Username

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dan Robertson: The tank crews in this case were suffering from the effects of over pressure due to none penetrating hits from rocket grenades.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Makes no sense. A hollow charge that doesnt penetrate would be the same as a HE round on the outside of the tank. Being in a tank in the tropics is hell. I once drove around for 4 hours in a tank and I bet I lost 5 pounds. It beats you up. The noise, the smells, the bumps, the constantly being aware, etc. Thats just driving! throw the strain of battle on top and guys would have to rotate in shifts. Most RPGs would penetrate nam armor and it would be devastating on the crew when it did. Lewis

The current immobilizing model where vehicles get M-killed is that the vehicle cant rotate. It can move its turret, if it has one. This , of course, favors tanks over AGs. Would it be possible to model rotating a hull if only one track is out? Or does the game lump all M-kills (engine, tracks, dead drivers, etc) into the same model? Lewis

Another interesting point is that once hit, how does it effect the crew? They cant know the origin for certain, they will not know if its a 50mm or a 75mm by the ricochet. only in the desert, would a tank commander have the amount of battlefield intel by directly observing the vehicle types hitting him. So, unless its an elite tiger crew that has full confidence in its armor vs enemy weapons (its early 1943), there should be crew morale effects from being hit. Even if its just reversing back to better cover. Even if the crew is unbuttoned, a near miss (tracer flying by with a supersonic crack) can have an effect. Someone is trying to kill you! Another big effect is if you can spot the firer. If you cant, then only a fool will sit still. Lewis

http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html According to this, the waffen SS had 2 out 3 people that served in it killed wounded mia. The total casualties are almost as great as the whole US during WWII? Out of 1 million SS?

Its an interesting subject. Being in a tank with headphones on and the engine running does deafen you to the outside world. Most of my reading indicates that the crew is aware that they are struck. Some describe it as a loud bang quickly followed by a vehicle shudder. Being in very close proximity to the area hit has dangers all its own. Besides well known things like spalling/rivets popping, theres a phenomena where a shock wave is transmitted through the metal. This can lead to concussion, internal bleeding (something called tankers lung), etc. I read about one guy who had his hand on the inside plate when it was struck from the outside. It broke the bones in his hand. Being in a tank that is penetrated by AP has been described as being inside a giant bell and having a superhuman ring it with a sledgehammer. The noise, sparks, flying debris and, of course, the AP penetrator just puncture the envelope of security a tanker feels. a big factor in this is how much energy the AP has left when it comes through. Ive read where it barely comes through and drops on the floor and also where it will run around the inside of a turret wall like a marble in a track. So being in a sherman at 1200 m and catching a 75L48 is different from catching one at 500 m. Large HE must be some bell ringer too. For some reason, the germans never wore 'football' type helmets in the panzers. Lewis

yeah about the RR. I was thinking more on a Bn level and above. But the push was for hollow charge. HC bazookas, RR and guided missiles. The korean war saw the last real use of ATG. They even had the russian 45mm doing some infantry support. "In front of Seoul 2/5 from the 104 fights without a single heavy gun in action. We'd run into a swarm of 45mm AT guns, and they had sniped our heavy guns out of existence. Those 45mm AT guns fired a round that you could see leave the barrel and proceeded along like a red hot baseball. You could see them coming if they weren't aimed straight at you. Chilling." http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/30calhv.htm The quote about heavy guns is talking about HMGs by the way. In Panzerjaeger and Soldat, the german authors also speak of the usefullness of these 37mm weapons. By using HE and AP, they would make HMG scrap and destroy light bunkers, buildings, etc. I bet the 37mm armed 251 HT used its gun against infantry alot also. [ 08-10-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

Perhaps the database can be broken up by 1/4 years. So you can only search by spring 2001 or Fall 2000 lets say. The search function was really a great part of the board experience here. Lewis

