Tero

Here is a useful URL http://www.hut.fi/~jaromaa/Navygallery/index.htm From there http://www.hut.fi/~jaromaa/Navygallery/index.htm [ August 25, 2002, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Would accurate maps be a prerequisite for that? I understand they were in rather short supply in Russia (for the Germans at any rate). Yes on both accounts. Anybody have the juice on the German cartography service and how it performed ? The überFinnish cartograhy (fotogrammetry) service could produce 1:20 000 scale maps with a hex grid and names of places in place and have them available for front line troops on average within 48 hours from the taking of the photos. http://foto.hut.fi/seura/historia/toiminta.html A Finnish site, sorry. Happy Babelfishing/Googling. Even if the shells were 10 seconds apart though, due to irregularities in the ground/miscalculations in your survey, etc., rather than split-secondly timed (was that the real objective of TOT, incidentally?) that is still going to have a huge surprise factor, no? By "real objective", I mean - what was realistically achievable? Could they really time it so perfect that an entire field regiment - or several - would land their shells at the same second in time? What was acceptable deviation? 5 seconds? 10 seconds? Lets say you assign a 20 rpg barrage. You have 10 batteries on call so that is 40 guns. EDIT: that is stretching it a bit. Lets give you 20 batteries at 10 rpg. That evens out at 80 guns and 800 rounds in the allotted 60 secs. That is more realistic. That makes it a 800 shell barrage. You use a converged sheaf to concentrate the barrage the most effective way. If the max ROF of the guns is 20 rpm you will have rounds out within 60 sec (give or take) of the order. Imagine having those 800 rounds impacting at the target area withing (say) 70 seconds. That is on average 11 shells a second. Given that the deviation between the the first and the last round impacting is pretty academic. What counts is the aim is true and the enemy in the target zone gets taken by surprise because there are no ranging shots to warn them. They have no time to find cover when the **** hits the fan. [ August 19, 2002, 01:48 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by Madmatt: Poobear, I don't really care WHO you are but if you decide to start merely being rude to other people here then your days on the forum are numbered. Hell I might just ban you for the hell of it. Lets see how long that takes to get on Uselessnet and alt.loserwithoutaclue.war. Madmatt

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I don't doubt German gunners could count; but if they were not as able to mass fire, I was wondering if they were sufficiently organized to try to time their fires as well. I could have phrased that better. IMO that is down to how well they could do a site survey. And the target survey. What you have to get is the elevation data of the individual gun positions and their relation to the target elevation. For a TOT mission these are very critical factors. From http://www.poeland.com/tanks/artillery/artillery.html (This site is heavy on the US procedures) [ August 15, 2002, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by John D Salt: Originally posted by JasonC: I would have thought that the point of a TOT shoot was plainly to get maximum intensity of bombardment for any given density. In the Finnish arty the purpose was (is) to get the most of the surprise value of the rounds impacting at or almost the same time. And the point was (is) you had to (have to) be able to do it with no ranging shots. I have not read anywhere the Americans were able to do that with point targets like impromptu counter attack assembly areas uncovered by radio listening service the way the Finnish arty could do it. I have read they did break up the odd counter attack with arty fire but only if they could observe it massing. The number of tubes used is surely only relevant insofar as it helps deliver the required intensity -- as the old gunner saying goes, the shell is the weapon, not the gun. I expect the Germans may have regarded Nebelwerfers, when available, as a preferable means to achieving high intensity, which would explain a lesser fondness for TOT shoots, but this is merely speculation. Any idea what kind of a sheaf the respective artillery services preferred in the Western Front ? [ August 15, 2002, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by John D Salt: Didn't everyone? For some reason, I don't know why, TOT shoots seem to be treated in many wargamerly quarters as a uniquely American trick. Could it be most of the ink spilled in English on this has been from the Anglo-American POV ? As far as I know, any competent gunners should be able to manage this. After all, you only need to be able to subtract the time of flight from each gun position from the required TOT. Probably German and certainly Japanese gunners were able to co-ordinate the impact timing of their shoots with the timings of enemy salvos, in an attempt to get the firers to check fire because they think they are dropping short. I doubt that they'd have much difficulty co-ordinating things with friendly guns. The same applies to air bursts. Because the Ami arty was the only one to field true VT fuses it is assumed nobody could time their shells to detonate above ground in an effective altitude.

