JonS

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: ..."for smoke screening and high explosive". In the games I have played where I have used the 95mm armed Churchill & Cromwell I have yet to see any smoke rounds available for use with this weapon. Is this perhaps an oversight by BTS or have I just been lucky/unlucky? <hr></blockquote> The 95mm AFVs do not have the capability to fire smoke in the game - only HE and HC.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf: 95mm ... You get everything, cheap gun for small turret ring, small ammunition, good penetration, a single gun for multiple purposes. Except for hit probability (see below). <hr></blockquote> Related to this is the relative MVs. The 17pr in the Firefly is listed as having an MV of 884m/s, while the 95mm in the Cromwell VI has 503m/s. Now, HC is speed independant for its effects, but the hit probability for direct fire weapons - especially at range - is. Higher MV = flatter trajectory. Flatter trajectory means that you can mis-judge the range by a greater amount, and still get a hit. This was one of the particular advantages of the German high velocity cannons - as illustrated in the Tiger-fibel. The point is, a low velocuity gun like the 95mm in the CS tanks isn't so good at long-ish ranges. Oh yeah, I wouldn't call the 95mm 'small ammo' either. The 95mm armed Cromwell could only carry ~80% of the ammo load in the 75mm armed version. Regards JonS [ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Simon Fox: This has always puzzled me too...<hr></blockquote> More puzzlement: the CM 25pr, when used on-map, has no smoke rounds, although it does (correctly) have some AP rounds. The standard load for each 25pr was 144 rnds HE, 16 rnds Smk, 12 rnds AP. Regards JonS

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai: bigtime software i only have ONE question, ... [lots of questions snipped]<hr></blockquote> Learning how to count while you're brushing up on your grammer and spelling probably wouldn't hurt any either. I counted about nine seperate questions in there.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42: From the video that didn't look like it hit the top. I know the javelin is a top attack weapon but it appears the missle hit the side.<hr></blockquote> Freeze the video and you can see it coming in nearly vertical. Well, ok, at about 60-70°. It seems to hit the top of the turret.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: In Tunisia ... [ 11-11-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]<hr></blockquote> Make that Libya and Egypt.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software: quote: -------------------------------------------------- JasonCs' bit: The 1st Battalion refused to panic and set to work with bazookas against the flanks of the blinded tanks. One of the panzers was crippled, but the crew compartment proved impervious to bazooka rounds (perhaps this was a Tiger). -------------------------------------------------- Read my previous post. I said that such reports are utterly useless. It is vague in the extreme. Heck, they don't even have the targeted tank positively identified. All I see here is that some Bazooka guys shot at some sort of German AFV from some unknown angle POSSIBLY on the flank. It also states that one was crippled. What does that mean? Lower hull penetration, track hit, knocked off the radio attena? What?? This is hardly a good piece of evidence to present.<hr></blockquote> This action occured sometime between 1840 and 2230 on 17th December 1944, approx 1km east of Rocherath in the open ground around the Lausdell crossroads. Units involved were 1st Bn, 9th Infantry Regt, 2nd Infantry Div on the US side, and elements of the 12th SS Panzer Div. In particular II Bn 25th SS PzGren Regt and 12th SS Panzerjager Bn. 12th SS Panzerjager Bn was equipped with Jagdpanzer IV/48s and JagdPanthers. There were no Tigers (I or II) in this area. Incidentally, these are the same units which overran Charles MacDonalds I Company in the forest on the morning of the 17th, an incident related in his book "Company Commander" Other contacts from the same time (ie over the next few days) and place (ie around Krinkelt-Rocherath) refer to "Jagdpanzers and other panzers", and in the area 12th SS PzDiv used MkIV and MkV panzers in addition to the Mk IV Jagdpanzers and MkV Jagdpanthers. However, the narrative indicates that "...During the night (of 17-18 Dec), using the din of battle to cover their noise, a company of tanks from I PzBn, 12th SS PzRegt had crept to within direct fire distance of the US foxhole line..." In other words, the Panthers and MkIVs weren't involved until the morning of the 18th Dec. The JagdPanthers didn't turn up till later. Therefore, the 'panzer' of the Bone-Roberts contact was most likely a JgPz IV/48. 'Crippled', in this specific instance, is described as follows: "one of these panzers was hit in the track and disabled by an American bazooka round...". The narrative goes on "...Lt Melesnick and several other bazooka teams fired at it in order to finish it off, but its armour shrugged off four of their rockets..." Then there is the bit about the siphoned petrol and the thermite grenade. No mention of the angle or facing at which the zooks were fired at is made, however, the narrative does note that the vehicle continued to fire its cannon and MGs, wounding at least one man. From that, approaching from the side would seem to be the order of the day. Hope this helps to claify matters relating to this particular engagement. Regards JonS Oh yeah, I lifted this from: Vannoy and Karamales "Against the Panzers" MacDonald "Company Commander" MacDonald "A Time For Trumpets" [ 11-11-2001: Message edited by: JonS because I haven't teased The Anglophile recently ] [ 11-11-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>X)How far behind the front lines would a German 105mm artillery unit be positioned. A 75mm unit? How many guns per battery might one see?<hr></blockquote> 1/2 - 1/3 of their max range 4 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>247.98.2)Is there a standard practice in which German howitzers were set up? Positions? Were gun pits dug? What IS a gun pit.How deep are they. Anyone ever done one on a CM map?<hr></blockquote> don't know. don't know what you mean. probably. some protection for the gun and crew during CB or direct attack. about axle-deep. don't know about the Germans, but there is a scen showing the layout of a commonwealth bty at Michael Doroshs' site. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>b)Were gun tractors deployed near the guns? How near? Were the guns moved by trucks as well? Was there ever a shortage of gun tractors?<hr></blockquote> depends. depends. sometimes. yes - why do you think most german arty was horse drawn? <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Subsection 20) What other units might one see near a battery of 105mm howitzers? AA guns? How many? What kinds. A Scheirung detatchment? How large? Any other assorted units??<hr></blockquote> varies. perhaps. probably just one. light. bty would probably be responsible for its own local defence. depends. depends. Regards JonS

