Harold Jones

Wow 6000 rounds of .30 cal on a Sherman, I would have guessed around 3000 or so. Will you be tracking .30 cal and .50 cal ammo seperately? I'm sure the grogs will not rest until you do. Just for comparison here's the ammo storage of an M1 Abrams as best I can remember it, the ready box for the coax held 6000 rounds of 7.62, and there was stowage for an additional 4000 rounds in boxes. We also carried 1000 rounds for the .50 cal. The ready ammo for an M1A1 was reduced to 3000 or so rounds because the 120 takes up a lot more room in the turret, but the same total number of rounds was carried. Some was just stowed outside.

Hi, 4 years as a tanker on active duty. Spent a year partying my way out of college and went back in for 4 more fabulous years. Served in the 1st ID during Desert Storm. After I got out I spent 4 years as a Tow/Dragon repairer in the Natl Guard.

The metal that flakes off of the interior armor plate is referred to as spall. Spall can do quite significant damage to the interior of a tank. Spall flies around cutting up electrical cables, hydraulic lines and causing ammo fires. Spall can be produced by non-penetrating hits. Spall also causes crew casualties. A penetrating hit always produces spall but non-penetraing hits can also produce spall especially certain types of high explosive rounds. The HESH (High Explosive Squash Head) round mentioned in the Tanks Firing Indirect thread is designed to kill a tank by causing massive spalling. HESH (very simplified explanation follows) functions by flattening against the armor of the target and then detonating. The shock wave travels through the armor and generates spall. A Challenger in the gulf war killed a T-72 at a range of over 5000 meters using a hesh round. The US version of hesh is called HEP (High Explosive Plastic) and is only available for the 105mm tank gun which is almost completely phased out of service. [This message has been edited by Harold Jones (edited 09-13-99).]

You can also try Rocket Talk (www.rockettalk.com) It's sort of like ICQ but with voice instead of text.

I remember seeing pictures of tanks in the Korean lined up firing indirect. They got the extra elevation by moving up and down ramps. This was also done to support a couple of river crossings during world war 2. Assuming you had the correct fire control equipment it would be possible with any tank that could fire a useful HE round. All you need is a gunners quadrant for elevation and a means to determine azimith for defelection. But as far as I'm concerned this falls under the heading of it happened during the war but really wouldn't add a whole lot to game.

Aaron said <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>confirmation from Harold that it can happen even with HE-shaped rounds. I admit to being surprised by that. Perhaps Steve will release Charles long enough to comment <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry I forgot that not everyone knows that training HEAT rounds are inert. Didn't mean to mislead you. Modern HEAT rounds for the 120mm incorporate a shoulder fuze in addition to the nose fuze. This allows the round to detonate if it hits at a shallow angle, making it a somewhat useful anti-infantry and material round. This means that a service HEAT round would explode rather than skip. [This message has been edited by Harold Jones (edited 09-09-99).]

I have seen tank main gun rounds skip into targets during gunnery, but it was not something you could do at will. Any more they don't give credit for those hits, they re-present the target and you engage it again. I would expect that even though skipping rounds is one of those things that people did or remember doing in combat that really wouldn't add anything to CM. If I remember correctly the armor models already allow for the odd one in a million shots. It's probably not worth the effort to code in skips specifically. Although it is kinda cool to watch a 120mm training HEAT round tumbling through the night after it deflects off something down range. ------------------ If something cannot be fixed by hitting it or by swearing at it, it wasn't worth saving anyway.

T-62 makes a whole lot more sense. The reason I thought it might be a T-72 is that after the ground war a bunch of them were too shot up to take home but they did make dandy hard targets for some units that had "excess" ammo to shoot off. Also if you don't spend a lot of time doing vehicle ID a T-72 and a T-64 look pretty much the same.

Dan said <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But did it ever light up the captured T-64 we had on the US wepons range <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I believe you mean captured T-72, since to my knowledge the T-64 has never been used by anyone other than the Soviet Union. Which means we would have had to have captured it from them. If we did have one we would definately not be using it on a weapons range, there is still a lot about the T-64 that we don't know.

Here's a link to a good short article on tank muzzle brakes: http://www.mo-money.com/AFV-news/muzzle.htm ------------------ If something cannot be fixed by hitting it or by swearing at it, it wasn't worth saving anyway.

