M Hofbauer

dear John, Have you read the articles? no, I haven't, unfortunately I do not possess these works, I would surely appreciate if I was able to read them, they sound interesting. maybe you will see something I'm missing or maybe Paul can chime in and explain it better. anybody is welcome to do so. No I maintain what the articles stated ? not sure if I understand. see, you have two pictures. it's very basic: pic 1 shows your theory, pic 2 shows my theory. all you have to do is decide betwen 1 and 2. you can't say you maintain your position but you don't agree with pic 1, because puic 1 illustrates your opinion. ? Its not a matter of you & I disagreeing, yes it is its your questioning my interpratation of the refrence material I cited. please don't see this as a personal insult - it's merely that from my position in this argument there are two options: the books are wrong, or they are interpreted wrong. take your pick I was expanding on the material so everyone could read it definition of SC penetration In that we get more responces from more learnred ppl on the SC principal then I. I see. So its not possible that the geometry affected the warhead as thats the stated main cause for SC Warheads incorrect detonations as the articles explained it. Well the Articles deal with Shaped Charge warhead effects etc so I assumed they were relevant to any discussion concerning Shaped Charges, but if not ok.... now don't you start puting words in other people's mouth's - I'm the one that has a diploma for that I didn't say that. What I said was that this was not the issue with the Panzerfaust klein warhead. Of course the geometry of the shaped charge is the beginning and the end of it's effectiveness and working, so of course it is not only possible but always the case that geometry affects the warhead and it's functioning. But we were not talking about malfunctions (or the failing to achieve the desired effects fully) in hollow charges per se but about a specific problem encountered with the PzF klein warhead in regard to sloped armor, which was caused by the external shape of the warhead front cap. The charge itself worked fine, hence your point that geometry of the charge affects the performance of a hollow charge is entirely correct, but has nothing to do with the PzF klein warhead problem. Oh I get your drift M, but at the same time you dismiss the refrence material I have taken my SC data from on SC principals & effects; outright as it conflicts with your veiw. yes, that is the basic concept of differing opinion. If I were of your or the sources' opinoon then of course I wouldn't dismiss them. Vice versa, if I copnflict with them I have to dismiss them, else I would be inconsistent within myself. if I'm wrong then I am but I can only go by what they supply for info. no that is not correct. you are a free thinking man, you are not a slave to some dead cellulose and black ink. just use your common sense, PzKpfWg I. You seem to me to be a person that gives books a lot of credit. Granted, we are of course largely dependent on desk research to find out about things. But - now this might sound condescending but I am merely relating something that I learned while studying which conisted mainly of comparing such articles against each other and dismissing them, and writing your own, and realizing very fast, if you didn't know it before, that bull**** printed in b/w still remains bull**** even if it's sold as a hardcover edition - just because something is printed doesn't mean it's carved in stone. and even if it is carved in stone it still doesn't mean it's the stone of all wisdom and truth. Sorry for the disgression. And this effects this discussion how? does affect the definition of the SC penetreation principal in what way? I was merely commenting on your statement about liners in hollow charge ammunitions. It does not have anything to do with the discussion at hand. That's why I put it in brackets and atached it as a btw - afterthought. yours sincerely, Markus Hofbauer ------------------ "Please fix!!! or do somefink" (CPT S.)

Minnesota, no can do - I experienced differently: it happened to me repeatedly that I began a reply while the thread was still open, and when I pressed the submit button it would tell me sorry the thread is closed.

Anton Berta Cäsar Dora Emil Friedrich Gustav Heinrich Ida Julius Kaufman Ludwig Martha Nordpol Otto Paula Quelle Richard Samuel Theodor Ulrich Viktor Wilhelm Xanthippe Ypsilon Zacharias and now the icing: Ärger CHarlotte Ökonom SCHule Übermut ------------------ "Please fix!!! or do somefink" (CPT S.)

