart heavy. There
are optional rules, in the single figure scale, for handling things like time
of flight of a projectile (admittedly, only at very long ranges), and a whole
raft of other stuff.
They developed a science fiction RPG with it as the combat system, called
Living Steel. They further expanded it with a power armour supplement and a
board game that simplified the game to allow more troops per player. This
simplified system became the basis of their basic RPG combat system. They also
used the game system in the Alien RPG, Terminator RPG, and Dracula RPG.
I liked the way the mechanics worked. I liked how aiming was modelled. It was
also one of the few games that really showed a difference between different
types of weapons.
It wasn't without its flaws, though. The main one being that while the entire
system was supposedly very accurate, each figure had a skill value that was
basically a number from 3 to 18 (it's showing it's "generic RPG system" roots
here, though you could generate these numbers from a point system or through
porting from another RPG). With all the complex tables, this was a major fudge
area. It's like calculating a number to two decimal places, and then adding it
to a number rounded off to the nearest decimal.
It didn't have any command control rules. It had a very rudimentary morale
system (essentially just a suppression system).
On the other hand, they also released a mechanized system that was a game
scale up from this. I enjoyed that. It was the same basic system as Phoenix
Command, but for handling tanks and squads of figures. The tank versus tank
detail was pretty explicit, for all those gear heads out there. The only
problem is a particular section of the rules that are less than clear.
If you are interested, you want to look for the Phoenix Command Mechanized
System book, Pakfront (WWII anti tank guns), Medium Tanks (WWII medium tanks),
Heavy Tanks (WWII heavy tanks) and a supplement (can't quite remember the
name) including some lighter modern vehicles. The main book contained a number
of other modern tanks. Oh, there was also an artillery system, intended for
both this and PC.
On Thu, 7 Mar 2002 19:37:53 +0000, Roger Burton West
<roger@firedrake.org> wrote:
> No; Leading Edge Games went out of business a few years ago. I have a
As would I. I have all the PCCS stuff (well, not all of it... I recently sold
my copy of 1st Edition PCCS and Rhand: The Morning Star Missions on eBay).
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 01:42:13PM -0600, Allan Goodall wrote:
My copy of PC Mechanised seems to have gone walkabout. The books I have here
are:
Artillery system 10230 Modern Light Vehicles 10241 Contains: LAV 25, BRDM 2,
BRDM 3, BMD 1, BTR 80, BMP 2, BMP 2E, HMMWV 998, M113A1, M2A1, M2A2, M3A1,
M3A2 Panzer: World War II Medium Tanks 10242
Contains: PzIV-F1, PzIV-F2, PzIV-H, PzV, T34-76B, T34/85, M4A3-75mm,
M4A3-76mm
King Tiger: World War II Heavy Tanks 10243
Contains: PzVI-E, Tiger II-B, KV1A, KV1C, KV1s, KV85, JS-II, JS-IIm,
M4A3-E2
Pak Front: WWII Anti-Tank Guns 10244
The fact that each vehicle gets its own 2-3 page listing should give
some idea of the detail level of the system.
From: On Behalf Of Bell, Brian K (Contractor)
Sent: 07 March 2002 19:01
Subject: RE: Hills, Mountains, etc.
> True. Tractors have a fairly high center of gravity
> I do not know where the center of gravity on a tank is.
A Challenger recently turned over on our Salisbury Plain training grounds.
Commander (and gunner? loader?) killed, alas. Circumstances much as discussed.
Does anyone know of any similar accidents with Abrams, Leopard et al?
> At 8:31 PM +0000 3/7/02, MSN Renegade wrote:
Upside down
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/lsm/dhmg/crew013.html
Burning..
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/lsm/dhmg/crew041.html
Centurion with a stuck nose...
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/lsm/dhmg/crew002.html
> Roger Burton West wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 10:38:41AM -0500, Bell, Brian K (Contractor)
wrote:
> >I could be _really_evil_ and place the game in winter (with freezing
Sorry, but that APC was driven by a dumbass. I have driven a
nose-heavy, RWD
land yacht on black ice, and it is not that difficult. However, you must be
completely unhurried. If you can get it moving, you can make it stop, but if
you drive faster than you can maneuver, it is your own damn fault.