The 88 PAK 43 also had a 360 degree platform. A dug-in ATG could have a trench built between the trail legs. This would allow the loaders and gun commander to stand up (the gunner, of course, would have to be behind the shield) while doing their jobs. During a bombardment, they could all jump down in the pit. The ammo usually was in a seperate bunker and was run up to the gun when the ready rounds ran out. The hey-day of the ATG was the 20mm-50mm weapons. These could be pulled around by relatively small, quick vehicles and even pushed around/dragged by teams of men. When these weapons got larger and much heavier, they tended to get lost very quickly. Hence they were sited further back and on reverse slopes. In an attack, the old 20mm-50mm weapons were very useful, helping to destroy HMG and small bunkers, etc. The ammo for these weapons was relatively small and easily handled. The larger weapons were not so easily adapted. The very large "88" type AT weapons had a overmatch advantage that would allow them to dominate from longer ranges. Even this advantage was worn away by arty/radios/airpower. It also depended on visabilty at these ranges. These weapons became something defenses would often fall back on. Very few nations bothered with new ATG developments post WWII. They, and the flawed policies, like the US TD program, became scrap. Tanks were to fight tanks and missiles were the new way to go. Lewis [ 08-10-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2stats.htm This website has comparisons of different numbers from different sources. The US lost 115K non-battle military deaths? I find this hard to believe. 1 out of 3 military deaths was from what? Drunk driving? Live fire training? Lewis [ 08-10-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

See pgs 218-220 Steel Inferno. The battery, after stopping the brits, seems to have killed a couple of Tigers also in a fratricide incident. This caused the other tigers to fall back. The 88s were destroyed when the 32nd Guards Brigade pulled into town (Cagny). So maybe they should have got a medal but the Tiger thing kind of cancelled it. Lewis

At the end of the war, the 12th army group had 27 M36 TD Bn and 13 M18 and the 5 other TD Bn were M10 and towed. Wonder which one they liked best. Lewis

For a good historical read on M18s in battle, read Tank Tactics-Jarymowcz pg 235-236. This is an excellant read, unlike the garbage here, and I recommend it to everyone who likes CMBO. The book details the McNair insanity that was going on too. He was responsible for the TD doctrine being rammed down the US Armys throat. He was also responsible for denying the US Army of a heavy tank. McNair also rejected US building of Fireflys! In an act of frontlines air support, the US Airforce did the Army a favor and blew this 3 star moron to pieces in a bombing error. The book is ewell researched and has lots of refs. Enjoy. Since Germanboy specifically asked that we keep this about CMBB. I dont see the point in discussing the M18 any further. It wasnt on the eastern front and it isnt a yardstick there. Lewis

Noooooo. I think it isnt any better than any other vehicle IN THE GAME. And, it is up to YOU to prove otherwise if you want it changed somehow. So wheres the proof? Evans said so? Any numbers? stats? Lewis

Maybe this will change with the new covered arc.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: Apart from ROF and accuracy issues a related feature that should be addressed is spotting benefits/penalties due to absolute spotting. Moving vehicles already get reduced spotting ability but due to absolute spotting that penalty is undone.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes very true. I say any moving vehicle, FAST or MOVE, should be severely penalized for any area fire or point AP attacks while buttoned/shocked. This offsets the shared spotting info. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges: The problem with this is that it would *never* allow a hit while fast moving. I haven't seen anything on this thread that suggests that this should be the case; there should be at least a chance of hitting even at a fast move. Especially at, say, 50m. One problem -- that was discussed some in the other incarnation of this thread -- is that the game doesn't allow you to simulate driving fast, but stopping (or slowing) to take shots, then accelerating up to speed again. If the game allowed moving fast with pauses to shoot, I suppose it would be okay to permit only area fire on fast moves with no pauses -- as a sort of "blind fire" option. But as it is, the only way to simulate moving fast and firing, even with pauses, is to use the fast move command.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I assume you are talking about AP fire against point targets? I believe there is no such thing as area fire AP in the game according to BTS. But I get your point. But a solution would be to FAST move a distance, then just use a short MOVE (allowing a firing-on-the-move) followed by a FAST move order again. Sort of abstracts the short halt. There is no pauses in between orders in the game. This, pauses, would abstract the short halt (model it really ) nicely though. If the M-"You-know-what" is to be used as the fast moving AP firing yardstick, then wheres the data? I havent seen any real data. Lewis

