Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About acrashb

  • Rank
    Senior Member


  • Location
  • Interests
    WWII and later tactical ground simulation. Esp. armour. Guns, target shooting.
  • Occupation
    IT exec management

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. And he would have had several tries. Most people would need several tries with a rifle, on a bench / bipod. And the wind would have been almost completely quiet. Still, another great shooting example by JM.
  2. Nope. At close range, .223 / 5.56 (lead core) will go through 1/4" (6mm) steel like butter. So, a 7.62x54r will go through more steel. 8mm would not be a stretch.
  3. This is one of the best cases for using torrents. I'm currently downloading, not very quickly, but with total reliability. Client is http://www.utorrent.com/?client=utorrent2210 Got the torrent link from GH.
  4. Someone's touchy. I wasn't shooting anyone, just prompting BF to have a look and consider a tank-rider-specific code change.
  5. Which may be related to passenger coding for normal vehicles... but should be a special case for riding a tank. Jumping off at speed is dangerous... so is being shot at while sitting in plain sight.
  6. In both cases, the extended ranges on sights are for area fire. It takes a damn good shot, with a modern rifle / scope, ballistic data card, light wind, perfect range information (laser ranged or pre-measured), and good meteorological information, to make an upper-body shot at 800 yards on a stationary target in good light. With a WWII iron-sighted rifle and regular infantry, not happening. It would have been set sights at 800 yards, volley fire the entire company to suppress. Or more likely: keep your heads down while the LT calls in arty. I don't know about AT guns; presumably they had ranging gear and could make use of it.
  7. Some reading that you may find inspiring (I use it for development design teams with great results): The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition
  8. I have one of those - it will also write underwater. Although I would not like to be holding it at that time, as I can't hold my breath all that long.
  9. Get them in an "L" and turning quickly (bearing in mind that they have to spot the flank attack first) won't be much of an issue. The important adjunct to adjusting turning speed being adjusting spotting at the same time.
  10. We have been told before that residual energy is accounted for. So a penetration by a 20mm will have less effect than a penetration by a 76mm. But this wasn't a penetration as such, according to the hit label - it was a ricochet into an opening (the hatch).
  11. To add to what has been said, when a bullet strikes something and bounces, there are two basic outcomes: either it fragments and spatters, or it deflects (aka "ricochet"s). Spatter is nasty (I still have a small piece of brass embedded in my cheek) but will not cut much other than skin, plastic, and cardboard (even a thin sheet of plywood will stop it for a few rounds). Deflections maintain almost all the energy that the bullet had before impact. A deflected bullet will not travel far, because it it no longer aerodynamic, but at short range is quite dangerous. And, at least some 7.92 was AP (steel core). So a deflection need only penetrate the thin brass casing of a shell - or it could strike the primer of the shell, which would cause an enthusiastic release of high-temperature, flaming propellant. Neither of these things are a serious issue with safety cartridges (rifle / pistol rounds) - but perhaps the propellant in tank shells is more dangerous (I don't know). It is certainly present in greater quantity!
  12. Agreed. Strike hard to take Stalingrad, then the final capital. Also should have let Norway alone. Focus, focus, and more focus. Of course, it is easy to second-guess from here!
  13. Yes - in CMx1 tank fire was often (usually?) bracketed until the hit.
  • Create New...