M Hofbauer

not sure if this is the case with your 332 issue, and most probably I'm teching you how to suck eggs here, but... you have to keep in mind that 332 isn't exclusive to Wittmann's tank. in the german code system, as a general rule (however there were more exceptions to the rule than the rule itself adhered to) 332 means, IIRC: third company, third platoon, second tank. therefore, 332 is a decidedly non-rare tank code. also, keep in mind that what museums / exhibitors paint their vehicles in doesn't necessarily have to be the historic job. Often they use a vehicle, and paint it in the colors and markings of some other vehicle, because that other vehicle was better documented or more famous (both usually coincides). The worst IMO is when they use prototype etc. vehicles which are obviousl different in outward features to the paint job they get. Seen this with aircraft, too. Again, all this might not apply to your problem/question, but I thought I'ld comment, maybe it helps. ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

normally I would cuss SEARCH at Rex, this has been covered repeatedly before, but since this is such a serious issue every new mentioning helps! Rex_Bellator, Vanir, Bullethead, Colonel_Deadmarsh - more power to you! ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

Hmmm...All or Nothing.... a) you probably shouldn't be where you are according to the game deisgner are you sure they are not under fire? that place where I am sure that you are located is usually quite a bit under occasional fire from the other side... c) the place where you are is crowded with mines. maybe they are teding to a different minefield than the one you want removed, or are busy to tend to several minefields at the same time? otherwise, I am at a loss...after 3-4 turns a full engineer squad not under fire should definitely remove those things...:? ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

I guess if you cancel the red (previously given and computed) order dot and instead entered a new one, then reverse your thinking and would rather have the old order back, then you'll simply have to label this one "tough luck and next time make up your mind beforehand" the game punishes you for being indecisive, mind you it's not a good trait for a commander ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

"Good idea,the SS for instance and some divisions from the regular army had batalions and in some cases regiments with volunteers from many European countries." now that's silly. With that loophole, you can fit in *any* name from around the world, just because of the mysterious 400 Tibetans, or the chance japanese exchange military who happens to stumble into an east front HQ, or the few odd british/ american volunteers. Just because there were exceptions of such nationalities being in doesn't warrant to include them in CM2, remember how the CM name system works, you would end up with La Fayette or Kai-Shek in every other game. Reminds me of SquadLeaders p.c. approach of modeling the combat teams with adequate representation of every minority etc. if your logic was to be followed, BTS could as well save the time to create two national namesets and just create a universal name pool, because russian names fought on the german side (Ostbattailone - eastern troops volunteers) as well as some (very few) german defectors who fought on the russian side. now we wouldn't want that would we? ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

Spacecowboy, you are right in that they have an even mix of close combat, medium range and long range small arms. A little bit of everything, this tranlsates into mediocre at everything, excelling at nothing. as Pham correctly pointed out, what type of armament you want for your infantry depends on what you intend to do with them. or, well, to phrase it drastically und impolite, the security platoons are the ideal unit for an inept player or one that has no idea what he's doing (or, he might be a wise player not knowing what the scenario conditons will be). since this isn't an axis issue, I am surprised to see you ask the question, since it applies to the different small arms equipment of the different allied infantry types, too. ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

