Andreas

Let's not mention that the sunk Marat was still a target valuable enough to engage with siege artillery. http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaarticlesWW2artyleningrad.htm Or that the turrets were apparently active again within two months, not years, as some other posters like to think. http://admiral.centro.ru/memor06.htm Because to mention that, would take away from the glory of Hans-Ulrich Rudel, who needs to have a battleship to his credit to be more than just a Nazi wanker. All the best Andreas

Let's not mention that the sunk Marat was still a target valuable enough to engage with siege artillery. http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaarticlesWW2artyleningrad.htm Or that the turrets were apparently active again within two months, not years, as some other posters like to think. http://admiral.centro.ru/memor06.htm Because to mention that, would take away from the glory of Hans-Ulrich Rudel, who needs to have a battleship to his credit to be more than just a Nazi wanker. All the best Andreas

I am sure you are still looking for your lost sense of irony and sarcasm. Good luck finding it. Remember not to wear a hat, since you may miss someone offering you a Vodka. All the best Andreas

I am sure you are still looking for your lost sense of irony and sarcasm. Good luck finding it. Remember not to wear a hat, since you may miss someone offering you a Vodka. All the best Andreas

I think Rudel should be given credit for partially disabling Marat (teilweise ausser Gefecht gesetzt). Of course, that's probably too many words and syllables (particularly in German!) for the comprehension of the average Signal reader, so they went with Versenkt instead. I am sure there were no propaganda reasons for that. All the best Andreas

I think Rudel should be given credit for partially disabling Marat (teilweise ausser Gefecht gesetzt). Of course, that's probably too many words and syllables (particularly in German!) for the comprehension of the average Signal reader, so they went with Versenkt instead. I am sure there were no propaganda reasons for that. All the best Andreas

Interesting, and a good find. But in the context of this debate, what's next? A paper on how the Pak 35/36 did against trucks? Or one on how it did against motorcycles? All the best Andreas

If we get the Dutch, will the game simulate hairnets, union power and marijuana? All the best Andreas

Very neat: http://www.around.spb.ru/english/ Includes Mannerheim line and some other goodies. All the best Andreas

What do you mean, you haven't seen it yet? All the best Andreas

Oh yes. Let's have a debate on the difference between an 88mm APHE and a 2-pdr solid shot penetrating. I bet that will keep me awake at night, while I wait in suspense on what the no doubt totally unexpected conclusion might be. Your post, and your clarifications, add nothing but a few anecdotes (see my sig) on the APHE debate, and on the comparison between INSERT A NUMBER HEREmm APHE vs. 2-pdr AP shot. They certainly are not "precisely what I've been talking about all along. ", and they do not support the laughable idea of the 37mm APHE being "highly destructive". The reason why they don't do so is outlined in my previous post. You are jumping to conclusions on the basis of little evidence, and ignoring obvious factors influencing the conclusion, as always. All the best Andreas

One might argue that neither has the USA. </font>

Almost as useful as throwing around quotations that don't give any detail, and then claiming they support your thesis. You'll excuse me if I don't give a toss for a lecture in debating technique from you of all people. So, WTF does that have to do with APHE? Oh, that's right, nothing. It does not even mention it. It is impossible to understand which gun did which kind of damage. We can surmise all we want, but the quote itself does not tell us anything about the question being debated here. That 37mm guns could kill tanks is not news to anyone. So, WTF does that have to do with APHE? Oh, that's right, nothing. They did damage against A9 cruisers. Cruisers... Aren't those the paper-thin armoured things that burst in flames when hit by a rock thrown by a 5-year old? So what does this tell us about the effectiveness of 37mm APHE vs. 40mm AP shot? Nada. No we don't as a first item. We need to look at who owned the battlefield and could recover tanks first. Then, maybe you can make a case that APHE has some impact. But OTOH, we are talking 47mm here, not Pak 35/36, so we are back to: WTF does this have to do with the question of Pqk 35/36 APHE? Oh, that's right, nothing. Are we there yet? All the best Andreas

You are right. They were total rubbish in GW I and OIF, and multiple MLRS got killed by the Iraqui MLRS using exactly that trick. Oh, wait... Somehow, between your idea of what the world is like, and the actual demonstration in action of what it is like, I find it not difficult to choose. The US can commence CB fire before your first round has landed. It is accurate enough to take out your gun, simply by smothering your area - 100m here or there does not matter. The US forces are not the Finns, so money does not matter either, and if it costs a full rocket strike to take out your D-30, so be it. More jobs and profits for the homeland. US MLRS is pretty impervious against anything but direct hits from Syrian MLRS, which they can only achieve by rolling a row of sixes. You were saying? All the best Andreas

It depends not on who their neighbour is, but who they think they are going to fight. All the best Andreas

Does the Finnish approach take into account full enemy air supremacy and the persence of MLRS in the enemy's arsenal? What makes you think that only full batteries are worthwhile targets? What makes you think that dispersal will help when the other guy can establish your gun co-ordinates before the rounds even land FAS on CB, and may not think that a single gun is a worthless target? How does your artillery PUFO in a situation where the enemy has uncontested air supremacy? I think the idea that this would work beyond "any gun, any time, but only once" in the given scenario is highly optimistic. All the best Andreas

The passages do not support your conclusions. All the best Andreas

That's what I do. I'd rather spend a night out in Clichy sous bois, or on the Champs Elysees, for that matter. All the best Andreas

Best thing you can do with Orleans. Drive through it. Actually, that's the second-best. Drive past it is better. All the best Andreas

Thanks for this correction. Good thing they are presumably not modelled in the first module then. All the best Andreas

BTW - I know how CB works, so don't worry about explaining the basics to me. All the best Andreas

Then all you need is the US arty to position themselves so that you get a good measurement. And hope they are not jamming your comms, otherwise you won't get much info from the microphones. And hope that the microphones and stations you deployed are all up and working, regardless of when you last checked them. And get direct hits with your artillery, each time. But even if all this is the case, your CB system will still be a long way from what the Americans fire at you in return. All the best Andreas

To recap - Syrian CB is going to be: a) Less powerful due to lack of MLRS capability on the same scale as the US - it appears that the best they have is the BM-21 Grad, which should be fairly useless against armour? Less accurate due to lack of military GPS c) Delivered by one mode only, ground artillery d) Less effective even if on target due to the nature of US artillery pieces, which are highly mobile, and armoured. All the best Andreas

Traditional sound ranging is nowhere near those accuracies and ranges. It is the difference between you playing air guitar and Mark Knopfler. In any case, the Syrians would be up sh*t creek if the US turned off their GPS, unless they have their own system (which they don't). General GPS which they have until it is turned off is not as good in any case, which reinforces their problem about thickness of fire. I also suggest you get some more information about the difference between general and military GPS. Guess which one the Syrians can access: http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gpsinfo.html Which restricts the number of opportunities, compared to the US commander, who can also call on air support to carry out CB fire. They will if there is anything like a real threat. See above. My point is that Syrian CB has no chance at all to come anywhere near the devastating effect that US CB has demonstrated in 1991 and, one presumes, again in 2003. My point is not that the Syrians should have no CB at all. All the best Andreas

In other news: - Abrams gun capable of taking out light truck at 500 metres. - Soviet Strela missile danger to planes if fired at them - Sun rises in the east All the best Andreas