M Hofbauer

yes.

MGs on Jeeps with nahverteidigungswaffe? </font>

oooh.

very interesting. AFAIR in the instances I read about they threw themselves rather desperately against the front and sides of tanks, with AFAIR little effect. so apparently this rather gruesome, uh, "AT technique" was "refined". do you by any chance remember where (book/publication) you read about that rolling under tank and delivering a one-liner? I assume targeting the underside made this tactic more "successful" ?

:confused: not really. its that time of year again, round-the-clock time again. papers have to be graded. bachelors and masters to be approved or declined. datelines to be met. own papers to be finished. just the usual heckmeck.

for hedges and scrub: paintbrush.

hmmm well it doesnt really look like a typical Panzerzug...

(looks at the User Agreement) dang...he might be on to something... ...or somefink. </font>

personally, I like the techniques better where Kamikaze tank hunters would run up to allied tanks wrapped in explosives, or, better still, wait in a dug cave under the road with a big artillery shell and a hammer. has more style. it's the imperial japanese banzai thing to do.

easy there, tovarish, well, we're in THIS thread now. you're only adding to the confusion (see how confused poor RMC already is, he would usually never mistake a Nashorn for the Shmummel) if you go on about things you might or might not have said or said then later edited or never said then deleted or deleted then said someday somewhere else... :confused: oh but thats why Im so confused, see? dont worry, though, my increased presence is -unfortunately - only a transient phenomenon...(but I'll be back ! ) which obviously weren't too many... look again...look closer... I don't think so, it will just be a 150mm support gun, </font>

What if you found out there are flail tanks, though? Don't dig yourself in too deep here.... </font>

(looks at the User Agreement) dang...he might be on to something... ...or somefink.

...yeah, the whole. er, six of them...!?! :cool:

Well, yeah. But they made the model. So it can be and be shot at as a direct fire asset? </font>

Im no train grog or something and I really don't klnow about this... but shouldnt they be dark green or somefink? did they use whitewash camo on trains during winter?? :confused: somebody please enlighten me...

what the hell are you babbling about, comradeP ? :confused: I fear for you! a) nowhere did you talk about a Nashorn OR Hummel before... :confused: b)what do you mean by "2 bars"? Mars/Snickers, for more OOOMPH ? the support beams / support frame is NOT a definite recognition feature of the Nashorn vs the Hummel. both vehicles sometimes had it and sometimes didnt. c) as I said, go by the shmuzzle break, thats a better recognition feature. together with shmarrel thickness its usually easy to tell them apart.

hey RMC, totally off topic but while we're here... just about half an hour ago all hell was breaking loose over at Leighton. is there some sort of weird national holiday going on, or are they practicing scorched earth tactics, blowing everything up before turning things over to the germans? it really didnt sound like fireworks. more like cannon fire. and it wasn't orderly. :confused:

at Barkhorn... Shmummel doesnt have a Shmuzzle break.

The Germans didn't put the Zimmerit on tanks because there were lots of magnetic mines in service in other countries, they put it there because they thought that was the case.</font>

That's actually not too far off from what the original Squad Leader did. There were StuGs and Brummbaers, and the PzIVs were Ausf F2, but no big cats. And you know what? It was good. </font>

That looks more like a Marder III (Czech 38t chassis), so it can duel - but only if it hits first - after that it's toast. Barkhorn. </font>

wait a minute, methinks there is a general misunderstanding at work here. I thought - my assumption was that the range given in the data screen is not the current range to a given target, but like the other data it is the fixed technical value/info just like the other entries Rate of Fire, Reload Time and Grouping at 100m. iow, the max. range. :confused: [ August 14, 2006, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

yeah...looks like... uh,... twelve meters? fifteen?

I guess its all a preliminary thing (just like the maximum ranges and AP values), but the pricing, 200 pts. for a T-34 and 300 pts. for a regular 7,5cm PaK just doesn't feel right...or are the prices time/scenario-dependant? and I guess Moon will be going over the german names? some great pics in there.

there's been some discussion whether there will be engagements beyond 500m at all (probably will). search for "ranges", "engagement ranges".