Berkut, if you mean that the FlaK 41 used the same ammo ok then it makes sense, and you are probably right too, as Helge pointed out in the meantime, too, and the Handbook on GMF (and therewith my guess too) is probably wrong. in what little humble opinion I have on this matter (I am not exactly a tankie expert) I beg to disagree however on the rest of your post: The PzGr40 employed a tungsten carbide core, and was employed in combat, but was withdrawn due to shortages of the ore in 1943. The PzGr40/43, I believe, is an AP shell rather than AP shot. 8,8cm Pzgr. 40/43 simply means it is the 8,8cm tungsten core round (Pzgr.40 type) for the PaK 43, it has a tungsten core with no explosive charge (not even the small one sometimes found in AP shells as you described correctly) (as a rough rule of thumb, for all calibers I found that usually Panzergranate (or Panzersprenggranate) 39 is the regular AP ammo, often of the type you describe (hence Panzersprenggranate), while the Panzergranate 40 is the tungsten version). IOW, there never was a "8,8cm Pzgr.40" for the KwK 43 / PaK 43, since "Pzgr. 40" alone is not specific, it simply refers to a type (Wolfram-Hartkerngeschoss tungsten core), and the designation "8,8cm Pzgr.40" was already occupied by the 8,8cm ammo for the KwK 36 (88L56). Hence the modified designation "8,8cm Pzgr. 40/43". You might confuse this with the 12,8cm Pzgr. 43 which was the AP ammo for the PaK 44 and indeed was an AP shell of the construction type you descibe, with a small explovise charge within the AP projectile. Come to think of it, I don't recall ever seeing a tungsten round (Pzgr.40) with such a small explosive filler added, wouldn't make sense, would it? Besides, even the projectiles that did use it I am not sure and rather sceptical of their effectiveness. Common reason would dictate that a projectile which has to penetrate armor and is subject to extreme stresses during the procedure should have more success by being a solid shot with more weight rather than being made fragile by being hollow and filled with a bit of explosive. That diminutive explosive filler might make sense when a full or as good as full penetration is achieved to increase the effect, but I doubt it helps a lot with the penetration in the first place, rather the contrary (when compared with the alternative that this filler instead would be taken up by solid AP projectile core mass) - just MHO, of course. yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ) [edited for number typos which are a rather serious problem given the designations etc. vital to the issue] [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 10-03-2000).]

so where then is the STROLL comand? game ruined.

LOL... yes, and minutes later Kirk is hit *repeatedly* by same weapon, Bones frantically goes to work, Kirk is immediately beamed up and revived. Slapdragon, when putting together data for your formula research, please make sure to include the 50cals, as I have repeatedly stated before, my first QBs ever in CM involved a KT which got a "Gun Hit" from a pathetic M3 HTs 50cals in the first turn. Make sure your formula can account for that, too, I have been traumatized forever. ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ) [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 10-03-2000).]

I totally agree with Four Strings, same here. I personally still like both, but CM has definitely made me look at CloseCombat even more critical than before, and I too know of a good friend who has totally defected from CC, not only but largely also because of CM. I wholeheartedly agree that the zone is full of people who are full of it. I disagree with T34 however, it isn't hectic at all, and I will beat any zone clickfester flat if they try any rush stuff (at least I did so in the past); in cc, "Rushing gets you nowhere - fast.". Camping, Ambushes and cautious moves with recon by fire etc. are the way to go, rushes only to be utilized rarely. Lack of fast-click ability on one side's part is largely compensated by each soldier's self-preservation and defense tacAI instinct. Finally, jdmorse does have a point about best letting this issue to itself (I know my posting here is a venire contra factum proprium in the face of that). The only thing I do not like about all the pro-cc and anti-cc fanatics is that many of them followed onto cc lately, or tried just some, usually later, versions off cc. Thus a whole lotof wrong assertions are made, such as Flipper's questionable remark about "total lack of off-board controllable artillery" (cc4 and cc5 have it, besides I don't think it is the make-or-break criteria for judging a wargame). anyways, let's just let these two games coexist, if any of the two sides want to sound off about really bad, annoying games it should be crap like SuddenStrike, which is being advertised as an ultimate-realistic wargame...ha ha. ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ) [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 10-03-2000).]

