:USERNAME:

I take it you read my last post? I never said he was wrong (in theory) but that his data, that he never posts, is being misapplied and applied linearly to OTHER weapon systems! He has shown a pretty good record throughout this thread of waffling, mis-posting, making errors, not addressing questions I post so that he can clarify what he is talking about! He never describes his method of applying the data and expects everyone to accept it or he will become bored! He tries to blow smoke. He makes statements like the L24 had more HE than the other 75mm german weapons and this further supports his "theories". This turns out to be untrue. He starts claiming velocities of 385 m/s for the HE for this L24, again, untrue. He disregards the basic target size and the effect that has on the argument! It is absolutely relevant and is part of the basic theory he is making! That is, "flat" trajectory guns have a variance in the vertical component of their trajectorys. When they are shooting at something like a tank or a house or any target with height, this variance does not play a big part. But if the target is characterized by not height but rather length and width (area target) then the variance can play a BIG part. I HOPE other people here actually understand this and somewhat agree! But the fact is that the targets length and width have also VARIED!!! Its a multivariable situation and very much part of this discussion. It is not something I am just throwing in but a BIG part of what he is saying. If he (or them, I cant figure the we-rex part out) cant see that, then theres no point in even discussing anything with him. As other people here have asked of me, I have a problem with the way he applying the data and trying to jam it down the throat of reason. I think alot of good came out of this discussion and I HOPE that BTS takes notice of some of the data here. Most important: 1. Is the sherman with its antiquated M48 HE shell from the turn of the century NOT the uber gun that everyone claims it to be? 2. Is it susceptible to this velocity effect that rex-et all is putting forth? Is its velocity actually higher than the L24 and L48 german guns? 3. Why do people think that just because a weapon is of a lower velocity that it actually isnt putting more stress on a shell? Thats my point in the quiz. Maybe thats hard for people to get their minds around. I am willing to discuss and post acceleration data. Maybe its pitfall thinking I dunno. Clearly BTS was thinking this way. Alot of this goes back to my initial discussions with Steve of BTS about the superiority of the StuGs over shermans as close support weapons. He claimed the german gun L24 was so much better than the L48 and the sherman uber-75mm was better than both. I noticed his ears perked up when there was a claim that the 75mmL24 was jam packed full of HE goodness but we havent heard from him since. I think in light of Jeffs fascination with posting board-clogging A/V aids that there is a need for a moderating prescence here and I will wait for some sort of BTS response/interdiction. Lewis PS I am openly challenging Rex and his posse to show, in detail, how they are mathematically using the data and posting this data in a clear manner. The challenge is to clearly explain the mathematics behind your numbers. If you solve for something, then show your work! Dont just list the answer! You claim to be a physicist or something, no? Since you have data on the 75mmL48 and the 75mmL24 fires the same HE shell, then work the problem that way. Use a similar "variance" (and show how this variance is used to calculate your answers) for the 75mmL24 and use double variance. I cant believe the shorter barreled weapon would have less of this effect. Take into account a MKIVH and a any panzer or assault gun you like with a 75mmL24. Use the vehicle height and assume a flat plain and targets at 800 meters and 400 meters. List your superelevations and descent angles. Show the horizontal shell distribution at the ranges. I cant believe someone that claims to investigate plasma effects could not do what I am asking. [This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 01-27-2001).]

I take gun hits to also represent damage to traverse mechanisms, ring hits, etc. Now if it were a JagdTiger then somethings up.

Has there been any discussion on having ramped up costs on units depending on rarity? Example: First puma costs 100 points, second one costs 200 points. Another example: First hetzer costs 68 points second costs 115 points, etc. The point is that you can still buy these oddities but that equiping your german kampfgruppe with pumas, king tigers and lynx's gets expensive and you are out numbered 20 to 1!