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss: Were those the used surplus stock with the bullet holes in the back? Their export policy was quite aggressive. And the end user clauses in the final contract pretty steep.

Originally posted by Prinz Eugen:

Originally posted by Holien: Ahhh so Finland is still using the barter system. The same as everywhere: the workforce pretends to work and the eployers pretend to pay. It is nice to see Germany responding to their poorer neighbours by accepting Fish as payment for software. What is the exhange rate again: 1 COD for 3 squirrel skins ? Very Green and Eco Friendly. I see the Finns get special treatment... I expect the German chapter of the Greenpeace steps in and embargoes all trade with us. Typical. I wonder why they are so silent now that the poor handling of forestry in the central Europe is showing its effects in full....

Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: I'm sorry, I believe you're thinking of France. Finland never possessed the industrial might to be considered an überSatellite and only qualified as a berlinerSatellite (Yes, this was what JFK was referring to in his famous doughnut speech). How can you even claim we were a satellite then if were could not reach the orbit ? And a berliner at that. A Danish we were not, a Berliner we did not wish to become, let us then be a Karjalanpiirakka. JFK may have been a doughnut but no Finn would have admitted to being such mush inside. This gave them bragging rights over the lesser satellite states but they still couldn't carry France's jock when it came to supporting the Reich war machine. Indeed. We had to replenish our stocks and get new gear from the Red Army. The German infantry gear was by and large not good enough for our purposes, only the quality the Red Army could provide was sufficient for our needs. [ August 13, 2002, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: tero ]

Oh, man ! So much for any preferential treatment for us überFinns. And yes, placed the order. One especially nice thing about them is they do COD.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Oh, well while I am at it, if anyone wants to contribute their lake of knowledge on Finnish, Italian, Hungarian or Romanian medals and awards, please check my page at this URL and let me know about things like rarity, numbers issued, method of wear, etc. Here are some links on the Finnish heraldry you might want to check out: http://www.sci.fi/~badge/finnmedals.htm http://www.saunalahti.fi/%7Ebadge/resdepindex.htm http://www.tpk.fi/eng/institution/decorations.html http://www.mannerheim.fi/tori_e/tori.htm http://www.mannerheim.fi/13_erity/e_eriko.htm This is for good measure. Some nice colour pics etc. A note: the official war emblem we used was the Finnish flag with three points and the coat of arms in the middle, NOT the swastika as you aspire in your site. We were NOT a Nazi satellite, damn it ! The swastik was only used by the the airforce and the armour. http://www.tpk.fi/eng/institution/ensign.html [ August 13, 2002, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: HUH? <font color=tan>Sorry, couldn't resist. Lest anyone wonder, no, I wasn't searching for the other stuff on this weirdo's site. I did a google search for Rumanian (sic) Tank Driver's Badge and came up with this. Anyone have a real picture of the Romanian tank driver's badge?</font> Seems he is fond of the cult cartoon called Maus.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: In English, she designates a woman... Uuuppss. Sorry, bad hair day.