cant help but feeling its wrong on anything but americans it's ok for british vehicles, but not for swedish ones ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

well, seems you got me on the FlaK 41 projectile, then. it was just a WAG opinion, and I am more than willing to accept if they were the same ammo. Now this would mean that it is absolutely no problem to reach the ballistics of the 88L71 with a 9,5kg projectile. ahh, but that is assuming that the data was indeed for a 9.5kg projectile! (petitio principii?) I guess it´s more a question of the amount and quality of propelling charge, and as I dug out so far, the amount of propelling charge was 2,52kg for the 88L56 (Digl R P) and 5,12kg (Gudol R P) for the 88L74 and 6,83kg (Gudol R P) for the 88L71. Helge (insomniac, eh?), I'm not an engineer, but it seems there is nothing in the propellant data / features relevant to AP that isn't already included in projectile Vo / Eo (Vo and Eo being a result of all the propellant effects). IOW, it doesn't mater to AP performance whether the Eo / Vo is attained by the use of Gudol, Diglykol, nitrocellulose, blackpowder or springforce doesn't matter it seems to me. ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

rune: interesting read, but what exactly is your point? Berkut, Helge was inquiring about he FlaK 41. I am not so sure about the ammunitions being the same for thatone. That is, I am tending definitely more towards saying that the FlaK 41 used a different ammunition than the KwK 43. They were completely different gun designs, and the little data I *do* see here indicates the FlaK 41 used a different ammunition, with different projectile weights, than the KwK 43 / PaK 43 group. Besides, the data you show IMHO surely looks to be that of the tungsten ammo (Pzgr.40/43). While of course it was the prime AP ammo for these guns with the best AP performance, it wasn't supplied in combat and it's data is only good for "what if" - speculation. The FlaK 41 and the KwK 43 were competing designs for a new 88 gun. This included the design of a new shell (which resulted in the Pzgr. 39/43 for the KwK 43, see my comparing image between L56 and L71 cartridges above). Since the FlaK 41 design was designed with a caliber length of L74 it is not unlikely that it had it's own cartridge design as well. At least the Handbook on German Military forces gives the FlaK 41 ammunition differing in weight from the PaK 43 ammo. just MHO, of course. Helge, you seem to have much more and better sources than I do, it's amazing with what you can come up, certainly anything I could add you could add, too. Therefore, I will just sit back and watch you duke it out with BTS over whether the KwK 36 and KwK 43 AP projectiles were of the same weight. just two more general observations on this issue. one is the theory I have stated before that maybe there was some kind of evolution in the 8,8cm L/56 Pzgr. 39 projectile, with the earlier version weighing 9 or 9.5 kg, and a later, improved version weighing 10.2 kg. You can take this speculation even further saying that the reason the early one is cited in the test reports is that such tests are likely to have been done during weapon development, and since this was early, it would be with the early 9 / 9.5kg type (hence Hahn cites the 9kg when giving test data). It would also explain his mysterious phrase of "von denen die bessere...." in regard to the FlaK 36, which would make sense, since the old one is the 9 / 9.6kg version, and the bessere, the improved new one is the 10.2kg (he can't be comparing an AP and a tungsten round since the Wolframgeschoss would be the bessere, but weigh much les than 10.2kg (more like 7-8kg), so he must be talking two non-tungsten rounds). And since this 10.2kg type was the new standard for 8,8 cm projectiles, it was then also used for the Pzgr. 39/43 for the new 88L71 gun design, this would explain why the cross-sections of both projectiles I presented above are identical. Again, just my personal black-CIA-helicopters/world-government theory. the other, more important observation I would like to add - again -, is that this (weight of the Pzgr. 39) - while undoubtedly interesting - does not help clear up the issue of the whole 88 Tohuwabohu we got here covering two threads (one of which i still don't dare to enter, the first page scared me away with all that math *g*). let me explain: a) The original problem was that the 88L71 data differed from AP data given in various sources, and BTS said that this was because they did not use tables but used their own formula and the projectile data (incl. weight and speed etc.) to calculate AP. And the results from using this formula matched all the data published, EXCEPT the 88L71. the 88L71 seemed offf especially when the Vo - AP increase was established vs the 88L56 as a comparison, and when this increase of AP was compared to the Vo - AP increase for the 7.5cm from L48 to L70. c) BTS stuck to their formula instead of changing it/manipulating results exclusively for the 88L71. BTS used a value of 10.2kg for both the L56 and the L71 AP projectiles. d) now along come Markus and Helge, saying that hey the L56 and the L71 use different projectiles, namely that the L56 does NOT use a shell of 10.2kg but of 9 / 9.5 kg. e) HOWEVER that would not explain why the formula data for the L71 is off. It would only explain why the L56 would be off, since if Helge and Markus are right, it is the L56 which used a wrong projectile weight for BTS' calculation. However, it is the L71 and not the L56 which is off and is being discussed about. looking forward to what other Bonbons we will see from you, mfG Markus ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ) [This message has not been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 10-02-2000).] [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 10-02-2000).]