Here's another one. They don't list thier CDs online but you can call them. http://www.piperscove.com/catalog/Music/p14_cdvideos.html

Try here http://www.brandenburghistorica.com/europa.html ------------------ If something cannot be fixed by hitting it or by swearing at it, it wasn't worth saving anyway.

Artillery was the prime casualty causing agent during the war. Most wargames I've played do a very poor job of showing just how deadly artillery can be. ------------------ If something cannot be fixed by hitting it or by swearing at it, it wasn't worth saving anyway.

I wish I could say that I wrote the lyrics myself, but I can't. A friend e-mailed them to me today and attributed them to: Marcus Bales mbales@cybergate.net ------------------ If something cannot be fixed by hitting it or by swearing at it, it wasn't worth saving anyway.

This little ditty seems quite apropos. THE MODERN CYBER-NETIZEN'S SONG I am the very model of a modern cyber-netizen, All logic I dispense with, and all taste and manners jettison; I'm found on TV, radio, and many other "medias," But cyberspace is where I'm most particularly tedious. I come in every stripe from the conservative to radical, And know it all except for how to spell or be grammatical. I haven't got a clue about the use of logicality, And drivel on with made-up-factoid bargain-bin banality. I flame opponents hairless from a dozen different pseudonyms, Each one a ruder, lewder pun on Anglo-Saxon crudonyms, And where I find civility and hot debate have been at ease, I break it up with spamming, flaming, scrolling and obscenities. I'm ignorant in every field, poetic to statistical, Which only makes my points of view more thoroughly sophistical; My attitude's aggressive and my tone is sanctimonious, My facts are bad, conclusions wrong, and arguments erroneous; My posts are pure unparagraphed expressions of my vanity, Impossible to parse except perhaps for the profanity. I'm known for disputatiousness and other sorts of knavery, From purposeful mendacity to things yet more unsavory. The places civil reason is accounted most iniquitous, Are places where you'll find me inescapably ubiquitous. In short, all logic I reject, all taste and manners jettison, Because I am the model of a modern cyber-netizen.

Sounds good, I'm really looking forward to the guide to creating realistic kampfgruppen.

How about putting the TO&E stuff on the CD? I mostly could care less about TO&E so long as the formations that I can buy are accurate, but if you have the room it would be a nice thing to have. What I really want to see is a manual that clearly explains how to play the game. If there is any room left after that, then maybe a few pages describing basic tactics and then a page or two of designer's notes for the benefit of those who haven't been reading this board for the past year or so. ------------------ If something cannot be fixed by hitting it or by swearing at it, it wasn't worth saving anyway.

Blazer is the name given to the reactive armor developed by Israel. ------------------ If something cannot be fixed by hitting it or by swearing at it, it wasn't worth saving anyway.

The fuze on a shell determines when it explodes. A quick or contact fuze will detonate the shell as soon as it makes contact with something. When I was a mortar gunner quick fuzes were used against troops in the open, trucks and other non fortified targets. Delay fuzes have a small delay built in to them so that the round does not detonate immediately on contact. This is used against field fortifications and other targets where you want the round to penetrate before exploding. ------------------ If something cannot be fixed by hitting it or by swearing at it, it wasn't worth saving anyway.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I know that the "hot jet of gas" analogy for a HEAT round is really correct, but why then is composite armor more effective for stopping HEAT? The only value I could see for ceramic would be that takes quite a lot of energy to melt it. Does anyone know how ceramics are used in modern armor? Alternating layers? Fibers? Honeycomb? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> For answers to these questions and more go to this address: http://lib-www.lanl.gov/pubs/number17.htm The report titled Armor/anti-Armor materials by design is most informative. ------------------ If something cannot be fixed by hitting it or by swearing at it, it wasn't worth saving anyway.

Although it is convenient to think that HEAT rounds burn through the targets armor like a super hot cutting torch, this is not the case. HEAT rounds use the energy of a focused explosion to punch a hole through the armor of the target. Spaced armor works by moving the point of focus farther from the main armor of the target. However, there is a danger that using sandbags or other field expedients to provide extra armor could actually improve the penetration of the warhead. This is because there is an optimum standoff range for any HEAT round and it is not always practical to provide that amount of standoff in round that must be carried by infantry or manuevered within the confines of a turret. So the application of things like sandbags and track sections which have little or no armor value can actually move the focus of the blast to closer to the optimum distance. ------------------ If something cannot be fixed by hitting it or by swearing at it, it wasn't worth saving anyway.