I see Jeff has alot in common with We-Rex. they both change thier mind about what they post. You guys are too slippery for me. Jeff seems amused by his clogging up the board. I stand behind everything I have said here. We-Rex cannot do anything beyond pontificate. HE cant discuss anything because HE wont address other peoples questioning concerning "HIS" 30 years of doing this. The funny part is that he had a point but really mauled the data. He flip flops and crabs around in an indefite convoluted style. He makes sweeping statements like the following: "We can't argue with these figures, and would welcome analysis that shows them to be incorrect." Again, We-Rex changed his mind and lost interest. The fact is the germans FIRED their HE from their tank guns at a lower velocity. The fact is that weapons like the L48 had a lower HE velocity than a sherman 75 HE shell (which people refer to as "low velocity"). I believe the 75mm M48 HE shell (this is an old design and was fired by all kinds of 75mm US weapons) was 2000 fps? If this is true (please correct me if I am wrong), then We-Rex's theory would state that the US weapon was inferior to the german 75 l24 and L48. It seems that the data on HE content also supports that the germans had an edge here. I asked him to compare the L24, L48 and the L70... He never includes the L48 AND THATS THE WEAPON HE HAD DATA ON!!!! The reason I asked him to do that was because the L24 and L48 fought together in the german tanks. So did the the L48 and L70. I really believe he wasnt clear on the vertical dispersion and I believe other people here would agree that he never clarified it. If the data was truly the "mean vertical height" of the trajectory (cmon, what does that even give you?), then: 1. It would have to be fired so that the weapon had the end of its barrel at ground level. 2. The fact that higher velocity weapons follow a projectile path that is initially flat that quickly drops off must be accounted for. Use the wrong math and then your "vertical dispersion" is introducing errors. Use the wrong math again to back out the horizontal dispersion and you are compounding this error. I would much rather have the actual horizontal dispersion data then to futz around with some calculated half understood parameters. I really frown upon people taking data from one weapon and applying it to where ever it suits them. Finally, the Panther luckily had a coaxial MG that had a muzzle velocity very close to the main guns HE velocity. It could use the high rate of fire of the MG and the tracer effect to get the approximate range (and pin down the infantry) subtract some distance from the arnge and skip fire HE. Thats what I would do. His point is really moot in that guaging the range with infantry targets is very difficult. I will take we-rex's post with a pound of salt in the future. Lewis

Tried that already Jeffy. Cant make out the german. Is this the uber data that We-Rex is using?

Thats about as clear as this post. Jeff the audio visual bandwidth killer. Want to let us in on the ground floor Jeff? I like blurry lettering in other languages... [This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 01-26-2001).] [This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 01-27-2001).]

Weeeellllll.... since you are sorry.. I guess its OK. I think its funny how many clear errors were made by we-rex. They have alot of 'xplaining to do. Try to get some sleep laughing boy.

sorry. I jammed everything with a triple post. [This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 01-26-2001).]

[This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 01-26-2001).]

I recieved an email from someone adding info to the German 75mm HE issue. Lewis You are probably correct that the listed 0.86 Kg weight of HE in the german 75mm KWK (34) shell is a typo. It more than likely is 0.68. If it were 0.86, then it would have to be quite a thin walled long shell. Even a mortar round of this caliber would not have that much. The mystery about the "other" HE shell might be some sort of projectile for bunkers and the like. A sort of semi-armor piercing shell with thick walls and reduced HE content. I have seen many shell "lineups" (where either in museums or books the shells with cartridges for various calibers are put on end next to each other for inspection), and it would appear that the german 75mm projectiles all have about the same size to them. I believe you are probably right and fear that you will enjoy that too much." It was nice of him to write but I think hes a jerk. That reminds me, someone here wrote me out of the blue and I schooled his ass on pitch, yaw and roll. He gave me no credit when he immediately started using my stance that first round shots should have reduced hit chance because of this (I agree with BTS on this). He knows who he is and he is really an unsavory character in my opinion. Lewis

