Username

High explosive is any material that explodes and expands faster than the speed of sound. The speed of sound is not the speed of the expanding gases/flame front (I am calling this a shockwave, perhaps a poor choice of words, you tell me). The expanding gases/flamefront rapidly loses speed and the shrapnel will overtake it (shrapnel speed does depend on its size too). The acoustic energy resulting from the explosion WILL travel with the speed of sound. You are implying this is a 'shockwave' and I cant use that word to describe the expanding gases/flame front. Okay. (And people say I nitpick...) Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: I really don't see why the velocity of an HE projectile would have any effect on hardened armor. But I would be genuinely curious to understand why velocity would have any effect on armor, when you're just setting off a big ball of gas? With a HEAT shaped-charge, velocity is not thought to contribute to the overall effect, so why would a conventional HE round? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well if you are hurling a 15 pound dense object at 1200 miles per hour, you have alot of energy there. Drop a 15 pound weight on your toe. Its probably only going a few feet per second. Anyway, that energy doesnt disappear when the HE detonates. It is an additive element to the explosion. Think of it as adding an extra punch. Its Physics. HE usually defeats armor by cracking or splitting the plate. It doesnt make a nice hole but rather cracks welds/pushes in plate/etc. The velocity of the shell is just more force applied against the plate. Since the velocity counts as a square term in the energy equation, E=1/2mv2, a small change in velocity can equate to alot more energy. In other words its nonlinear. HEAT weapons are susceptible to motion also. A spinning HEAT round is at a disadvantage to a fin stabilized rocket round (the spinning tends to centrifugally diffuse the concentrated explosion). So as a HEAT round goes downrange and loses rotational speed, it actually changes its penetration effects! I know this goes against alot of what you read but its true. A spinning HEAT round can be very effective against concrete by the way. Instead of blowing a small diameter hole, it will blast a hole big enough to put a grenade through or even blow down a wall. In a High Explosive environment, the escaping heat/blast (think shock wave)precedes the shrapnel (since the metal has alot more mass, it takes "longer" to accelerate). The shell bursts and the shock wave travels out somewhat spherically and loses energy as an inverse cube. It will then be over taken by the shrapnel (which moves through it), which has more mass and hence momentum and will reach out and kill someone at greater range. So when HE hits lets say a house, it rips open walls by the explosion/velocity energy followed by the shrapnel coming through. A very dynamic environment. Lewis

Well my best guess is that the MG34 allowed the barrel to be changed out through the back of the weapon. The MG42 had the barrel changed out the side. So if even if there was a MG42 ball mount, you would have to retract the whole weapon back inside to change the barrel. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Lewis, I don't really know Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ill accept that answer. Lewis

Pretty good answer, any others?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colin: IIRC the MG 34 is just for vehicles and the MG 42 is for troops. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> (POP QUIZ)Anyone know why? Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: I am not sure which guns he had data for, but I do know he had data for the 75mm L/48. Charles also compared the numbers that were churned out with anecdotal scientific or observational data, not just comprensive weapons tests done under lab condtions. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well Im sure he would have reverse engineered it the way I would have. That is, remove as many variables as possible. A nice way to do it would to have the SAME HE shell travel at different velocitys. It would just then be a matter of a boundary value problem in differential equations. When I look at the unit info, I see a blast value for a HE weapon system. Isn't this then velocity dependant? Lewis

Steve I have HE penetration data on the 7.5cm L24, 75mmL43 and 75/1000mL48 german tank guns. It gives penetration for HE vs Armor, Steel and concrete. I noticed that the HE shells seemed to be the same for all these weapons. Meaning the projectile weight and HE payload are the same. Not inconcievable considering that the "low" velocity L24 was 440m/sec and the "high" velocity L48 is 550m/sec. Anyway a good scientific model should compare its results with this data (if you already havent). Seems from the data that the SAME shell fired at a higher velocity certainly packs an extra wallop. Great for reducing hard targets like bunkers, reinforced houses, weapons pits, trenches, etc. But when thought through, I guess it makes a lot of physical sense. The 1/2mv2 of the moving shell should be taken into account. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by entec: I would like to know if the above numbers refer to the total shell weight or the projetile weight.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The shell is the projectile. I say shell as opposed to shot because the German AP projectiles had a small HE charge in the back. Whats a good word for the projectile and propellent case? Some people call these "rounds". As in "ready rounds stored close to the gun". I call the combo ammo myself. But to answer your question it is projectile weight. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Interesting to note... the Tiger's HE can rip apart most Allied tanks that landed at Normandy without much problem. It has about a 30% edge over the Panther's HE penetration capabilities.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> BTS Where would I find data on HE penetration capabilities for those guns? Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: The other question is how does the SPW (or any HT for that matter) steer when the wheel is cranked to one side. Since the SPW apparently does not have power to the front wheels all power must come from the tracks (duh ). The base of those tracks is quite short, which makes turning easier. And does there come a time when one track locks up and the other still gets power? Dunno myself, but it seems that it should be possible in at least 1st gear. Not that any of this really matters, but I am curious Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My understanding is that the power on one of the tracks on the SPW is scrubbed as the steering is turned. If one track completely locked up it would be dragging the front wheels, since the steering wouldnt allow them to turn all the way to 90 degrees to the tracks. On an US HT the front tires are driven, so that would be interesting if the track locked up on one side. Lewis [This message has been edited by Username (edited 04-24-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Hey Gary, learn something new every day! Having a tracked vehicle that doesn't neutral steer I can tell very easily that a smaller wheeled/HT vehicle would be able to take tighter turns than something the size of the StuG any day. Now, a neutral steering tank would have it all over anything else Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Steve Yeah I learned something new today too. The turning radius of a SPW is 11 meters and the turning radius of the stugIIIg is 5.85 meters. If you lock the tracks on one side, then the radius is about twice the width. The SPW had a different turning mechanism evidently. If you want I can figure out the difference in "forward" motion for a vehicle like the stug using neutral and track pivot and we can compare. Lets say for pointing at a target 20 degrees to the left and 45 degrees to the left. I am a motion control engineer so it would be no problem.. I read the neutral steer post when it came out. Ive been monitering the board for quite some time. Lewis