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Nice to see Finnish re-enactors are as fat and as too-old as North American ones. Actually, they are not re-enactors. They are real life reservists who volunteered for this movie production. The gear is from the Finnish army stores. As for the being too old: the average age for a soldier in WWII was IIRC 26. The Finnish army was a conscript army plus reserves. Now, who is the news reader, she is more worth talking about (hubba hubba).... The man or the woman ? [ August 12, 2002, 08:36 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by K Jonsson: This is one thing that most ppl seems to agree on. At least those from Finland Hard to disregard some 60 years of history writing and folklore. Which run contrary to the western Allies on the subject of SMG. But should BFC treat finnish SMGs differently? Probably... That would be acknowledging there is quantifiable force specific differences in tactics and doctrine. Purely based on the technical characteristics of the hardware being used. Since all the tech spec in CMBB is going to be on the money I expect a portion of the Finnish Maxim HMG's have a better FP rating since they had a selector for 600 or 800 rpm. What kind of a hubbub is that going to cause: the überFinns have a HMG which incorporated the benefits of water cooled system and (almost) the FP of the MG-34 and MG-42. Or actually the FP rating should be better than that of the MG-42 since the RL practical ROF would have been higher than the that of the aircooled models. Without the need to change the barrel so often. Nah. Can't have that now can we. We already claim our arty procedures were as good as or better better than that of the Americans. Lets see if I can make my point clear. If its role was the same as the LMG in other armies the squad would have relied on it more than soldiers in other armies. Actually it was more ellaborate than that. The text book application was regarded as too restrictive so it was modified in the field. Once the captured DT LMG's started pouring in the entire scene changed. The FP of the SMG was embraced and it was freed from its support role into a more aggressive role. And that is down to the very tactics and doctrine of the Finnish army. The axiom was the defensive line should be at the hands of the friendly troops at the end of the battle (true both in 1939 and 1944). Things like extra ammo being carried by other members in the squad and always having the best/toughest member using it might be enough to raise the firepower a little. Concur. But one thing that definitely should be modeled that will differ from other armies is the probability that the SMG will be lost if one man is hit. I think it should be treated just like the LMG is mow. I think that is already modelled adequately.

Originally posted by JasonC: There was not a practical problem carrying additional rifle rounds due to stowage. The solution was simple and widely used - bandoliers worn over the chest. US soldiers used the cloth belts meant for 30 cal MMGs for this; Germans used their disintegrating link belts from their LMGs. Can you name any other armies which used them ? The US and the German army were not the benchmark armies of the war which everybody copied. Filling 5 round clips is a trivial operation, time wise, certainly on the scale of tactical combat actions, which typically last tens of minutes up to several hours. Agreed. And by that definition even the filling of a SMG magazine is a trivial operation. So a SMG gunner would be able to carry loose ammo in boxes just like a regular rifle men. In fact the only complaints about the clips in the case of US soldiers was the inability to top off the clip without removing it (which hardly suggests a lack of time for topping off). No such problems with the SMG magazine. And one noteworthy thing: the Suomi drum magazine (and I expect the PPSh since it was a copy of it) had no problems with the spring because of the way it was constructed. There was no need to count the bullets put in. Bench fire measures not accuracy of a hand held weapon - even one fired from a rest - but its mechanical ballistics, with the gun held in a vise. It does not realistically measure hand held barrel climb etc. I'll have to double check that bit. The term used is "bench rest" and is subject to a number of different translations by the author. As indicated the Finnish language site is much more thorough and detailed and there are a number of translation mistakes and short cuts made in the international version. For example in the Finnish version there is a section about the accuracy rating of the detachable original and replacementg barrels. The barrels were stamped at the factory. Even with the worst match the shot deviation would be less than one inch at 100 meters. And you would know