working from general knowledge, rather than any specific sources, the engineers would all be configured the same. The Royal Engineers encompassed all the engineers, much like the Royal Regiment of Artillery. The only distiguishning patch should be the divisional patch. at a guess the sleve would be (from top to bottom): ROYAL ENGINEERS (Blue on red, curved at top of sleeve) arm of service stripe Divisional logo specialist badges rank insignia (for l/cpl, cpl, sgt, ssgt) Regards Jon

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael emrys: ... I think the thing that irritates a lot of people is not that the guys in the tank screw up, but that they screw up in ahistorical ways...<hr></blockquote> ... and, given the same circumstances, they will always screw up in the same way. Bad decisions from time to time are ok. Bad decisions all the time are a tad annoying. Regards Jon

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael emrys: ... So far as I know (which admittedly is less than I would prefer) other than a swagger stick, it was rare for a B/C/E officer to carry anything besides a service revolver ...<hr></blockquote> Early war mebbe - but they got over it and started carrying standard infantry weapons. There is an interesting passage in Guns of Normandy where a coy commander rips all the embellishments off another officer (and hands him a weapon? not sure about that bit) to disguise his officer-ness. There is a difference between what was issued and what was carried too ... in both the US and the UK I suspect My knowledge of the US is probably about as strong as yours on the UK Anyway, Teros point about the HQs presumably applies to all nationalities. Jon

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael emrys: ... Many if not most paratroopers jumped carrying a .45 pistol in addition to their regular personal weapon ...<hr></blockquote> The key words here are in addition. AFAIK Officers were only issued with pistols (certainly in the CW anyway), so are starting from a low base - the only way they could go is up in terms of fire power. Unless they decided to ditch the pistol and rely on their compass and map Also, carrying the same type of weapon (and the same dress) as the baggies makes them less of a target. Regards Jon

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael emrys: ... It's worth remembering though that official TO&Es changed as the war progressed and actual practice in the field could vary from the official TO&E ...<hr></blockquote> True, but I think the trend would be from lighter to heavier ( e.g. pistol -> carbine -> SMG) weapons/firepower, ratner than the other way round. Regards Jon

it depends on the model of US halftrack. The M3 won't, the M3A1 might, and IIRC the M5 does.

