John Kettler

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra: Rounds fired by the 6 pounder (57mm) in British use were: APC M51 (APCBC-T) AP M74 (AP-T) HE M63 Cannister M2 The T indicates tracer. It seems unlikely the British would be producing APDS ammo for the US and not using it themselves. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Rounds fired by the 6 pounder (57mm) in British use were: APC M51 (APCBC-T) AP M74 (AP-T) HE M63 Cannister M2 The T indicates tracer. It seems unlikely the British would be producing APDS ammo for the US and not using it themselves. ------------------ Floreat Jerboa ! Dear Babra, While your post was interesting, it was not responsive, other than by analogy, since I specifically asked for ammo data for the U.S. 57mm antitank gun. As it happens, I have now located something I consider to be authoritative on the subject, by a renowned ordnance expert, Ian V. Hogg. It took some digging, but per Ian Hogg (former Master Gunner in the Royal Artillery) in THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF INFANTRY WEAPONS OF WORLD WAR II, page 124, the U.S. 57mm antitank gun fired only two ammo types period: AP and APC. Hogg says "The greatest difference was that the American gun never had the range of projectiles available to the British weapon, only AP and APC projectiles ever being issued for it." For the record, he lists (p.118) the 6 pdr. ammo types as successively being AP, APC,APCBC,APCR (briefly), culminating in APDS early in 1944. No mention is made of the other ammo types you cite, but this may be because the bulk of the article on the gun is focused on its ongoing ammo changes to keep up with German armor developments. Regards, John Kettler

Could someone please explain the following occurrences to me? They're really bugging my friend Jim, the unfortunate recipient. The scenario is Reiseberg. 1. We have repeatedly observed the Germans losing duels in which they already had the Americans in their sights and were static, while the Americans fired on the move. Jim had his Tiger on the bridge (targeted on me), in what certainly looked like a hull down position. My M-18 ended its turn in plain sight, pointed directly at the Tiger, fully exposed on the ridge in scattered trees. The turn began, with the Tiger (veteran SS crew) being knocked out with one shot by my moving M-18 after the Tiger fired once and missed. The other situation has the Tiger firing and missing, followed by the M-18's scoring a first round kill. The Tiger has a better (more exposed) target, better gun and better optics, so why is it consistently losing duels in which the gun starts out aimed squarely at the target and the Americans have to traverse their turrets in order to engage? In that same engagement an unbuttonned StuG further up the road advanced slowly on hunt orders and met my M-18 on move orders and some of my deploying infantry (Germans were practically atop my entry point), causing the StuG to button up. I crossed directly in front of him as I moved to envelop right after smoking the road as far down the hill as I could see (OPs saw Tiger and StuG pass through en route to bridge), yet I fired on the move and killed him before he could even shoot. The AI had ample time to fire at me before I fired at the StuG, and LOS was not blocked either. Why didn't Jim get to shoot? It's beginning to look to both of us as though some factor is operating which heavily favors the TDs in duels. Note that I'm not talking about an off-axis target in which I have to frantically try to bring the Tiger's turret around. It's already pointing right at me. 2. Why is it that Americans can use bazookas against infantry targets but the Germans can't do the same with their Panzerfausts? 2a Speaking of which, how do you fire them? The Germans definitely used Panzerfausts against targets other than AFVs. During the Battle of the Bulge the Germans had an American platoon trapped in a stone farmhouse and demanded its surrender. The American commander declined, figuring nothing short of armor could drive him out of such a strong position. One stone shattering Panzerfaust shot later, the entire stunned platoon surrendered. 3. Does CM model the casualty effects against personnel, materiel and vehicles of white phosphorous in American smoke rounds? 4. Though all I have is the Beta demo (how I envy your testers!), can you please tell me specifically which ammo types your sources (please cite) show for the U.S. 57mm antitank gun? Someone I know claims that the British supplied us with APDS for the gun, but this is news to me. I'd guess it was APC and APCR, no APDS, but I simply don't have the data. 5. Does CM model VT (variable time) late war radar proximity fuzes and the common mechanical time fuzes for airburst artillery fire? Does it model the resultant enhanced lethality against exposed personnel? 5a.Does CM model treebursts of mortar and artillery shells and their enhanced lethality against personnel lacking top cover? 6. Does CM model the mobility effects of ground pressure for tanks? There are reports, for example, of M-5 Stuart tanks being able to race across mud which completely bogged the Sherman tanks. Similarly, the M-18's ground pressure was so low that it could essentially go anywhere an infantryman could. 6a.Could we please have a going map for each scenario? It would show which areas were trafficable by various vehicle classes. 7. In playing Chance Encounter I noticed that the German woods, renowned for their meticulous clearing of underbrush and for their numerous maintenance/logging trails, had no such trails, severely hamstringing my hasty defense plan. Nor does there seem to be any way to work armor through woods, when this was done repeatedly during the war, including the invasion of France and the Battle of the Bulge. The Russians were notorious for their ability to move armor through such "impassable" terrain. Why can't we? Suggestions 1. Please provide some sort of keyable terrain elevation contour map. The 3-D map is terrific, but it's a time consuming pain to use when siting units. 2. Please provide a marked map with the scenario briefing and include a print option for that briefing. 3. Please provide a compass rose so that I can tell where I'm going and can plan my operations effectively. 4. Please provide some way of systematically laying out defenses. The LOS tool is great, but what I need is a defense overlay showing all the unit visibility arcs, target reference points, artillery and mortar concentrations, final protective lines, minefields and barriers, etc. This was standard practice during the war. Among other things, it allowed units to keep vital points under fire, even when darkness, smoke or fog was present. 5. Please provide graphic control measures, such as phase lines, fire support coordination lines, unit boundaries, etc. Again, standard practice during the war. The game is incredible, demanding and gorgeous. And that's coming from a dyed-in-the -wool board wargamer and miniature combat nut. I used to loathe computer wargames. When does the holotank version of CM come out? Keep up the incredible work! John Kettler