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Base/1852/57mm.html#29 I have seen similar data showing 85mm AP and HE having the same velocities. But it seems that nothing could be further from the truth when it came to 45mm and 57 mm ATG's (see website). Check out the toxic mercury tungsten round the soviets used in their weapons. Anyone here like to shot that at me in my car? Lewis

I used to think this was true also (It might still be a factor). I recently sped-read through a book while researching fuzes. It appears that the real cause is wobble developed in the barrel as the shell goes down the rifled barrel. This was proved out because the x-ray photos were all showing that the sabots were leaving perfectly. It seems that the critical technique is in centering the very balanced tungsten penetrator as well as having highly balanced sabots. If there is a weight distribution problem it manifests itself in slight movement of the barrel that throws off the round! It occurs to me that this would be a factor in any non-homogenous round. In steel AP rounds, this would be minimzed but in others (maybe HE too?) this could be a factor. Also interesting in this book (written in 1948, I forget the name but will post it later, it is part of a series of books..) , is the US attempt at developing APDS for its weapons. Seems they were very close but the war ended. The author claimed that Tigers would have been KO'd from the front at 1500 meters by 76mm. Which flavor tiger is not clear. When they got the APDS right it also boasted the same accuracy as normal AP. Lewis

OH! i just came up with a quiz: You have 3 guns; A, B, and C. A has velocity of 1 and a barrel length of 1 B has a velocity of 1.3, barrel length of 2 C has a velocity of 1.7, barrel length of 1.8 All three guns fire the same weight/size/diameter shell. Q:Which of the three guns has put the highest G forces on its respective shell? Answer in order of most to least.. Neglect rifling for now..

Is this true (I am not just asking this of Rex et all but of anyone that might have followed this thread): 1. You only have data on some german weapons? Specifically it seems the 75mmL48? Perhaps the 88L56? 2. You said: "German data on HE "beaten zone", area where 50% of HE shots will land if range to a ground target {that?} is perfectly estimated, clearly shows that low velocity HE is more accurate than high velocity HE." and: "One additional note. At 800m, German data predicts that 50% of 75mm L48 HE will fall within a 61m long distance when range estimation against a ground target is exact. (50% will be more than 30m away from target ground point). This is at 550 m/s muzzle velocity." {Lewis: Why do you say predicts? Why not say "that measures a"?} 3. You flip-flopping?: "88L56 HE at 810 m/s has a much larger ground dispersal." "On another matter, 88L56 HE fired at 810 m/s but vertical dispersion very small, so beaten zone not as large as velocity would imply." {Lewis: which is it? what is the value(s)?} 4. More clarifications: "If dispersion drives trajectory up by 1m at 800m (German data shows that 50% of 75mm L48 HE shots will have vertical dispersion of at least 1m at 800):" "1.0m vertical dispersion for 50% of shots is from German ballistic tables, as I mentioned previously. A careful re-reading of the accuracy analysis will verify this. This is figure for 75L48 HE at 550 m/s. 1m vertical dispersion at 800m for 50% of 75L48 HE is doppelte streung dispersion. Actual vertical dispersion at 800m is 0.45m above aim center and 0.45m below, double dispersion used in analysis is 1.0m above or below." {Lewis: So its now less? You are correcting yourself? You are using data from the L48 to prove out the L70 and L24? Thats the way its reading to me} Response to calculations: Now as far as your calculations, In your first attempt you seem to have calculated that the descent angles are less than the firing angle. This is really improbable. In reality most descent angles are steeper than the firing angle. I see that this is the case in your second calculations. Do you need to use the updated 0.45 data or are you going to skip that? You are comfortable with having data from one gun and applying it to two different weapons? Why would the two different guns be able to use the same data anyway? Did your calculations take into account the height of the gun? Why did you not comment on Ben's calculations? Can you relate the vertical dispersion numbers into angles? 5. Vertcal Dispersion: Someone correct me if I am wrong but is the way that vertical dispersion as Rex et all takes it? 1. MEASURE the distribution of rounds that fall (actually this is horizontal dispersion). 2. CALCULATE the angles that would place those rounds where they fell so as to get an angle of fire. 3. CALCULATE (why I have no idea) the mean vertical height the trajectory of the calculated anngle would have. This seems to be what Rex is saying in his definitions. If you had the calculated data from 3. above, then work your way backwards to get the 1. distribution of rounds? Does everybody agree? Disagree? Care to clarify or just repeat themselves? Is there a "Rex et all Hysterisis Gap"? Maybe only Rex can answer but I think he wont. I am beggining to see a certain character here. He makes errors, changes data, wont answer requests for clarifications, etc. Lewis