Steve Whats relative spotting? Is this when you choose one unit on your side and the battlefield "changes" to correspond to his perspective? ie he only sees what is in his line of sight and other enemy (or friendly) units are sensed as noise contacts/stars/crosses? I was thinking about that myself and have it in my platoon game "notes" ( I am developing a game proposal..if any game companies are listening..). Basically I would handle it by forcing the player to order his units in the following order. Those units with the LEAST battlefield info are first with succeeding units given to the player. I am sure this will go over bigtime with all the control freaks here but its just an idea. Lewis

The military will never change. When I was in I would have gladly fragged alot of the officers. I tipped a spot a pot latrine over with a butter bar in it (late at night). A few years ago I had a job with a defense contractor. If you people knew the millions of dollars wasted for NOTHING that was developed. Sometimes it takes millions just to shut down a program that is worthless that BILLIONS is spent on. This is part of the game now and the big companies dont mind developing things that dont work out. Slip a little back to the officers on the development team and make sure you write in a shutdown clause. Its all profit baby. I used to have to fax down info to an army evaluation site. It was on an army base where they trialed the vehicles. The line was always tied up. Freaking Lt Col. was online ALL the time cruising the internet. I called and the NCOs and civilian aides were scared to ask him to shut down. They said try later in the afternoon cause he goes to the club for happy hour. POS like that officer needs to be cleaned out with "pocket artillery". Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mattias: You can´t compare two weapon systems out of context. I suspect this was not what you meant but the way you present your point, using a Panther would be sheer folly, while a Kübelwagen with a Panzerschreck is the pinnacle of efficiency I like both, I just don’t compare them M.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ..But you forgot that he would gladly take a MAUS over either one!! I like those HT myself. But they could not perform the sturmartillerie mission as well as a stugIIIG. The stug could lock up one track and drive the other. This would rotate the vehicle about the locked up track. The center of rotation is the middle of the locked track. The HT would have to move forward or backward to "pivot". If you were behind cover or atop a crest, this would expose you to fire longer. I believe the intent of those vehicles was to work with attached armor in the panzer divisions so as to relieve them somewhat of HE and smoke type missions. I doubt they were issued APC type ammo but probably HEAT exclusively. When used, they would have stayed well to the rear (even normal HT usually stay way behind the MLR) and could not be substituted for stugs. So I agree with Mattias that its apples and oranges. Lewis [This message has been edited by Username (edited 04-23-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Well, I'd take a SPW 250/9 or 251/8 (both 75mm armed) in the IG role for which they were designed than either a towed 75mm IG or a StuG G. Fast, manueverable, small, and with a decent load of HE. Pretty bad assed little buggers. Of course I would take a StuH 42 any day of the week over any other unit in CM right now if I am looking to support my infantry in close quarters situations. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> WOOOHHHH!!!! I dont know where to start with this thread. I am playing catch up and still feel like I am doin 85mph from my trip. Steve, these HT had a limited side traverse just like any nonturreted weapon. You cant lock up the tracks on one side and pivot like a stug to bring the weapon to bear. Thats not manueverable to me. Getting into and out of positions would have been a bitch. Being "fast" does not make up for that. I have read they were underpowered and did not have drive on the front wheels. I cant believe you would prefer one over a stugIII. But lets not get into this now. I am sure you are busy. Lewis

yeah buy whatever, play at lunch and try to bust some moves already! Lewis

Speaking of Kings and Cabbages. Theres only two people here that actually make me literally laugh out loud. Peng cause hes SO freakingly over the top funny in a thinly disguised way and Bastables cause hes just ..uh .. well he makes me laugh ALOT. Hes so funny for all the wrong reasons. Lewis PS I forgot to mention the OB&G makes me snicker..again, for all the wrong reasons. [This message has been edited by Username (edited 04-22-2000).]

To all my pbem games. im outta town (actually on my way to a new one). To all my "fans" here, give me a couple of days to catch up. Lewis

ROTFLMAO!!!! You never fail do you???? The panzergrenadiers never used IGs dude. I assume you mean 75mmIGs but who knows what you are talking about. Please buy a book or something. Its getting beyond comical with your "comedy of errors posts". Sorry man. Two part movement. Open mouth, insert foot. (wooohooooooo!!!!) Lewis

http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Pit/3515/251/index.htm Heres the 251 everything you ever wanted to know about the "german purple heart box". I will say that the kanonewagon was a poor mans sturmartillerie weapon. I guess so many of these stubs were laying around that the germans hated to waste them. Lewis PS Heres the "Bastables parody pre-emptive strike". So Ok Lewis, why didnt the germans mount 800mm rail guns into the 251? Hmmmmm? Because I will tell you Lewis, its because they were high velocity and they didnt get a moving shrapnel donut effect like a marine corporal that posted here told me about!! Well Well Well, Hmm Hmmm HMM so there! I told you again didnt I? (cringe)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: There he goes again. Old Boots in his Gums is at large <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL!!! 2 part movement. Open mouth. Insert foot. Lewis

It has commercials built in right? (everyone is ripping off my ideas i tell ya). Lewis "Paranoid and LOVING it"

Is it just me or does SSPnzyLdr have a knack for starting threads that get long in the tooth? Lewis

Is there a demo? Lewis