From what I can tell, each infantry div had 3 platoons of 6 Wasps in the MMG Bn - one platoon in each MMG Coy. Since Armd Divs only had a MMG Coy (rather than a full bn), they only had a single pn of 6. Jean Boucherys' "The British Soldier" has the following tables: +++++++++++ Independant MMG Coy org: Coy HQ . Mortar Pn (4 x 4.2" mortars) . MG Pn (4 x .303 Vickers) . MG Pn (as above) . MG Pn (as above) . Flamethrower Pn (6 x "Wasp" carriers) +++++++++++ MMG Bn Org: Bn HQ (inclHQ Coy, Signals Pn, and LAD REME) . Mortar Coy . . Mortar Pn (4 x 4.2" Mortars) . . Mortar Pn (as above) . . Mortar Pn (as above) . . Mortar Pn (as above) . MMG Coy . . MG Pn (4 x .303 Vickers) . . MG Pn (as above) . . MG Pn (as above) . MMG Coy (as above) . MMG Coy (as above) +++++++++++ So, the wasps aren't explicitly included in the full bn org. Maybe an oversight? Anyway, from the full bn org it is possible to create three coy orgs - one for each Bde. This is why I suspect there are 3 pns of Wasps. George Forty in "British Army Handbook" makes no reference to them. Hope this helps. JonS [ 11-02-2001: Message edited by: JonS because The Anglophile is bound o be lurking ] [ 11-02-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by rexford: The curves are not symmetrical so the 15° results do not match up with higher angle stats.<hr></blockquote> Yes, I understand that. What I was getting at is that in two otherwise smooth curves, at 15° for the max there is a spike. If this value were around 800-850 rather than 950m, then the curve would be smooth throughout. Obviously I don't have access to your data or calculations. I'm merely making an observation based on what I do have - the results. And IMHO the results look odd for the max at 15°. Shrug. Just my opinion Regards JonS

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by rexford: 0 degrees.....none 5.............0-200m 10............0-350m 15............150-950m 20............300-1100m 25............500-1300m 30............650-1450m 35............750-1550m 40............800-1600m 45............750-1550m 50............600-1400m 55............300-1100m 60............0-700m<hr></blockquote> Makes an interesting graph. Looks like maybe a glitch at 15°? Regards JonS

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Vergeltungswaffe: 1991 25mm vs T55 cf 1944 20mm vs Hellcat ...Thus, we are talking about roughly the same thing, proportionally, as Scipio's scenario...<hr></blockquote> Well, you might be talking about the same thing, propotionately, but it would be a fluke. You have changed pretty much all of the parameters, by unknown ratios. So to say it amounts to the same thing is really, IMHO, saying way too much. Regards JonS [ Edited for The Anglophile ] [ 11-01-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Scipio: ... You can take a 1000kg barrel of TNT and drop it from an aircraft from 1000 meter or more. It will hit the ground with enough power to walk through a building and disappear a few meters below the cellar. But if the detonator not ignite the TNT, the bomb don't explode. That's the reason why we still find those things in our cities...<hr></blockquote> LOL, good point. i wish I'd thought of it when we were discussing how non-fragile ammo is the other week. :cool:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Scipio: I don't think so. The ammo is not so explosive as you may think, and AFAIK the most tanks don't drive with high inflammable benzin, more with diesel. And BTW, if this would happen ,you could see it.<hr></blockquote> Didn't we go round this loop a week or so ago As for diesel being the predominant fuel, well, I think you may be wrong there. This site lists many of the main tanks from WWII, and includes the fuel they used. Of the vehicles used in Western Europe, most seem to have been petrol fired. [ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]</p>

how far back are we going? Better defense preparations in the 30s (esp. fighters for the RAF) ... more active participation in Spain ... a more, um, lenient sttlement to WWI ... if they hadn't had to re-learn convoy theory in the North Atlantic. Twice! (once for the RN, and again for the USN) ... [ 10-30-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]</p>

hehehe - having a few problems with urls and images? I got the winchester link to work, and saw what you meant. I doubt if its steel - maybe an Aluminium or alluminium-alloy?

US 120mm US 105mm [ 10-30-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redeker: ... combustible case ammo also means ... there isn't any case to which might expand during firing and then get stuck in the barrel. <hr></blockquote> Well, to a certain extent you want the cart case to expand. When the propellant detonates, the case expands and forms a tight seal inside the breech. This prevents any of the gas and pressure from leaking, and is known as obturation. One of the reasons that brass is favoured for cart-cases is that its "soft enough for obturation, and stiff enough for extraction" ie, it forms good seals, and you can still pull it out after firing. IIRC, the Germans were running low on brass by the end of the war, and fiddled about with other materials, but couldn't come up with anything nearly as good. Which isn't surprising given that we're still using brass 60 odd years later. Er, sorry for the off-topic ramble. Please do not adjust your set. Regular scheduling will be resumed soon Jon

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JasonC: Iron Chef is quite right and JonS's sarcasm is misplaced...<hr></blockquote> Aww, Jason is just sore because he can't tell the difference between a KT and a Panther.