Bulletpoint Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 16 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: A great big chunk of metal travelling at several multiples of the speed of sound is a much trickier prospect to disable than a guided missile; a single 1mm fragment through the liner of a shaped charge will render it ineffective That's a fascinating fact. Do you have a source? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted January 4, 2018 Share Posted January 4, 2018 (edited) Yep and I've posted it here before, I'll see if I can find it again.....To summarize, (IIRC) the formation of the jet requires a very precisely timed detonation of a very precisely shaped charge, a hole in the liner messes with the formation of the jet reducing its penetration massively. After some trawling I found it again.....You'll find the relevant diagrams and sourcing in this thread (dealing with ERA): http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic/1528-no-nozh-doesnt-work-as-advertised/ My mistake though, the fragment modelled was 5mm in diameter not 1mm as I erroneously stated. Edited January 4, 2018 by Sgt.Squarehead 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 4, 2018 Share Posted January 4, 2018 Well, I suppose that munitions makers will now have to start adding protective armor to their warheads. The race continues... Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted January 4, 2018 Share Posted January 4, 2018 8 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: My mistake though, the fragment modelled was 5mm in diameter not 1mm as I erroneously stated. Yes I thought that sounded a little bit too small, but I'm no expert. This stuff always boggles my mind. Thanks for digging up the source and the pics, I appreciate it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerrTom Posted January 7, 2018 Share Posted January 7, 2018 @Sgt.Squarehead Beautiful data - good find! That curved jet is not going to go through much. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 (edited) I've been trying to locate similar information on the effects of damage on EFP/MEFPs, thus far without notable success.....If anyone has anything on this subject I'd be very keen to see it. Edited January 8, 2018 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiduk Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 (edited) On 28.12.2017 at 11:40 PM, IICptMillerII said: It’s a whole lot more complicated than just pointing the gun in the right direction. And even that is easier said than done. There is a reason most modern armies abandoned the ATG promptly after WWII ended. There is exists a term "readiness time for firing from the march" or "readiness time for firing from unprepared position". Exactly by this situation is measuring time of AT guns deployment. For example, in CMBS initialy MT-12 has 5 minutes of readiness and 7 minutes of limbering. But official army normatives say about 1 minute of preparing to fire from the march for "good" mark. In real, trained crews are easy reducing this time to 45 seconds. Thanks, now this fixed. I remember my angry, when in CMBB soviet 45 mm AT gun must spend about 2 minutes each time after it was moved even on 10 meters, though this gun allowed to fire almost at once. Here is for example of UKR MT-12 deployment from the march: Edited January 8, 2018 by Haiduk 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 Not disagreeing, but LOTS of cuts in that footage, and all they were doing was unlimbering on a road. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 The thing to remember about AT guns in-game is that they are always pushed at the same speed in every situation and condition. So yes, it's slower than in reality in some conditions but faster in others. You can push a 76mm gun up a muddy hill with half the crew hors de combat. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 I've always been of the opinion that if you are moving/deploying AT guns in sight of the enemy, you are using them wrong.....This isn't the Battle of Waterloo! just saying. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 3 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: I've always been of the opinion that if you are moving/deploying AT guns in sight of the enemy, you are using them wrong..... Mid to late war I think I would agree with you. Early war...maybe not so sure. If the germans wanted to set up blocking position they might move into position, deploy quickly, and begin firing. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 I suppose that's fair enough for the light PAKs attached to a motorcycle battalion or similar early war formation.....Still not best practice IMHO. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiduk Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 18 hours ago, akd said: Not disagreeing, but LOTS of cuts in that footage, and all they were doing was unlimbering on a road. Of course, cuts are present, but normative is 1 minute. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiduk Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 6 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: I've always been of the opinion that if you are moving/deploying AT guns in sight of the enemy, you are using them wrong.....This isn't the Battle of Waterloo! just saying. 45 mm gun is battalion level weapon, so its anyway will be operate in sight of the enemy. As you know, crews of these guns called its "goodbuy, Motherland", because a chanse to survive was too low. In summer 2014 happened ineterst fight between MT-12 and T-72B mod.1989 in Luhansk area. Our checkpoint was attacked with enemy armor and MT-12 have time to make 11 shots and at last hit the tank in lower front hull (the tank was decomissioned after the battle). Next close explosion from other tank badly damaged the gun and crew abandoned it. Some later In Ilovaisk area MT-12 gun, deployed aside a road and masked like a bush shot out Russian 8th brigade convoy and destroyed rare MTLB-6MA and two usual MTLBs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMS Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 Well, in documents you can see a lot of examples when Soviet infantry assault was supported by artillery "on wheels", when guns followed infantry. There were no STUGs in Soviet rifle division. In CM it is impossible, crews are decimated from 800m, as they just walk and don't hide behind gun shields... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 (edited) 39 minutes ago, DMS said: Well, in documents you can see a lot of examples when Soviet infantry assault was supported by artillery "on wheels", when guns followed infantry. There were no STUGs in Soviet rifle division. In CM it is impossible, crews are decimated from 800m, as they just walk and don't hide behind gun shields... I suppose AT guns were used in much more flexible ways in real life, but I guess they are sluggish in the game mainly for gameplay reasons. Edited January 10, 2018 by Bulletpoint 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiduk Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 4 hours ago, DMS said: Well, in documents you can see a lot of examples when Soviet infantry assault was supported by artillery "on wheels", when guns followed infantry. There were no STUGs in Soviet rifle division. In CM it is impossible, crews are decimated from 800m, as they just walk and don't hide behind gun shields... + 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 Yeah, that is not going to protect you from direct fire. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynaman216 Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 That firing smoke should count for something though... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 A good aimpoint? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 Isn't this why the Soviets came up with the SUs? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.