Shaped charge penetration is not affected by obliquity of impact food for thought: an extreme shallow angle of 5 or 10° makes for an almost horizontal penetration (assumed the round detonates) all along the length of the armor plate - this should prove sufficiently that your sources can only be wrong (if they are saying that). let's get this straight, maybe I wasn't clear in my last post: your sources' statement would mean this: while I maintain angle of atack / angle of impact _does_ play a role, because what would happen would be THIS: so see if understand you correctly - you indeed maintain that picture 1 would happen, right? if you still don't understand what I mean or still disagree then well we'll just have to agree to disagree. Sc rounds use high pressure detonation that turns the SC's liner (usualy copper)inside out & streching it into a jet, that travels up to 7km/sec, and flows thru the target armor like water pushes soil This also known as hydromatic flow. I was aware of that, but what does this have to do with the discussion at hand? Concerning the 30 problems it was most likely a case of the warhead being affected by its geometry & its sides closed in on its'self causing the failure I described last post. the Faustpatrone / Panzerfaust klein warhead worked just fine if it detonated correctly. Besides, in any event the shaped charge is more open than today's versions, so that this theory does not apply IMHO. again, PzKpfWg I, I think if you are not seeing what I mean or still don't agree then -despite the healthy debate- we'll just have to agree to disagree, because I will never swallow the absolute theory you relate from your sources yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer (btw IIRC the use of copper liner is a postwar thing) ------------------ "Please fix!!! or do somefink" (CPT S.) [modified to include the second image] [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 09-02-2000).]

check6, LOL...according to your definition the Panzerfaust warhead with it's 14cm diameter should penetrate 560mm no, obviously you cannot use this rule of thumb in connection with our weapons in this ww2 discussion for a number of reasons. the 2mm per 1mm diameter figure gets closest but is still too optimistic. interesting quote Paul, but I am not sure if I understand it - what 105mm is the Rheinmetall work referring to? must be the postwar M68? ------------------ "Please fix!!! or do somefink" (CPT S.)

BTS please ban.

germanboy, "Armoured", otherwise an entirely correct observation.

thanks for the kind words howardb. alas, it is old by now and is long overdue to an extensive overhaul in face of new evidence and info, so it is in a rather poor state however, Wolfe already referred to the page in his post as regards the Schreck, sources range from 160 to 240mm, so 170 is probably not too way off and an acceptable figure either way. with AP figures I am always at a loss because obviously it differs a lot depending on the armor quality of the target. as regards the image above, please note again that it was used in an entirely different context, I am not even sure if the applied pythagoras-formula math is correct (iudex non calculat), the pic is only meant to illustrate my point about increase in effective armor solely due to geometric logic. yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 09-02-2000).]

PzKpfw 1 (John Waters), Chris a shaped charge rounds penetration limit, is not realy affected by the obliquity of impact. I disagree. That is I disagree if I understand you correctly. The fact alone that something hits the armor plate at an angle makes for an increase in effective armor, as the entry-exit distance through the armor is longer...mayby I misunderstand you, and I don't know how to describe it, wait...ok here is a pic that is from an entirely different discussion, but why not recycle it for the issue at hand: I hope you see what I mean? surely obliquity etc. doesn't make for ricochets for HC ammunitions like it does for kinetic energy penetrator rounds, although in this context it must be noted that the Faustpatrone (PzF30 klein) warhead was redesigned for the later versions specifically because it often failed to detonate correctly on sloped surfaces such as on the T-34. yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer ------------------ "Please fix!!! or do somefink" (CPT S.)

There didn't seem to be any difference in penetrating power between the Panzerfaust 30, 60, and 100. Is there supposed to be? the warheads of Panzerfaust 30, 60 and 100 have the same shape and build and carry the same amount of explosives, so for all practical purposes they can be considered as identical. the difference in weight between these models is due to the amount of propellant etc. that are connected with the increase in range. only the Panzerfaust 150 introduced a new warhead, the conical shaped one we know so well from the RPG-7. the penetration performance for the PzF30/60/100 - type warhead is generally accepted to be a good 200mm (no angle) of armor. hope this helps, M.Hofbauer ------------------ "Please fix!!! or do somefink" (CPT S.)

ok David, the netting doesn't break up the camoflage ebnough for you? so is this more to your liking:

yes yes I had rephrased that into "unusual" since I came upon those too but that window collapsed and I had to re-paste it from notepad and that was the original version...you win... a very nice picture...hmmm 323 that's usually third company...but what unit? as to the woodlands camo, I don't know which vehicle it was, maybe a Kingtiger, problem is you deleted all your images in the old posts so that when one looks through the archives he doesn't find your pics anymore... dobra noc! M.Hofbauer ------------------ "Please fix!!! or do somefink" (CPT S.) [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 08-31-2000).]