Oddly enough, one of the scariest pieces of footage that I saw from the Battle
of the Bulge was a sherman tank, driven by an inexperienced driver, sliding
backwards, down a hill. The infantry marching behind it (obviously not raised
to waddle on ice like a penguin [actually rather effective]) were desperately
trying to not be in its path (they all made it, with much thrashing of limbs).
I realize that you cannot train tracked vehicle drivers (zipperheads? tread
heads?) for skid recovery with the same equipment as police car drivers
(caster mounted bedframe under the car partially lifts the vehicle with
hydraulic rams to reduce the
> I think tractors are especially prone to falling over because they are
Yeah.
I heard a story about a tank tipping event at Gagetown (Canadian armoured
training center out in the Maritimes). I think this was back when we used
Centurions - don't think it was a Leopard, but it might have been.
Story was that a training crew on exercise tipped the tank over, but it landed
in boggy ground off the track, and sunk partially. Problem was that there was
no way to get the otherwise unhurt crew out. No one had cutting torches
available, and there wasn't a crane big enough to right the sunken tank, close
enough to get to them. So after trying (and failing) several different ways to
get the crew out, they brought in a Padre. And that was it.
I imagine that you have to work pretty hard at tipping a tank (ie be rather
stupid), but it is certainly possible.
The Canadian army in the Balkans has had a number of incidents of APC's (like
the M113s we have in the region) tipping over in icy weather.
Quoting KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de:
> Roger Burton West schrieb:
Don't some tracked things have holes in the tracks to bolt cleats into for icy
Hi,
I had the same thought. If you live in the US, then this site will definitely
be of interest to you
http://edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/doc/edchome/ndcdb/ndcdb.html
The free digital elevation models are what the topos are made from, and are
much more computer friendly.
On Thursday, March 7, 2002, at 07:38 AM, Bell, Brian K (Contractor) wrote:
> One of the things that I am looking at doing for GZGECC VI is modeling
> some
> (hits
> way
To play around with these files grab MicroDem:
<http://www.nadn.navy.mil/Users/oceano/pguth/website/microdem.htm>
it is a mapping program that can manipulate DEM files, display height fields
etc. Good stuff.
Magic
[quoted original message omitted]
> --- katie@fysh.org wrote:
> Don't some tracked things have holes in the tracks
I've never heard of it--and I've been an ACE crewman
and an M-113-riding dismount.
--- Richard and Emily Bell <rlbell@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
> Sorry, but that APC was driven by a dumbass. I have
Right. I can tell you've never driven a military
tracked vehicle in convoy--or in field exercises. Try
again when you've done that. Our squad's -113 driver
managed to get airborne several times at NTC, and was driving so fast over
rough terrain that he managed to twist off the tow pintle and drop our MICLIC
trailer in the desert. Why? We had to keep up with the damn tanks. Why? To
avoid (simulated) death, which matters somewhat more than the posibility of an
accident.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> --- Richard and Emily Bell <rlbell@sympatico.ca>
I do not give a fuck about any excuses, the responsibility for an accident
resides with the last person that was able to prevent it. In the case of the
APC shaped hole in the a building in a german village,
Quoting John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com>:
> --- katie@fysh.org wrote:
It's entirely possible I've been misled - I was, to be honest, wondering
if it
was the case, where the other end of the bolt went - given that if it
sticks
--- Richard and Emily Bell <rlbell@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
> applied to vehicles moving on snow). If you attempt
Maybe in a car. But I understood from the story that it was damage to the
building. The vehicle drove off. APCs can sideswipe buildings and keep going.
It's just that it's traditionally considered bad manners to do so in a
friendly country.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> --- Richard and Emily Bell <rlbell@sympatico.ca>
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Richard and Emily Bell wrote:
> The nice thing about mere cars, even three tonne, mid-seventies
Mmm. I keep forgetting US cuebs are a LOT higher than european ones;) Really
boggled me when I saw curbs being suggested as cover, in Cyberpunk. Curbs over
here are anything from an inch to 4 inches, not often signoificantly more than
that.
Cheers,