aout it since the stamp in your Suomi SMG did not match the stamp in the replacement barrel (which indicates the direction the fall of shot would shift). The pictures are from the army acceptance tests which I expected to be more realistic, rigorous and throrough than having it fired from a clammed down position. Once accepted the Suomi SMG was originally intended to take the role of the SAW in the Finnish platoon organization (in the two regular squads with no LMG/SAW attached). It admittedly lacked the LR accuracy required but it did fulfill the other requirements (accuracy, high ROF). Its best use was learned and perfected in combat conditions. One noteworthy thing is only the Finnish and the Soviet armies seem to have embraced the SMG and its combat potential in earnest. The shot groups of even carbine ammo at 150 yards or more are still much, much larger than rifle groups. What is the intended ROF of the (I assume you refer to the M1) carbine ? IIRC there was a semi-auto and full auto only version. Also the grouping is not the is intended end result. A kill is. Having fired during my service both a Suomi and a Mosin Nagant type bolt action rifle IRL myself I can say the recoil from the bolt action (or even a modern assault rifle) is heavier than from the Suomi firing short bursts. As for SMG fire at 500 yards, you wouldn't hit a blessed thing. Is the bullet still moving? Sure, but that is meaningless. All the sources I have read say the 9mm round was/is lethal up to 500 meters. Best (practical) range is referred to as being from 50 to (IIRC) 300 meters. To hit a man with a single bullet at 500 yards you need 1 mil accuracy, about 1/18th of 1 degree of arc. So all the sniper stories about LR kills are bogus ? The best sniper ever did not use a scope. A 10 round burst would have to be held to less than half a degree of movement over the entire burst, for the bullets fired to do the rest of the trick. Tripod MGs firing 3500 Joule rounds from stable mounts might manage that sort of thing, but you'd never accomplish it with a hand held SMG firing pistol ammo. What range are you referring to ? As for the idea that men wouldn't fire rifle caliber ammo through wooden wall obstacles because it was supposedly "inefficient", death is much more inefficient than ammo expenditure. Only tiny hit probabilities are needed to justify firing. Casualties in a day's action typically range 10%-20% of those engaged, most of it from artillery, while men carried hundreds of rounds. You could expend thousands per enemy hit. Here is where the army specific TOE's and weaponry come into play. You use the German and the US army as your yardstick, I the Finnish and the Soviet army as mine. Just because the western armies disregarded the SMG does not mean it was worthless. If an enemy was detected in a wooden building, of course you would fire at that building. Near any windows or spotted loopholes, certainly, wherever movement was spotted. Most of this would be done by MGs, with rifles contributing modestly. That is my original argument. What is yours ? But it could not be done by pistol ammo. Since when could a SMG not pierce glass or windowpane/doorframe strenght wood ? Or thin plank wall ? The main benefit of rifle caliber ammo was accuracy out to 500 yards, of course. But both penetration and stopping power when something was hit were definite additional advantages of full power rounds. In fact, the M-1 carbine with 1350 Joules of ME was found to lack sufficient power for reliable one-hit stops, So by that definition even a bolt action Kar98 would not have the necessary stopping power. :confused: and that is 2-3 times the energy of the pistol ammo fired from SMGs. So 3 hits from a SMG burst equal 1 rifle shot ? The same consideration led to the M-1 carbine being considered accurate only to about 100-150 yards - but it is dramatically more accurate than an SMG. Which SMG's are you talking about ? Which SMG's was it compared to ? Pistol ammo was designed to hit men without any cover at ranges of 25 to 50 yards. It does that just fine. The round is still lethal up to 500 meters. High volume of fire from SMGs can extend the dangerous area to 75 to 100 yards. Even beyond that.