Rex et all I keep trying to get you to be clear and you absolutely refuse to respond. The above sentance is just more of your indefite style of expression. I hope you dont take this wrong but your english isnt getting it. What does the fact that you have to point your gun somewhere have to do with a target being an area target? Its the target thats the area target. Do you expect a gunner to close his eyes? You think the center of the mass of men is discernable under this wacky scenario you have made a point about? All the gunner would be able to see is the mass of men. He would not have a depth perception of the mass. The target is bigger than the effects of a ground burst from a 75mm HE. Thats what makes it such a juicy area target. I wonder if maybe you can post the data somewhere. I just see here that you cant read data off the website I posted and you are really bewildering me with your psuedo-math. Rex and the rest of "we". I really hope BTS pays attention to this thread and judges any "data" or theorys you post in the future on it. Ive had enough of you (all).

To whom it may concern I am confused. You say "we" alot but you also say "responded to my posts" also. Who am I talking to? Anyway. I need one piece of clarification. Is the following a true statement: If the mean trajectory height is 1m above the ground (assuming a zero height starting point lets say) and 50% of the dispersion will be within 0.5m, then 50% of the shots will be between 0.5m and 1.5m (these are the 50 percent boundary "mean trajectory heights")above the ground. I just need confirmation on that to calculate. Now. Ground point targets may be semantics but do you agree that a squad spread out like I described is a big ground point target? 20 times 15 gives 300 square meters. A large tank is perhaps 3 by 5 meters. Thats 15 square meters. The 300 square meter target is about 20 times the size. Its not needed to land the shell directly in the middle. In fact the target is larger because the outside area should be counted also. A round landing 10-15 meters on the side could clip one of the "points" in the large point target. Anyway. Hope to hear from you on the clarification. looking forward to the math. Buh-bye y'all Lewis

You know what the funny part is? He doesnt agree with you!!!!!!!! "1. Vertical dispersion is applied about the mean trajectory calculated using just gravity and initial elevation angle. If the mean trajectory height is 1m above the ground and 50% of the dispersion will be within 0.5m, then 50% of the shots will be between 0.5m and 1.5m above the ground." Seems he is describing an observation made from the side as the shell goes by ( a Z axis variance) and you are describing what Jeff posted in those figures above! You just made my frickin' day!!!!!! How do you feel? Lewis

In PanzerJaeger the author describes actions with the german 37mm. It was used with success against bunkers , MG nests, and infantry attacks. I believe the germans had grapeshot for this weapon also.

I disagree with the way he is applying it. Yes I agree with the fig 3-9 in jeffs post above. It shows the distribution of rounds from a birds eye view. Now vertical dispersion is what? Is it the + or - height differential at the top of the flight of the shell? How is it measured? Where is it measured? Is rex positive he understands the documents? Does he speak german? Is it an angular error that can be tracked back to the gun like Ben calculated? If it is an angular error, then it would manifest itself in shells going further or shorter? Is the angular error constant? That is, if the range is decreased, does the error decrease? linearly? Does the Panther gun then start doing better at longer ranges? Does it do better at shorter ranges? Wouldnt a shorter barreled weapon have a greater angular error? I also disagree with Rex's equating infantry as point targets. A 12 man rifle squad using 5 meter intervals is a large target covering alot of space. I would model it as a 4 by 3 rectangle giving 20 meter by 15 meter. The casualty zone for a 75mm shell is not that large and would be lucky to take out 1 or 2 guys. In reality, such flat terrain is rare. It would be somewhat difficult to guage whether your rounds were short or long in any case. A height advantage would help and the panther has a built in height advantage. If a panther can lob HE accurately enough to hit a tank at 2000 meters then it cant be that much harder to hit a 300 squre meter target. When i get the chance i will do the math. I would like for rex to respond and define what vertical dispersion is and how its measured. Lewis

