Jump to content

civdiv

Members
  • Content Count

    591
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About civdiv

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Converted

  • Location
    TX

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Many of those were just combat trials so they don’t need to be included. I’d be semi interested but my first choice would be an entirely new project; early war on both fronts.
  2. This study sounds very flawed. It sounds like they had visible targets they were trying to suppress and the simulator lowered the target if the shot(s) are close enough. So, some points; 1. It seems their ‘suppression algorithm’ is kind of made up. Where is the scientific basis to what results in suppression? In a firefight auditory exclusion and tunnel vision are common. In this state a target might not even know rounds are whipping by in close proximity. 2. If you see the target you shoot to kill it. What this study seems to show that if you miss close enough the target is suppressed. If you can see the target and you are in the effective range of your weapon system you should be killing the target (hitting it) not suppressing it. You don’t suppress visible targets, you destroy them. You suppress enemy positions or suspected positions but if you have a visible target you take well aimed rounds to kill it. This study seems to promote the idea that several ‘close’ (misses) rounds are better than one well aimed hit. That’s a bad idea. It’s like the old ‘how many times do you shoot an enemy soldier’. You shoot them until they are not visible or they have been clearly eliminated as a threat. 2. Ok, one LMG is more accurate than another, big deal. Rate and volume of fire are a factor. Say your company is attacking an unseen platoon in a tree line. You know they are there but you do not have a clear target. If you have a clear target see para 1 above. So you let loose with the mgs. To the guy in the tree line that just got sprayed by a 100 round belt, he doesn’t care about the 99 bullets that didn’t come near him. He cares about the one that kicked up dirt right next to his head. 3. Trying to simulate para 2, did they have 30 of these sensors hidden in a tree line? Sounds like they didn’t. Trying to determine suppression with one guy firing at one target is worthless. And if the target is visible you kill it. It really seems like they are talking about individual marksmanship and giving suppression credit for multiple near misses. The goal is to shoot the enemy when they present a visible target not miss and keep them pinned after they take cover. In the study these are not dynamic targets; if you ‘suppress’ them they stay in the same spot. They don’t low crawl to the flank and roll your trench up with grenades ‘Band of Brothers’ style.
  3. So serious question here. Why did the Sherman not ever receive (to my knowledge) sloped side armor. Is there a real reason why this never happened? I mean six inches of slope (30 degrees) would have resulted in an armor benefit of around 30%.
  4. If the source said ‘pushing a bag out just before the jumper jumped’ it’s not a source to be trusted. You have to jump with that stuff attached to you and then release a quick release to extend the rope. Let me break it down for you further. Take a 45 or 55 pound bumper plate, attach it to your belt, stand on your roof and throw it off with six feet of rope attached to you. Now throw in a slipstream of 150 mph. Paratroopers were very regimented from what I have read. But I can also see a company or battalion saying ‘screw that’ and carrying more ammo (I doubt less). I spent a good bit of time in the military and I frequently carried more than the SOP. And I know folks who also carried less.
  5. Interesting scene in this video at 7:15 where a US soldier preps and uses a captured Panzerfaust 60 on a knocked out (is that a Panther, it looks weird?). There is also this delightful scene at like 9:15 where they find an ice cream maker and using a Jeep they make ice cream for the troops. British Pathé Video
  6. A nice array of Brit armor in this one right at the beginning. A Cromwell then a Stuart, then a Cromwell then a OP tank or Stuart command tank? Then a Firefly and another bunch of Cromwells. British Pathé Video
  7. Plus you have to get the 20+ hits with your 76mm Sherman in roughly the same spot on the bunker w/o getting zeroed by an ATG. I know it isn’t just one Sherman pounding away but pillboxes are usually mutually supported.