Originally posted by Andrew Hedges: Actually, during the winter war the Finns used their superior woodworking skills to actually construct benches out of materials in the forest; they then clamped their weapons to the benches and used them to great effect against Soviet attacks. Seriously: this must be how it was done since the Finnish arty was ammunition starved and the Red Army was impressed enough by the performance of the Suomi SMG they did take up the SMG in a serious way. In fact, in one well-known battle (recounted in "Aataaakkin Pannserit Foorvaart"), I never knew it got translated into Flemish !?! Finns destroyed an entire Soviet armored battalion by constructed a larger than usual bench and then clamping a Stug to the bench. What is more the Stug was hull down. [ August 09, 2002, 06:13 PM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by Marlow: Fire from a bench rest is next to meaningless for actual combat accuracy. Tell that to the drill instructors who always say it is better to fire from a rest than firing standing up or from the high kneel position. [ August 08, 2002, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by JasonC: Riflemen in other armies did carry ammo for their SAW. It was by no means particularly to the German army. You are disregarding the differences in squad/platoon organization. For example the Finnish army had 4 squad platoons, two of which were initially armed with SAW and two not. The SAW/LMG squad had 6 men. As per the manual the magazines for the SAW were carried like this: the gunner had one pouch with 5 magazines, the assistant gunner had one pouch. Four ammo bearers carried 2 pouch each. That makes 10 pouches and 50 magazines. All in all the squad carried 1000 rounds for the SAW. The squads without the SAW did not carry extra ammo for SAW. Some armies also used belt fed MGs, including some of the Russians and certainly the Americans, in the form of the M1919A4. Pretty much all armies had belt fed MG's. But not as SAW. To my knowldege even the American organization had separated the belt fed MG to a separate organizational unit from which they were parcelled out as needed. In the US army, men carried as much 30-06 ammo as they could. They could use it in their rifles, they could use it in the BAR, they could use it in the M1919A4s. They typically wore 50-100 round bandoliers of it, in addition to filling their pouches with filled clips for the M-1s. Assistant BAR gunners and assistant MG gunners also carried boxed ammo, 250 rounds to a box. In the German army, they also wore bandoliers of ammo that could be used interchangably in either the LMG or their rifles. They also wore double cartridge belts to carry 90 rounds prepped for the rifle, sometimes more by using the FJ field belts (which held 60 apiece, instead of 45) instead of the army issue ones. HMG gunners carried boxed and belted ammo, but for the LMGs bandoliers were more common. How about the other armies ? The British, the Russians, the Hungarians, the Rumanians, the Italians, the Finns ? How were their LBE configured ? Using the US and the German armies as a yardstick disregards any and all deviations from the norm set down by these two armies. Some riflemen instead carried other bits of kit, like grenade bundles, infantry AT weapons, wire cutters, etc. They never got to fight "light" with just rifle and 45 rounds. An SMG gunner had considerably less additional room for such "overages". Hence they would most often pair up with somebody who would for example throw grenades for them when clearing trenches and buildings. The other would throw in the grenade and after it exploded the SMG gunner would rush in firing at full ROF. A full load of magazines, his personal kit, and a few grenades - which SMG gunners want many of given the ranges they strive for - easily tops them out, practical weight wise. Have you actually taken notice how much gear a soldier would carry into the combat zone in the CMBO/CMBB scale and scope ? Don't know about the Western Armies but the Finnish and the Soviet armies would take only the essential when going into combat. Moreover, 70 rounds mags were not at all the rule, with 20s not uncommon and 30s typical for the German MPs, Stens, and Thompsons. Sometimes 30s were not fully loaded, to avoid spring problems. A practical load of pistol caliber ammo to be fired through SMGs was on the order of 200 to 400 rounds. Yes. But since the Suomi and the PPSh did have the 70 round magazines available should they be punished for the lack of more spacious magazines for the majority of the rest of the SMG's ? But as you noted yourself, the "basic load" for a rifleman weighs only 1 kg. He has got plenty of "carrying ability" beyond that. Some might carry up to 320 rounds (e.g. German with 2x100 round bandoliers and a double FJ cartridge belt). That would be 8.5 kg of ammo. A more typical level would be 100 to 200 rounds, or roughly half as many as the SMG gunners in raw number of rounds. That is wholly unsurprising, since 9mm rounds weigh about half what typical 30 caliber rifle rounds weigh. The problem is storage though. A SMG would have most of the ammo he carries ready in magazines. The reload time goes way up when the rifle man run s out of ready strips. The rounds weigh half as much so you can easily shoot off twice as many of them. You can easily shoot off 30 rounds in the time it would take a rifleman to get off 5, so you can easily throw those twice as many rounds six times as fast. Just hold down the trigger. But if you fire twice the rounds six times as fast, or 8 