BTS said <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> As for the time clock in campaigns, it's pretty simple. The designer specifies how many battles there will be per day. The first battle is a "dawn" battle with somewhat limited visibility, high chance of fog, etc. The last battle of the "day" is a night battle. Often times only one side is allowed to initiate contact at night and if he refuses to do so, the fighting is skipped (but reorganization and refit still occur). Battles in the middle are all regular daylight battles. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Does this mean that all campaigns must start in the morning? The reason I ask is that some battles began at night. It would be nice if we could specify a dawn, day, dusk or night start time for a campaign.

Don't know if anyone here is near Ft. Knox Ky but if you are this sounds like a don't miss. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This year it will be a two day affair. We will be moving the vehicles on Friday and they will be on site until after the battle demonstration. I am hoping to have the following vehicles on static display. G13 Hetzer, M4A1 Sherman, M3 Hybred Light Tank, M5 Halftrack, M26 Pershing, Jagdpanzer IV L/70 (last two we won't know until friday. Also coming in is another Hetzer, Kettenkraftrad, SdKfz 10, M20 Armored Car, M24 Light, M41 Light Tank, M5A1 Light Tank, M3A1 Light Tank, M3 Halftrack, Kubelwagen, motorcycles, jeeps, etc. Also will have a FLAK-36, PAK-38, Pack 75mm, and M1 57mm AT Gun. Lord knows what else - but should include a repro SdKfz 251, 222, and maybe a 234. Saturday is statics and demonstrations - artillery and small arms, as well as living historians from the 17th century up representing US Military history. Battle is on 4 July at 1330. Museum opens at 1000 and closes at 1800 both days. Hope this is enough information <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The above was posted by Charles Lemmons curator of the Patton Museum on the Tankers.net discussion board. ------------------ If something cannot be fixed by hitting it or by swearing at it, it wasn't worth saving anyway.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This reminds me of the Gulf War when specially designed AFVs burried the Iraqi front line positions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They were standard M1's with mine plows attached. The plan was that after we breached the mine field, we would destroy any bunkers and trenches in our sector as we advanced. Mine plows are horribly inefficient earth movers but if you do it right you can do a number on a trench with one. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I remember some peace activists saying this was horrible. My reaction was, "duh, that is war". They wanted our guys to dismount their tanks and politely ask the enemy if they wanted to surrender first, and if the answer was no, fight them the "normal way". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> We started doing this the second day of the ground war. We would dismount and check the bunker for occupants before we crushed them. Moon asked <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Isn't the use of the tank main gun against infantry targets (unless they have AT capability) actually outlawed by the Geneva convention...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have heard variations of this applied to the .50 cal, white phosphorous, and auto-cannons. The confusion comes from a clause in one of the conventions that make up what is generally called the Geneva convention. It states that no weapon that is designed to cause increased pain and suffering is legal. This is meant to apply to hollow points, deliberately damaging the nose of a round to make it expand or applying poison to a projectile. It does not prohibit firing an 8" howitzer round at one man if you are so inclined. In the US Army manual that explains the law of land warfare there is a statement that basically says that all US weapons fall within the Geneva conventions and can be used to engage enemy soldiers. ------------------ If something cannot be fixed by hitting it or by swearing at it, it wasn't worth saving anyway.

US doctrine is based on the idea that the best antitank weapon is another tank. Tanks carry a mix of kinetic energy rounds and HEAT rounds. Sabot(kinetic energy) rounds are best against tanks and tank like targets. HEAT is used to destroy light and unarmored vehicles. The newest HEAT rounds are duel purpose and are also effective against infantry and bunkers. In addition to the maingun the tank also has three machineguns although the loader's weapon is of marginal utility. The coaxially mounted machinegun is aimed and fired with the same fire control system as the maingun and is amazingly accurate because of this. Also, an M1A1 carries over 2000 rounds of ammo in the coax ready box. Although the M1 is optimized to fight other tanks it is still an effective killer of infantry. ------------------ If something cannot be fixed by hitting it or by swearing at it, it wasn't worth saving anyway.