Username

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: I can guarantee, having written a fair amount of design\construction specifications for a numerous projects, that you will not find something that reads 80mm +/- 0mm. No one could manufacture anything to such strict tolerance levels and still maintain reasonable production rates. No Contractor would bid on the work for that matter. We are talking about mass produced steel plate after all, not precision machined steel for medical instruments. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Same thing would apply to hardness of AP rounds. The main point is that there is a variance. I dont know if rex gets this because he wants to go around measuring all the panthers left in the world in the year 2001. There is a very small sample of the 5000+ panthers and I am not sure what he thinks he will get with that data. He sounds like a buff to me. I guess that BTS could use a bell curve type of distribution of the thickness from 80 to 85mm. Maybe the reason that theres a few 85mm panthers around is because they survived longer with that extra armor! Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rexford: Several posters on other sites have speculated that German armor was oversize so it would pass inspection. If the tank armor was a few millimeters short the whole output might be rejected, so make it a few mm too thick on average and make sure it passes. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It was spec'd dude. You must know what that means (I hope). It was something like -0 and +5%. That means not less than Xmm and no more than +X*1.05. If its 80mm, then its 80mm and no less. 84mm would be the max. Everything technical is this way. Its mechanical drawing 101. Its basic tolerance understanding. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: They did Lewis the Ausf,H & J used a single 80mm plate. Regards, John Waters<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So the omly Panzer IV with the spaced plate was a G? I imagine earlier F's could have been upgraded also. Perhaps the tracks could perform this function also. The tracks were hardened steel. Lewis

There he goes again.. Why not put the theory to the test with the same shell rexford? Us a 75mmL48 and a 75mmL24. These two weapons fire the same HE shell. Its confounding that you rattle off these posts with mixing of theories, shells, velocities and lots of 'probablys' thrown in. Last time you ran away cause you had to finish your book. Well maybe your book is done and you can back up what you have to say? Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Johnson-<THC>-: hehehe, I was just kidding. I can't wait to use that 12.7mm HMG. Thats gonna be fun. Plus considering how many of those 14.5mm ATRs in the Russian TO&E its gonna be like MG fire from them all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The russian 14.5mm MG uses the ATR round doesnt it? So it literally is a full auto ATR. Some of the russian ATR are semi-auto also. The russian 12.7mm (literally 50 cal) is a shorter cartridge than the US 50 cal. Sort of a '50 cal Kurtz' Lewis Lewis

The Panzer IV had spaced armor. Could the outer 30mm knock off the cap/disrupt the shell so that the inside 50mm would defeat the round? The germans kept making Panzer IVs this way the whole war didnt they? Why not just move to an 80mm solid plate? Inquiring minds want to know.. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Herr Oberst: So, for this second test we have what I would call an extremely "dirty" comparison, with potentially three confounding factors ignoring all interactions between factors: <UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Factor 1: Angle of incidence at impact.<LI>Factor 2: Unknown rotational speed imparting some unknown force on the fragmentation pattern.<LI>Factor 3: 800 f/s forward motion of the shell that is imparted to the fragments. So, which factor or factors in what combination caused the results to come out that way? Is horizontal speed the most influential factor? Or is it angle of impact? Or is it the rotational speed? Or what combination? ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I applaud your approach but feel the angle is the reason for the difference. Most people ignore that the shell is spinning. Just as a sidenote, it can be in the 10's of thousands of RPM. Its effect does not change the pattern in the pics, but it would offset the angle somewhat from the fragments on the side of the shell. The nose parts and tail parts would probably come off spinning but in the same pattern. The forward motion of the shell can be compared to the related rate of the fragments. In other words, the front pattern would stay the same (but the fragments get a velocity 'kick' in relation to the ground) and the fragments from the shell's side would have an angular component. In a high velocity gun, the shell lands damn near flat on the ground. I dont think that the translational or rotational velocity would effect the pattern that greatly. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh: Is there anyone out there who can speak in layman's terms and tell me if what I asked about in my original question is modeled in CM?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I thought I had. Since the shell produces fragments that are 'attacking' the armor from all different angles themselves, then they have an angular component themselves. In the case of the 251 halftrack, it can go both ways. I doubt that the game models this and probably abstracts it somehow. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matthew_Ridgeway: You know USeR I have always been curious as to weather English is a second language for you? You seem quite adept at gibberish or perhaps it’s mumbo-jumbo. I can’t quite place the origins of your dialect.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh the weather is fine here. Thanks for asking Mr. Yellow Shells. Whether or not your area of the world has education past the grade school level is my burning question. Lewis