john, I must admit I was very skeptical of your work at first. Because that woodland-camo mod and other ahistoric things just completely turned me off. But recently I must really commend you for your latest releases. you still have some glitches, like the double cross on the Tiger rearturret stowage box etc., but the new mods are definitely good-looking now, even though not completely authentic. Trying to get the colors and camo schemes just right is an entire hobby just for itself, a cross-section between history grog and modeler. There are many many books just about "Panzer Colors", and if you are striving for that real authentic look, suggest you take a look at these - however I would be careful with post-war, modern time reenactor, museum and active vehicles color pictures, because more often than not the vehicles are restored with wrong colors. As to the reason why there was such a myriad of german camoflage, I had a good source on that, and when the units were given official freedom etc. as to the schemes (the SS started this earlier than the Wehrmacht I think), but unfortunately I can't find it right now. What I do remember is that standardization of schemes was only kept to organizational levels as low as company level, id est, all vehicles of one company were usually of the same general scheme / design of camoflage. However more often it was standardized within Abteilungen or Regiments. now, that's what I call camoflage: keep up the good work, yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer (btw, jpzr or who it was that suggested the light reddish hue touch is right)

yes of course, just a Scharführer, I was confused wehen typing the Obersturmführer...

thanks Melloj, so the way I see it "7 of 9" is a name, the name of a person/ the head borg. and because she is supposedly very attractive, it is used as a joke because everybody (the male audience of the series) wants to be "assimilated" by her, correct? thanks for ass... ahem enlightening me. ------------------ "Please fix!!! or do somefink" (CPT S.)

didn't mean to offend, and you're both right, and usually I am one who participates in such things too, it's just that it suddenly all seemed so vain to me.

why is he wearing Obersturmführer (First Lieutenant) collar tabs and Oberscharführer (roughly Sergeant) shoulder boards? ------------------ "Please fix!!! or do somefink" (CPT S.)

excuse me everybody, but it just occurred to me, that the question presented itself to my conscience, What is the purpose of discussing the purpose of war? where will it take us? will it feed one more starving man, will it advance technology or society? excuse me, but isn't this thread a classic example of what a colleague of mine always refers to, excuse the harsh words but they are most fitting, as "brain masturbation"?

I don't get this "7 of 9" thing... I know seven up, seven as the divine number, I would know "7 out of 10" or "9 out of 10" as a figure of probability etc. but I am lost as to this 7 of 9 thing...if it's a trek thing, mind you, I am not a trekkie, the only StarTrek episodes I saw were those old ones, and that is decades ago...I guess it's some Borg thing from what I can gather... anybody care to enlighten (not assimilate) me? now, hamsters, OTOH, that's a concept I can figure, reproduce and...hamster arojund, essentially. [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 08-31-2000).]

LOL....holy sh** ! but...what about chipmunks? [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 08-31-2000).]

I completely agree with Philistine. Much more humans are dieing / have died from "natural" causes such as illness and starvation than in all the wars. Just take a loom at the casualties. I am not going into detail too much, but how much lifes did ww2 cost? 20 mio in europe, plus 6 mio murdered jews if you want to add these to the war, 5 mio in the pacific. japanese campaign in china another 10 mio; ww1 another max. 10 mio. - and these are the modern wars, the million-men wars, unlike the romans, egyptians, the crusades, the mongoles etc. pp., which actually where battles of thousands. and now compare that with the population at the time - billions. I don't have a figure here, but even if the world population was only barely a billion then the total cost of lives of ww2 and ww1 combined, arguably the single and biggest example for the theory of war as a means or effect of population control, of well 40 mio is insignificant, only 4%, in the grand scheme. and this is only a comparison done at the peak of war. Still it is an "additional" cause of death besides the latent natural causes, therefore it is one we should try to avoid and might have control over. btw I would also side with Elijah on the US-Jap. thing, because from what I had read it wasn't such a clear black-white issue, pearl harbor and all, but I remember too little to really take a stand here.

mensch enskind, something similarly strange is haoppening to me al the time. moving trees etc aside, I have had tanks explode and blow up in flames! is this a bug? I have noticed it happens quite often when there are enemy troops nearby. It's prety annoying when my tanks blow up into flames like that. to quote CPT S.: "Please fix!!! or do somefink"

thanks for the reply steve. guess it's a wrap then

hey Fox, I like kiwis, except that new variety, that mango- cross-breed which looks yellowish and tastes very much like mango so that you need to eat it cooled to have a sufficient chance of not throwing up

someone on this board here quoted "the purpose of war is trying for a more perfect peace" or something like that. there is no real sense in war. it happens. and it has it's own momentum once it has started, so even if it had some aim at the beginning that may change and it's repercussions will affect the lives of people long after it's over. war is an absolute. it is terrible. btw: I don't think thisone'll get locked up. ------------------ CPT STRANSKY: "Please fix!!! or do somefink"