Hey look who's back. I want to clarify some things about the M18 and the TD doctrine. I think it, the M18, was a slight improvement over the M10. The M10s problem in 1944-5 being it didnt have enough armor or HP to stay put or enough HP to move around. So the decision to lose the armor and beef up the engine is a return to the brit cavalry mentality. If the M18 could have been used in the desert , it would have been very well recieved. But I would have still preferred an M10 Achilles over an M18. I would have also much preferred an M36 over a M18 also. I view the whole M18 flap as a specialized vehicle needing specialized circumstances. Seems it needed rather special terrain, support, circumstances, etc to do its mission. In reality, the tank battalions were the one who the missions were really falling on. If the TD battalions really got priority over the rare and much needed HVAP ammo, I would say that it was endangering the US tank battalions who had 76mm armed shermans. I dont believe theres a great body of evidence that the M18s, typically, would fire on the move at fast speeds. Certainly not presented here. I HAVE evidence that the speed of the vehicles WAS a great asset. But that relates to late war breakouts where M8s, trucks, M18s, Jeeps, etc. Could just haul ass into germany at great rates. They could also reinforce areas overnight quickly. During the bulge one unit moved over 160 miles. Heres another website: http://purpleheart.org/m0597a3.htm These guys are what I would call M18 elite. Extensively trained in the whole TD doctrine way back in the states (the other link below is to a late war converted pak TD unit) including portee type firing, etc. Not one of the vets mentions firing on the move. Ones nickname is "Hit'n'run". I would imagine that M18 were used that way. Either from ambush, Hitting and then quickly running. Either in reverse or to another position. They would be ideal for the short halt type manuver. Since they had good visability, they would pick when to stop, shoot, and then haul ass using the great acceleration as a defense. http://www.100thww2.org/support/824/824combat.html The link gives a good example of M18 engine advantage. The units were good at driving deep into germany and shooting up volkstromm and german citizens. They dont mention if it was on the fly. So I would much rather have had M36 TD units. The M36 had treads meant for the ETO. The M18 did not. Mud would have swallowed the M18 skinny treads. I bet they would have been hell on ice also. Having 90mm TD units, apart from the obvious advantage, would have released 76mm HVAP to shermans, who could have used it. So I am not saying that the M18 isnt a better alternative than the M10, just that it became a specialized vehicle. I also dont see, at least in the threads here, any real data on the thing firing on the move at substantial speeds. Since the name of this thread is accuracy firing on the move. All of this is relevant. Lewis PS Heres a lineup of 76mm ammo. Notice the very small HE, HVAP and it looks like an uncapped AP on the right. The 76 HE must have been high velocity. ] [ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

Agree with lorak. The game does not, at this stage, care what type of terrain you are on when firing. I believe the whole flap about "you-know-what-cats" special "case" does not have enough bearing on the game as a whole. So: 1. Area fire only on fast move. 2. Point targets on move/hunt (with a little benefit thrown in for gyros/experience) 3. Certain units have faster move on roads but still use 2 above. This way, a certain "you-know-who" can run his "you-know-whats-cats" up and down the roads.. Lewis [ 08-08-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

The Tiger was supposed to fire from a halt according to a directive. I am sure that crews would start experimenting though, especially when backing up, with firing at different speeds. At close ranges, like the russian tanker says, the effect of moving tanks very close to a units position, firing on the move has an effect all its own.

Bobby Woll (on the Tiger I): "I found the gun sights far superior to anything else in the Army so hitting the targets was no problem. Even on the move.." http://www.panzer-vi.fsnet.co.uk/tales_bwoll.html This site is very interesting. Someone else on the site mentions shooting on the move. No ranges are given. Woll, of course, was one of the best gunners of the war.. I had read somewhere else that Woll (He was with Whittman) had a knack for hitting T34s while on the move. He had a sense or calculator built in that over time, he could just use the flat trajectory 88 behaviour out to 7-800 meters or so. The Tiger I is also a good gun platform. It is heavy, torsion bar suspension (many bars), distributed weight from many wheels. Its weight is also centered. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: 1) Firing on the move to-hit chance for the whole range GPW tanks from 1941 to 1945, i.e. including Skodas with 37mm guns to Panzer VIE with 88L71 for the Germans, and BT-26 or whatever they were called to IS-II or KV-II for the Red Army? Posts by RL tankers of post-war machines are certainly interesting, but not really helping with regard to the question. Fortunately enough we don't have gyros or M-18s to contend with here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well I wont mention M18s. But I did give a ref to Mr Crisp's book (a REAL life WWII tanker) and his experience with the stuart in the other thread. Again, he does not see the value in it. He had a fast vehicle. He had flat terrain. He worked out a short halt scheme that other tankers also used in the war. The info you are asking for is incredibly hard to obtain. Not only is it hard to obtain but very firer dependant. Even the origional brit study that BTS used shows that. But didnt the russians have gyro-equipped shermans? Lewis

