Username

edited because i'm a perfectionist [ 08-02-2001: Message edited by: dunc ] [ 08-02-2001: Message edited by: dunc ] -------------------- Well a perfectionist would know that you can edit out all but one of these: [ 08-02-2001: Message edited by: dunc ] Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chad Harrison: yes the sherman has a higher blast rating (39, ger 75mm=34), but SHOULDNT the sherman have a HIGHER Rate of fire? thats my question. i did know that it had a bigger punch than the others.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I dont think the sherman HE shell had that big a punch than german 75mm shells. Its one of those Urban-Legends that everyone quotes. In fact, theres some evidence tht the german HE had a bigger payload. Lewis

I would really like to see something like this. maybe something in the HQ instead of those MODs.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tss: Username wrote: Shots at such close range as 15 meters, while funny and anectodal, have their own psych effect and are not to be taken as accuracy examples. Never claimed anything else. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Then why did you say the following? 'Gun accuracy in WWII depended on _many_ variables. I don't go now into CM details, but here are some interesting examples with both accurate and inaccurate shots:' 'Examples' then followed. You are claiming these are examples of accurate and inaccurate shots. Examples of accuracy no? Is this an accurate question? Are all Finns like the Finns that post here on the CM board? Lewis

This is from another thread... Dekefenkle wrote: "I was with the 11 ACR in Germany circa 1990. I was assigned to the gunners position in my Bradley after about 18 months of my tour. The Bradley has an OX sight, which is nothing more than a periscope with a range finding site consisting two lines forming a V and a center line running up the middle. (actually IIRC its two V’s, one for flank and one for head-on targets) The site is to be used in case the primary firing site is disabled. In ranged gunnery firing single shot using the manual traverse and elevation you can attain a first shot hit up to 800 meters in the neighborhood of 50% of the time with very little practice. You almost need to be a contortionist to get your body into position to use this site AND the manual controls but we did indeed practice it. Now I know this is NOT apples to apples. The 35mm on a Bradley is a very high velocity gun IIRC 2850 meters per sec. (any of you active scouts out there feel free to correct me) and I sure wouldn’t want to try to take a shot on the move with that system." Aside from the fact its a 25mm system and the velocity cant be that high, its a good addition to this thread. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DekeFentle: Now I know this is NOT apples to apples. The 35mm on a Bradley is a very high velocity gun IIRC 2850 meters per sec. (any of you active scouts out there feel free to correct me) and I sure wouldn’t want to try to take a shot on the move with that system. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Its a 25mm and the velocity isnt 2850 METERS per second. Thats probably feet per second. Theres another thread thats currently in the first couple of pages here. I try to explain to the laymen here the difference between accuracy, repeatability and resolution. Its 'most accurate tank' I think. Shots at such close range as 15 meters, while funny and anectodal, have their own psych effect and are not to be taken as accuracy examples. But 500 meters is probably the sighting range of alot of AT weapons. Thats where you fire the weapon and tweak in the controls on a range (after boresighting). Lewis

Username is actually my login name. The name of this thread should be Changing Login name.

A gunner in a tank would not himself be stabilized. As jeff and others have said, you are jostled around. The gunner's stabilized sight meanwhile is staying in line with the gun barrels counter movements. To keep ones eye on this could probably only be done at slow speeds on fairly forgiving terrain that allowed anticipation by the gunner as to the sights next move. I can imagine that a gyro could help out when slowly cresting a slope to get Hull down. The gunner could call out immediately when he sees over (and the gyro would make this clear). I think that BTS did the right thing by making gyros a slight advantage. But in general, firing on the move, at point targets, should maybe be toned down in general. Even in the case on non-gyro weapons. Lewis [ 08-02-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

Is the BT7 a diesel engine? There might have been glow plugs or something.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42: I didn't write it, hence the -Slapdragon at the end.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This thread's spelling is as bad as dried fish in a Soumi Rest-ER-rawnt.

Steve said recently that units that have been spotted and ID'd, that get back to a hidden status, will always be returned to the same ID level if spotted again. So if you have a half squad, that is spotted and ID'd completely, get back to hidden and rejoined to its other half squad, what state will it be in if re-spotted and ID'd?

The german 75mmL24 also had a cannister round. Hundreds of 9mm steel balls.