times as fast, you are going to run out sooner. If you fire so slowly that you don't run out any sooner, you are only going to be firing twice as much. Yes. Each round out of the rifle, round for round, is certainly more accurate. That is not entirely accurate. See below. At close ranges that hardly matters, because accuracy is a threshold effect. Agreed. It doesn't matter if your groups are 1 inch or 2 inchs if that is how wide they actually are. So at close ranges, the firepower of the SMG is higher more or less in line with its higher rate of fire. A little less, actually, because throwing several bullets at once will generally mean some of them thrown innaccurately. A burst of 10 rounds, close, is certainly more likely to hit than 1, but not quite 10 times as likely to hit. So, if being generous we say the SMG gunner may have 2-4 times the rounds to throw, then he might have fp x shots nearly 2-4 times what a rifle has - at point blank range only. Anything beyond that, and he will have considerably less than that, as his bullets start missing more than the rifle bullets do, and he has to throw more to make up for it. Eventually he can throw all he likes and he won't hit a blessed thing, because pistol ammo is simply innaccurate at long range. The Suomi was rated up to 500 meters. Also, it was initially given to the man the squad leader rated as his best man (best shots, most cool and collected etc) in the squad. That means that often the sharpest shooter in the Finnish squad did not carry a rifle, he carried the SMG. Well, a PPsh with 50 fp at 40m and 25 shots has 1250 fpxshots. A K98 with 6.5 fp at 40m and 40 shots has 260 fpxshots - only about 1/5th as much, well under 2-4 times. So that is generous to the SMG, or reflects a small ammo load for the rifleman. At 100m, the PPsh has 10 fp, twice what the rifle does, and fpxshots of 250. While the rifle has 5.25x40 or 210. The SMG is doing more over its whole ammo load and doing it twice as fast per shot. But no longer 5 times as much over its ammo load, out at ranges where pistol ammo becomes innaccurate. Since the SMG clearly fires faster and more overall at 40m even with the changes, and by large amounts, one is left wondering what the complaint is. The complain is: The fraction which claims the SMG is too powerfull in the game has won the ear of BTS/BFC. The claim is the SMG gets an unfair advantage because of the constant ROF in the game makes the rifle heavy units depleate the ammo at uneffective ranges while the SMG's get to save theirs for the close up work. [ August 08, 2002, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by MikeyD: Tero, let me assure you, as one of the lucky few who's had the chance to actually play CMBB before release, that while your concerns on historically accurate ammo loads are justified CMBB has done an astounding job at accurately simulating infantry ammo loads and rates of use while in combat. Very un-CMBB-like. I don't dare say too much before release (don't want to spill any secrets) but imagine the game just as you wished it was and you'd be pretty darned close. And one more thing. Get used to keeping some units with ful ammo loads in reserve during a battle. They'll come in handy in CMBB. Can't you be a bit more cryptic than that ?

Originally posted by M Hofbauer: well then you are simply wrong. An SMG round will not penetrate, and a rifle round will. Period. The question is not penetration. The question is when will the round be fired at the solid section of the wall and when at an opening in it. First off, the entire premise is hypothetical.no it's not. Yes it is. Otherwise there would not have been any need for demolition charges and other more drastic measures when dealing with wooden bunkers. They could have been taken out simply by using volley fire from rifles. I wonder why nobody seem to have resorted to vollyes of rifle fire in taking out wooden bunkers. maybe you should do more reading. Make a list then. most people would not need reading to substitute lack of common sense for printed matter, anyhow. we are not talking about "blindly" hosing down a house as you seem to suggest. the usual situation would be the enemy gunner/soldier taking cover below the window sill, beside the door opening, Then all I have read about this kind of occurances is bogus. Instead of waiting to see movement they should have hosed down the immediate vincinity of the openings. going into cover behind a treetrunk/log in the woods etc. There was little hope of actually being safe anywhere in the battlefield. At 100m a rifle round would go through 7 cm of rubble, 43 cm sand, 83 cm of clay and 60 cm of pine wood (according to a 1936 manual). The thing is firing the rifle (or any weapon for that matter) at the a man behind a cover was not encouraged because the cost efficiency of firing blind like that. now guess what happens to those bullets that do not hit the opening but closely around it? like, if they hit half a meter below the widow sill, where an enemy soldier might duck? Now quess what kind of a moron soldier with any level or training or experience would not know what would happen in a situation like that ? Once spotted would he stay in the immediate vincinity of the opening he was spotted in or would he haul ass someplace else ? in MiamiVice - type movies, maybe. In real life, your statement "What deflects or stops a SMG bullet usually also deflects or stops a rifle bullet." is simply blatantly wrong. You have not apparently done any hunting then. Ask a hunter what kind of an obstruction will throw a shot off.