  8. Umlaut, I don’t know how to quote but obviously the date is wrong. i find this video fascinating. I assume it is very recent to post-D-day. But it shows the construction of a fighter airfield and then a convoy of supplies to the beachhead and the offloading. This is why the allies won WW2; because they could do stuff like this. YouTube
  9. This video is mostly non-combat but there is an abandoned Panzer Mk 4 that appears several times. I like that all the scenes in each video of this series are shot in close proximity in terms of time so you can sort of determine the story. So for the crowd, I am guessing Panzer Mk IVJ, what do you think? YouTube
  10. I found this to be a rather interesting video (same series). The parts I would like to point out are 6:06 where you see a British tank crew posing inside their tank for the video camera. And then in unison they all duck back into their tank (artillery?). Then the very next scene is a British trooper holding a STG-44 and looking at it like it’s a ufo. YouTube
  11. That YouTube page has a bunch of stuff like this. I let it auto play and the next video was raw British video from 13 June. The one after that was U.S. Here’s another of a British unit on the attack supported by Funnies. YouTube
  12. Forgive me if this has been posted before. Villers-Bocage Vidéo on YouTube A couple of questions; 1. In the beginning, the couple of impacts around the British artillery piece. I think that’s indirect fire; thoughts? 2. Towards the end, the scene with the knocked out Tiger I in an urban setting. That hole in the back of the turret; is that an armor penetration? And what probably made that big a hole?
  13. Did this ever get fixed as I am having the same issue. I just reinstalled CMBFN 3.0 and I have the same malady. I am running an MSI GS65 Stealth with a GeForce GTX-1070. The laptop is new to me but I cannot find anywhere to 'force' the computer to use the GeForce card for CMBFN in either the MSI Dragon Center or in the NVidia Experience program. Cheers!
  14. Figured I'd start a new thread specific to this topic, and I am interested in what the gang says about this. Been reading 'Panther, Germany's Quest For Combat Dominance' by Michael and Gladys Green. About halfway through the book (I cannot give you a page number since I am reading it on my Kindle) it mentions rumors of the lowering of the quality of Panther armor as the war progressed. It then goes on to say that these rumors are based on a 12th Army test against 3 captured/abandoned Pz V Ausf A tanks conducted beginning 19 Aug 1944 in Isigny, France. It quotes the original test; 'Wide variation was found in the quality plate on the three tanks. Tank No. 2 (hereafter referred to as 'best plate') sustained 30 hits as ranges from 600 to 200 yards without cracking. Tanks 1 and 3 (hereafter referred to as 'average plate') cracked after relatively few hits.' Then the Greens go on to say; 'Researcher Carey Erickson performed a detailed analysis on the original test photographs supplied with the Isigny report. He concluded that the Panther Ausf. A tank labelled as No 1 and listed as having only average plate had in fact face-hardened glacis plate. This can be observed by the characteristic flaking that occurs only when face-hardened armor is penetrated by an AP projectile. Erickson explains that encountering a face-hardened glacis plate on a Panther Ausf A tank was not impossible because it could have come from leftover stocks to meet production quotas as German tank production was under greater and greater pressure to put weapons in thew hands of the Panzer Divisions by 1944. Erickson also notes that it took nine hits into the hard outer surface of the face-hardened armored Panther tank labeled No 1 to make it susceptible to penetration. Pictorial evidence also shows that the Panther tank labeled No 3 and described as having an average plate had significant prior battle damage with extensive cracking across the glacis plate. This damage should have excluded tank No 3 from even being part of the testing process. Erickson makes the valid point that the Panther tank Labeled No 2 with the best plate reflected the true quality of Panther glacis plates for most of World War II and not the face-hardened armored Panther tank or the battle damaged example used at Isigny. Erickson is not the only one who believes that Panther armor remained free of serious defects for the duration of the war in Europe. Jentz and Doyle stated in their book Germany's Tiger Tanks VK45.02 to Tiger IIL Design, Production, and Modifications that 'There is no proof that substandard German armor plate was used during the last years of the war. All original documents confirm compliance with standard specifications throughout the war.'
×
×
  • Create New...