While I agree with Jason about Slapdragons inability to follow what he is proposing (ie scenario designers vs BTS programming), I must state that in CM2, smg's take on a major role. So it is , in my opinion, worth BTS programming effort also. I must again insist upon my idea of "pure" smg units having low loadout intially and the ability to loadup out of LOW ammo DURING the scenario. I have been in the military and the use of full auto M16 is very similar to smg use. In close prox to the enemy, you just simply blow through your ammo in the attempt to win the firefight. It is very range dependant. With an enemy at 100-150 meters, you can get the luxury of firing slowly. With someone at 25-75 meters, its a firehose situation. Dont get to concerned about slappys rhetoric. He is a total bookfed warrior. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Uedel: Here is my thinking about this Theme, Tank heads unbuttoned in SE direction, the Commander in the Top of the Cupola looks in driving direction of the Tank with an arc of view of 60° (sharp and intense view is only about 30° but in an overall watch u can estimate 60°) there u can estimate a 90% chance of exploring an unhidden and uncovered untit (percentage gets down with size and light conditions), the driver has also a view of 60° to the front of the Tank but in general a light insufficient spotchance then the Commander due the non optimal sightconditions from his place. Now a Shoot falls and draws attention of the Commander (the driver is still busy with driving), the humam ear is perfect in resolution where a sound comes from and the commander sleve his view arround to the accoustik contact. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Though I think your hearing appreciation is not based in reality, theres a germ of an idea in your thread. I have been in tanks with motor on and helmet and earphones, etc, hearing aint perfect. Someone described being in tanks as being vision dependant except for the voices in your head (earphones). I like the idea of spotting/IDing being based on covered arc though. Lewis

Theres some boards, like the asus a7a266 (sp?) that accept pc100, 133 and also Pc2100 (but not at the same time). This is a good board to move up to if you want to continue using the same memory. Later, you can get 512Mg of PC2100 if you want. Its a little pricey around 160$ US bux. Lewis http://srd.yahoo.com/goo/a7a266/5/*http://www.dansdata.com/a7a266.htm [ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh: If you have a vehicle that has let's say, 8mm of armor on its side with a 30 degree slope, does the slope come into play in CM when an arty shell lands nearby? In other words, will the slope help in deflecting the round or is this only with tanks/AT teams?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It would certainly come into play in the case of a german halftrack. The downward sloping sides would not protect the occupents to a very near miss. The upwardly projected fragments would strike this area orthoganal. They would more than liekly hit the germans in the butt. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Herr Oberst: It might just be me, but I'd say there's a fairly big difference between a shell going 0 f/s and one traveling 800 f/s impacting at a 30 degree angle. And the bone you had to pick with this was what exactly?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> "The round landing at a higher angle is less deadly to the front and rear. this goes against people like rexford who claim such great things about low velocity howitzers over tank guns." Rexford has previously gone on about how high velocity weapons are inferior, in general, to low velocity EVEN WHEN FIRING THE SAME HE SHELL. His big case is against a german 75mmL70 vs a 75mmL24 if I recall. He claims theres certain dynamics in the vertical dispersion as he calls it. This is what I am refering to. the graphs refute it. But He is also refering to here, another one of his theories about uber-sherman shells. I am not sure of all the "math" behind it but he will be more than willing to sell a book about it. As for your 0 fps, I dont quite get it. A high velocity round lands pretty much flat on the ground. Are you looking for some forward acting force on the graphs? And as for the canadian guy trying to get the "we" together, no comment. The Ridged guy wouldnt know if he was made a fool of in a thread so I wont even address him. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rexford: Lower velocity often results in thinner shell walls and more fragments per unit area. This is why U.S. 75mm HE puts out a higher number of effective fragments than 76mm and 90mm HE, and comes very close to 105mm output at distances close to detonation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you look at the website above, you will see that its only the angle that is changing. They compare a 105mm shell at two different angles. Why you must always mix everything up in your rambling style amazes me.

I had suggested in another thread the following: SMG units (those that had a predominate SMG in the squad) would start a scenario with a small loadout. Maybe 12 shots. In the course of using up the loadout and becoming LOW, they had the chance to increase out of LOW. Say 1 or 2 shot buildup chance per turn. This reflects the shock troop nature of the SMG squad. They werent line infantryman and holding the line wasnt thier forte. If a squad of SMGs opened up on you at 200 yards, there would be a rain of bullets. But one or two guys would be spraying and praying. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The same ammo was used by the M-1 and the BAR, which made carrying extra ammo a unit-wide task. The BAR assistant gunner carried an additional box of ammo. In German units, it was common for riflemen to carry extra belts for the squad MG. Overall ammo carried is limited by bulk and weight, and unused ability to carry is generally used for the other weapons of the unit. [/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The same ammo, meaning cartridge was common to BAR and M1 (and 30 cals), but the M1 was a fixed 8 round device (charge). The BAR would use loose rounds that were loaded into the 20 round clips. The BAR could probably take belted MG ammo and load up its clips easily enough. The M1 garand would not share that easily. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rex_Bellator: Good replies, it's prompted me to look further into the whole 'Superstructure' thingy which I did this morning and I now wish I hadn't. The only two Assault/Self Propelled Guns I found in my quick examination with a Superstructure rating were the Jadgtiger and the JpzIV. Stugs/Marders/Nashorns/Wespes/Hetzers and others all are rated as having an Upper Hull and a Lower Hull only. I found this even more confusing, a JpzIV is a low sleek tank hunter yet apparently does have Superstructure. A Nashorn/Marder and others have high sided gun shield type enclosures on their hulls and yet are not rated as having Superstructure :confused: Can anyone help here, as a layman I would be more inclined to say that the JPzIV's should be hull only type and SPGs like the Nashorn should be hull/superstructure types. Finally I do accept that Hull Down could actually and confusingly still mean that part of the Hull is Up, but I do have reservations that the 'to hit penalty' is being calculated on a pro-rata basis accordingly. As I'm daring to question part of everyones faviourite game, I have flame extinguishers on standby <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I mentioned this to BTS and they dont feel its an issue. The problem is that certain vehicles get the 'funhouse mirror' effect and are distorted. The stug had pretty good protection up top. The sloping 'upper superstructure' deflected rounds. The saukopf cast gun armor also gave good protection. The lower parts were about the same as a pnzIV and the crews often had tracks as extra armor. So a good stug crew kept the vehicle close to the earth and behind cover. The tracks were a lifeline in that when they got shot off, the vehicle was about useless. A stug is not that much smaller than a PIII in height BTW. Lewis