Helge you genius , that is exactly what I was saying, if you had read my original posts when entering this thread (page 4), Hahn's book is exactly what I was quoting and thereby challenging everyone's view that both guns used projectiles of the same weight. Go a few pages back in this thread and you will see! Besides, if you check page 207 of Vol. I on Flugabwehrwaffen, you will find that he mentions the FlaK 36 using an AP projectile of 10.2kg (auch das habe ich eingangs schon erwähnt), so he isn't really consistent. I would be interested however in the other sources you mentioned which say the L56 uses a 9kg Panzergranate (unfortunately I cannot "easily see§ because I don't have the works you mention). Charles suggested some sources point to a 9.6kg projectile. It would be nice if you could relate what these other sources are saying. Nice to see you join the fray of this thread. Pretty soon all the guys will be here and we'll have a real party going here Do you think I should pay a return visit to the "Long 88 lacking punch thread" ? I still haven't been there. ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

ok, board member RMC was nice enough to supply me with an image of a cross section of a KwK36 (88L56) Pzgr.Patr. 36 8.8cm cartridge (from Jentz's book Tiger I & II). This I rescaled to compare it with an image I had of a 8.8cm Pzgr. 39/43 cross-section of the KwK 43 (88L71) in Hahn's work. Here is the final product, the KwK36's AP cartridge is at left, the KwK43's AP projectile is at right: I must admit that they look completely identical in construction. The L71 projectile does look a little thicker/more rounded (=voluminous) than the "sharper" L56 projectile upper section, but that is just the cap and doesn't add anything to mass. Therefore, assuming that the right image is indeed that of a 8,8cm Pzgr. 39/43 and that at the left is that of a 8,8cm Pzgr. 39 (which I do not doubt given the sources) then I am at a loss to explain a difference in weight between the two projectiles shown. IOW, if these two projectiles are the ones used in combat then I think Charles and his sources are right and I and my sources were wrong about a difference in projectile weight. btw, on a side note this has nothing to do with the question at hand, but just to illustrate the difference: the complete cartridge used by the KwK 43 of the Königstiger is much larger and of different construction than the one used by the KwK 36 of the Tiger I. Unlike the straight shell of the 39 the 39/43 is of bottle-shape and much longer: ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

how about putting this into the "How smart are fighter bombers?" - thread?

David, don't thank me, most all of this was done by others. Therefore, here is a (final?) observation by M.Binazzi, his response to my suggestion of british involvement (I suggested that I neither believe the story but that maybe there is some grain of truth behind it and maybe the scot was somehow involved in the talks or something and that this involvemtn has been inflated or s.th.): ---------- After checking various sources there is nothing to substantiate British intervention in the surrender of the Elster column British agents helped the Resistance, no doubt about that, and there was an important British agent adtive in the Landes, but that was where Elster started to move, not where he stopped!). Initial negotiations started between the Germans and the French directly, notably after Major von Lahr, Elster's chief of staff, was killed in a skirmish (there were 93 encounters, not 130 as I mentioned elsewhere) which of course Generalmajor Elster found ominous. The French Resistance reported the presence of the German column to the closest US unit, namely general Macon's 83 Infantry Division. A first meeting took place under the auspices of the Americans, on September 9, 1944 I believe, and on the subsequent meeting, on September 10, a British officer was present, but as observer only, as his name is not even mentioned. By the way, there is a large difference between "a crack panzer unit" and Generalmajor Elster's Marschgruppe Süd. You should see the photographs: they looked more like Gypsies with horse-drawn carts and old buses..... another telltale indication on the whimsical report of the Scotsman in question is that there was no British presence at all at the official surrender ceremony, which has been photographed, and where French, American & German uniforms only are visible. ------- ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ) [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 10-01-2000).]