The puma had a turret that was supposed to go on a recon version of the panther. A leopard or something like that. It, the puma turret, was more a use of something that never panned out. Kind of a custom run if you will.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Bunker/3260/sdkfz234.htm Heres a good website.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Not quite. The "bump" would have to occur between when the gunner pulls the trigger and the round leaves the end of the barrel. It is therefore possible that a shorter barreled gun (like the US 37mm) would be less affected by bumping than a longer gun (like a Panther's 75) all else being equal. Obviously muzzle velocity is a key factor here, as that determines the exit speed. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Steve Since I am on double-secret, defcon 4 level, probation, I am going to try to control myself. But you did call a bunch of people here physics ninnys (or something like that) earlier in this same thread. So I am going to read you the riot act a little. Whats easier to swing? A small baseball bat or a long heavy one? Which has more resistance to a change in motion? Its the long one. Inertia. But theres something even more basic going on. Related rates. The time between the primer igniting and the round leaving the barrel is very small. Something like 11 or 12 uSecs roughly. The barrel, even if already moving at a fast angular rate, would not move much during such a short period of time! The round moving down the barrel would add mass further down the length of the barrel anyway making the barrel less resistant to a change of position also! Ive felt this when trying to slew an MG while firing. Theres also the spinning round resisting a change like a gyro too!!! Lewis

I hate to break this to you <grogs> but moving on a hard road is [NOT] the best conditions at any speed!! I firmly believe that grogilians are couch commanders. In WWII there were two practical tank speeds in combat. ~Crawling~ and *full tilt boogying*. lewis

I take it the vehicles are moving over flat, sandy conditions? These conditions are almost ideal then. The flat terrain being an obvious benefit and the soft ground acting as a vibration damper. Ive driven tracked vehicles over mud, grass, roads, sand etc. It makes a big difference. Also: 'These numbers are higher than you might have expected. The 2pdr was fired from the gunner's shoulder (!) and had no gyrostabilizer. So I think the gyro-equipped Stuart, firing at shorter range in your example (about 580 yds on average) compared to this one (about 700 yards on average), ought to be able to do even better.' Believe it or not, the human being is a servo system. He can see the problem and corrects for it on the fly. The fact that the gun is resting on his shoulder (and some other point of course) does not make it +BAD+. A ~gyrostabilizer~ is an open loop correction device mostly. It will always be 'behind the ball' in correction. I would argue that a fixed gun, gyro or not, would be #worse# than these results under most conditions. But what do I ?know? Lewis

"Kiss" my *Asterix*...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir: Who "is" this "Charles" "person" anyway? "Or" for "that" matter, Doug "Beman"? Asshole I'm "being" no "doubt" but "scare" "quotes" get "my" goat. Too many "people" use "them" wrongly (even though "Doug" used "them" correctly...) 8)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I *Hate* when people use astericks.

you can split a depleted unit cant you? Take a 7 man squad and split it and get a 3 man and a 4 man (hopefully with the MG)?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by olandt: On another topic from this thread; another cause of the German collapse which tends to be overlooked is the inadaquacy of their supply system. Not to say that the germans were not skilled at supply, but that the size of the task was beyond them. Moscow is not exactly next to Berlin, and the Germans relied heavily on horse drawn wagons to get supplies from the railhead to the front.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think you bring up a good point. That is, Russian war was railway war. I believe the russians also made war this way. In the west, the amount of petrol available allowed to the US/allies to effect a "bum rush" of armor, planes, trucks, etc all carried forward by petrol. It was quite different from what the germans had experienced in russia and I bet they were envious. The US use of rubberized tank tracks, as opposed to steel tracks, made this easier still. The war in france became a smaller place than it was in 1940. But railheads must have ruled in russia. Corp and army commanders made decisions around them. To breakthrough and cut a rail line or capture a rail head meant doom for all those cutoff. Lewis [ 07-30-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cpl Carrot: Username I'm not sure I understand. Surely if you abstract something you still have to model it somehow. How did you think it could be abstracted to? Cpl Carrot<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> To me, modeling would be if there was a parameter that was used in an equation if X tank can shoot down Y slope. An abstraction, is when you capture the heart of the effect. In this case giving soviet tanks some difficulty (if their depression is very limited) in reaching hull down. Theres also the gun depression issue of minimum range that this abstraction doesnt address. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cpl Carrot: IIRC BTS said that the reason gun depression was not modelled and will not be modelled until an engine rewrite, was the difficulties in getting the TacAI? to understand why it can see the target but not shoot it. Once again it is another 'nice' thing to have but hard to implement (probably). I'm sure BTS have it high on their "things that need improving" wish list.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Modelling is one thing but I am talking about an abstraction. a good abstraction can capture the effects without the modelling. BTS care to comment? Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Commissar: That's odd. Considering how much hull down positions are used, gun depression rates should be important in the modeling I would think. It could make a big difference in combat results or how one plays a particular force.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Its a combination of gun depression and gun height. So a small tank like the PIII has a much greater chance than a large tank like the IS2 of gaining HD status on reverse slopes. Other intangibles are the drivers vision ports, height difference between tank commander, gunner and driver, crew experience, tranny low gear, intercom, etc. these could all be abstracted a little. lewis

Will there be AP and APBC in CM2? Seems like there is a big difference in performance.