I find it interesting that the 105mm shell that is detonated at a very low angle gives a better all around performance. The round landing at a higher angle is less deadly to the front and rear. this goes against people like rexford who claim such great things about low velocity howitzers over tank guns. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Yep, and he was forever embarresed about it. Later scholars feel that his effiminate dress, over compensation, and the like was a sign of homosexuality, but you can charge a lot of commanders with those symptoms without being closeted. Unless you have proof like in the case of Baden-Powell, the founder of the Boy Scouts, all you can really say about Patton was that he was a bit screwed up in the head.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Isnt it about time for one of your brain clots to kick in? I noticed that the last time your brain chemistry went kablooey, you were making stupid posts like the above crap. "Later Scholars"? Like who? Cite a "scholar" then. I think you are screwed up in the head also. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dalem: Oh man, that was you? If I'd a known that I wouldn't have minded you ripping me on the trick.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What do you mean? You paid for the bus ride... Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phillies Phan: Ah, me. Yet another thread. I didn't have the energy or the inclination to contribute when I first saw it's inception. Like turds stacking up in the litter box, the Mutha Beautiful Thread grows and grows. We still have our Prima Donna's that say "I don't like this thread, I'll wait for the next one". Like this is a friggen bus system we have. Well, I'm not giving up my seat when you want to sit down. You can sit on the driver's lap. Here are some things that suck in no specific order: Rt 295 This God awful highway makes me want to arm myself with something of the 76MM caliber variety and clear the friggen way to work. It’s like a big parking lot that moves sometimes. *Let it be known that our Elvis was not seen there. Any and all references to Elvis made by Phillies Phan, his family, his girlfriend, his pets, and associates are not about the venerable Elvis, King of South Philly unless specifically stated.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> GOD ALL_FREAKING_MIGHTY AND_ALL_KNOWING_!!! Could you be ANY more boring!???!!!?????? I dont want to hear about those 76mm turds in the litter box cause we all know they are yours. As for the highwayszzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..... I have been to philly. And no way am I returning (extradition included). City of motherly lovers. Almost got my ass kicked by a transvestite while waiting for a bus. Phew. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrPeng: Hi Lewis! Missed ya babe. Stop by the 'pool some time for a Coors Light.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> AWWWRRRRR!!!! They filled up the pool with Coors light again? How are they ever going to know when I am pissing in the pool? It does leave my frizzy body hair with a nice sheen though... Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra: Yes, gun depression specificlly, and vehicle layout generally, are important factors.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That reminds me. The stug had a driver who was almost at the same level as the gun. The crew also was in very close proximity of each other and could act with precision teamwork (i.e. kick in the shoulder means stop). The later model stugs had a coax MG that actually was higher than the gun barrel (like an eye on one side of the saukopf). The later stugs could almost be barrel down and graze the coax MG with minimal exposure. The stug was a very good weapons system. The fact that an artillery school was devoted to stugs and that throughout the war artillerymen manned these weapons with prior experience from other weapon systems guaranteed defensive results. Lewis Maybe I think about stugs too much.

I agree that you cant mix strategic boobs with field level boobs. I aint naming names cause I dont know em but heres a list: 1. The dumbass air gurus who bombed civilian centers. Hate to say this but US and Britian committed warcrimes. It only made the germans (known bad losers) only fight harder. 2. The incompetant allied propaganda policy. They should have exploited the genocide in 1943 as soon as it became known. All allied politicians and even Ike knew what the germans were doing. They should have rained propaganda all over german held land detailing atrocities like the death camps. Bombing german cities only made the germans fight harder. Overthrowing the Nazis was never prosecuted enough. 3. Joint allied ops. The brits should have worked Italy exclusively, The yanks, normandy. The Canadians should have been used as fisherman or maybe lumberjacks. Lewis