Lets get this strait. You are making a claim on YOUR website that there were HEAT packed 105mm M18s attacking Tigers and such. tero is pointing out that you are wrong. Incorrect. That only one was made and it was deemed not worthy (he is using another website as a ref). tero would like you to modify YOUR website, just like I am asking (because of the folklore info about gyros), because someone doing research WILL pull up your website and it is full of wrong data. Is this not clear? Whats the problem? Why is this 'baiting'/flaming/etc? Why not just be a man and drop it? Theres no sake involved. If anything, this is an interesting thread and I like when urban legends, like sherman 75mm uber-HE , get exposed. You are a M18 pro-element here. Stand behind your words. I am just after the truth, I have nothing against M18s but just want the truth about them. Lewis

Actually the TD command was on the way out during the war... The total number of battalions to be mobilized in 1942 was 222 (in an army of 114 divisions) for the troop basis of 1943. But massed armor was scarcely used against American Forces in 1943. The War Department authorized only 144 battalions. With the continuing postponement of a major ground offensive, the training centers were becoming over crowded and in April 1943 it was recommended to curtail the tank destroyer program to 106 battalions. This was substantially the number already active or in the process of activation. In October 1943 the War Department planned to cut the number of battalions to 64, which would require the inactivation of 42 battalions. On 29 October 1943, Army Ground Forces, seeing the 39 divisions had a personnel shortage of 45,293 (due mainly to replacement needs in Italy) inactivated 25 tank destroyer battalions, redesignating them as Armored Field Artillery, Amphibious Tractor, Tank and Quartermaster Battalions and as infantry replacements to fill depleted divisions. Inactivation went on into 1944 until only 78 Tank Destroyer Battalions remained.

tero said: Apart from the faulty stabilizer data you should revise your site even further: "Most hellcats in Europe had a good 76mm cannon, but a few were equipped with 105mm cannon that fired all HEAT rounds to deal with Tigers and Panthers. " http://battletanks.com/m88_mod_hellcat.htm Modified "Hellcat" mounting a 105mm howitzer on the M18 chassis. Not a successful design. Only one built. He isnt saying that its YOUR website. He is just pointing out that there is another interesting M18 with a 105 (as in there WAS, not as in there wasnt , like your gyro equipped m18 website) and that you should put THAT in your website. Its your reading comprehension thats lacking here. Now. I am not taking anything out of context. Its a fact that you think that there are M18/gyros. If not, take THAT out of the text of your website!! Whats your reason for not changing it? No one is saying you are anything. Just fix your mistakes and learn to understand what others are saying. Its part of this thing called communications. Its part of knowledge. You make high claims here about how to research and think and deduce and study and statistics whatnot. Practice what you preach. Sorry if you dont like people pointing out obvious mistakes. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ron: In CM, AFVs like the US Stuart and Hellcat can Fast move and fire effectively because they have a fast turret speed to stay on target and a quick rate of fire while doing so. None of the German AFVs compare in that regard so aren't really 'suited' for that. \ Ron<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> While this may be correct in the game, in RL, it isnt true. Fast turret speed only gets you in the ballpark fast. The gunner then must lay the weapon on target with, usually, a traversing wheel (and sometimes another finer adjustment wheel). Having a very fast turret speed can be a hindrance if you overshoot. Having a VARIABLE speed traverse is the best. Thats is when the speed is faster or slower depending on the input. I know that some US vehicles had this. It was a hand grip, like a closed shovel hand grip, that was vertical, and you rotated it clockwise or counter-CW to move the turret. The greater the angle (CW or CCW), the faster the speed in that direction. Kind of easy and intuitive. But still, if you wanted to slew 90 degrees and went full tilt on the handle, there was the chance to overshoot. I believe that this arrangement was electric/hydraulic. That is, an electric motor was varied in speed to run the hydraulics pressure. Hydraulics are nice btw because they get things moving quick (but will slow down if the pressure drops), all electric is usually slower getting things moving initially but once moving is more controllable. The electric/hydraulic seems to be an attempt at getting the best of both worlds. Lewis