I couldn't agree more, and have lobbied in the past for exactly the same. The problems and reasons why the current debrief indeed is inadequate are numerous. Among them is the fact that many enemy units have retreated off the map so you never know the composition of the enemy forces nor what kills etc that unit might have achieved. Kills remain unidentified even after the battle. What would be even better than identified kills etc. would be adding the designation of the enemy vehicle, like, the kill score would say "1 M4(105) V-34"...etc. pp...currently the battle cannot be reconstructed....this has been talked about so many times...and frankly I am at a loss as to why it is not implemented...when in the early demo it was complained about, the explanation was that that's just the demo. But here we are with this somewhat anticlimactic, leaving-you-wanting debrief in the full game. ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

stop this silly stuff. I can't shake the feeling all the time that combatboy is just mocking the rest, and read john's post again, he didn't threaten anybody, merely invited you to meet him in person. If combatboy doesn't feel like standing up to his talk then he can simply refuse the invitation. The freedom of choice, Faites votre jeaux. ANYWAY, I would REALLY appreciate it if we could get back on topic. Don't lock it up just yet because maybe, just maybe, I can supply a graphic comparison between the Pzgr. 39 of the KwK 36 and the Pzgr. 39/43 of the KwK 43. We will see if the two projectiles are (nearly) identical or differ completely and if this would explain anything. I have personally come to the conclusion that this will logically not resovle the problem of the 88L71 not fitting in with the rest of the guns, because if anything it would be the 88L56 not fitting in, since it is the Pzgr.39 of the KwK that would have been assumed to have the wrong weight. Still I think it might be interesting so I'll post it nevertheless, if anything it'll show us, roughly only of course, the makeup of both projectiles. ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

Thanks David for transcribing it. Now go get that book! *g* Well, we have this guy's tale that GM Elster personally handed over his personal weapons to him, but he fails to deliver any date and location for that, and on the other hand we have the very well-documented (see DCC63's link), high-publicity public surrender of Elster to 83 ID with music and parade. Now - whom do you believe? GAZ would probably say that "nah man McPherson u have some valid points but uhm u need to chill out man" The fact that those dumbhead journalists never really read that interview for serious, or didn't understand it, is quitze obvious in that they mixed up the PzDiv Das Reich and the "column" the kilt talked about which would result in the spectacular headline "Panzerdivision surrenders to kilt"; well "retreat column of rear area personnel and navy crews surrenders to allies, and McPherson was somehow involved" wouldn't be very spectacular would it? Raises the question of whether the journalist f-up is just a job poor done (which is typical of journalists) or whether this "accidental" mix-up between PzDiv and column maybe was intentional to make it sensational (which is also typical of journalists). One thing that I do not comprehend is your mentioning of him having a "posh english accent". what are you makign of this / hinting at? ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

LOL...but it's WRONG! caption under picture should read "Hamstergrenadier in the obstacle course" ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

kill him. any means guys just make it fast.

judging from the pictures, it looks like it has 5 machineguns. 5 gunners, the driver, a commander (notice the persicopish device on right hull top), and I guess a mechanic or someone to help those machine gunners. ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Coolist looking WW2 Tank<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> well, of course the Bob Semple <A HREF="http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/newzealand/newzealand.html"> </A> ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ) [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 09-30-2000).]

Combatboy, the camps and third reich are gratuitously covered in any german school curriculum. It is also not unusual to have the class make a field trip to one of these places which is a very sobering experience. The east germans however are a slightly different thing. these people are so...uhm...way off that there is a big problem with rightist views etc. over there. East germany is a sore wound in many respects. What your east german friend said constitutes denial of national socialist crimes according to § 130 III StGB (german criminal code) and will get him up to five years in prison. do you have his full name & address and do you have a document or other prove (are you willing to testify?) that he publically (he must have said it in public) said this?