I guess you could put an ambush marker on the house you want covered.

I have many points: 1. Rex is incorrect in his "vertical dispersion" theorys. 2. There seems to be an interesting German 75mm HE mystery going on 3. Fighting on a perfectly flat plain is perfect for skipping HE rounds 4. Artillery and direct fire shouldnt be confused. And some others but which one would you like me to address first? Lewis

Hmmmmm Jeff I believe BTS expressed an interest in this. Just excuse me if you can. The weights and velocitys have a DIRECT impact on the discussion. Spare me the political rhetoric. I want an accurate game and I believe there is a moderating prescence here. Alot of what Rex is putting forth is BASED on this data. So let the moderating people moderate. I think he (Rex) has already modified his stance and I am beggining to understand what his point is. He unfortunately has used linear thinking wrong in my opinion. As for the hobby. I really think this is part of it! Some people get off on Mods (Nothing wrong with that) and some people get off on detail in simulation. They like dat and such. Now, I dont have your posting illustration abilitys. You have me at a disadvantage. I express myself with words. I also have to be careful of my words because of people running out and snipping at my heels and then buggering off. I dont react well to that. No problem. I can deal. But I am not a modertator and neither are you. I am going to express my point. Believe it or not its actually for everyones benefit. You enjoy the game at a certain level and so will I. I want the most accurate simulation going for BTS and the hobby. Lewis

Another great debate I missed (I can hear all the cheers). The sherman had its 15 minutes of fame. It was not improved upon like alot of the other contenders. It languished with its "uber-gun". The fact is it found itself stuffed full of gunpowder (as great a danger as gasoline) and always facing a high velocity threat situation. It was tall. This is a real defect. A good infantry support tank trys to stay low and back. As a breakthrough tank (whatever that means) it was a very good target for AT (whether they had the range or not because excess height aids them) or panzerfaust candidates (how could you miss at 50 yards?). The US should have had a multi-tank army like the germans and soviets. The 76mm sherman wasnt quite that. The Pershing tank was paid for as far as R&D and should have been storming ashore. Retrospect confirms this. The US forces lost at very close ranges and very long ranges. Terrain is not that accomadating. Tank designs should be. Lewis

Also from my "picture book" (I'll give that jerk credit..that WAS funny): "In addition, the assault gun crews could also use the Explosive shell 34. these shells were made of pressed or cast steel. They had an impact igniter with adjustable delay (0.15 secs) which allowed the shot effect on the target to be set optimally. For example, when firing ricochet shots, the igniter was set for delay. The shot , landing flat on the ground, bounced off and exploded only when the igniter setting was reached. With ricochet firing, great splinter effect could be achieved against living targets not covered from above." Also on the HE: ..7.5 cm Explosive shell 34 of the 7,5 cm Assault gun 40..the shell weighed 5.74 Kg and contained 0.68 kg explosive. The splinter effect extended up to 15 meters to the sides and seven meters to the front." I wonder if there could be a typo somewhere. Since the website mentions 0.86 and here it states 0.68. I really think 0.86 is ALOT for a 75mm weapon that would weigh 5.74 Kg. I dont know if the author is speaking of a ground burst for the HE shell. It would seem so. An airbust would be something to be further than 7 meters away from. Now back to looking at my pictures ...la ..la.ladeeda.. Lewis PS To All you asian types. Happy new year.