Originally posted by flamingknives: I really feel the need to jump in here. The penetration of iron at 100m is ~33% greater than that at 300m. It is therefore fairly safe to assume that the penetration of wood increases by a similar amount, to 4" of pine (~10cm). Reducing the range to 50m would increase the penetration further, but not, AFAIK, by the 200% required to punch through 30cm of pine. Comparing rifles and SMGs; the Suomi uses 9x19mm para, where the case is the same width as the calibre, whereas the rifles uses bottleneck cartridge, some 50mm long and 10mm wide. More propellent = more energy = more penetration. I am not contesting the superiority of the of the rifle of the SMG in penetration power. However, I am contesting the fact that at 50 meters you are safer from the SMG than from a rifle when behind a 30cm wooden wall. First off, the entire premise is hypothetical. The likelyhood of getting hit by a stray bullet anywhere else but near an opening (window, door etc) coming through the wall that thick is not very high. In fact I have never heard that was in a list of concerns in anybodys book. It would be a waste of ammo trying to shoot blind through a wall that thick with anything less than a 50cal/12,7mm/20mm weapon. All fire would be aimed at the openings with the intention of supressing anybody inside. One argument was similar problems pertain to woods / scattered woods and similar terrain cover (tree trunks, small earthen dikes, etc.). Well.... in that kind of closed terrain the problem is lack of ROF, not lack of penetration. What deflects or stops a SMG bullet usually also deflects or stops a rifle bullet. But once you get a clear shot, say at 50 meters, one aimed rifle shot has does less harm than one aimed 10 round bursts from the SMG. [ August 07, 2002, 06:41 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by 23 ItK 61: BTW, somebody asked me how to pronounce 23 ItK 61... Big T, could you help us here? :eek: If I may: it is pronounced Sergei.

Originally posted by M Hofbauer: IIRC the Suomi used 9x19 Parabellum. That round is comparable to the russian7.62x25 used in the russian SMGs. The russian round might have a slightly better penetration capability because they have a comparable energy, but the russian round has a slightly smaller cross-section. The slight differences in penetration power are completely negligible however for our comparison to a rifle round. I think that is true. Only, your original statement is valid only at longer ranges. You said: in real life, if a soldier takes cover in a russian wooden loghouse (wood thickness >30cm), at 50m he is pretty safe from a SMG. a full power regular rifle round however will simply penetrate, period. The Suomi (which could penetrate 7,5cm of wood at 300 meters), and presumably the PPSh, would be able to penetrate for all intents and purposes roughly the same amount of of wood at 50 meters as a full power rifle round. The only difference is it would fire at approx 900 rpm where as a bolt action rifle would fire a shot every 6 seconds at 10 rpm. Would you still say a log house built of 30cm logs would protect you better from SMG fire than from single shot rifle fire at the range you said it would ? EDIT: A log house made out of round logs does not have a solid 30cm wall. If you are careful and take the time you can carve a notch to hold the log but even then the joint (being padded with turf and moss and what not) is not 30 thick. If the house is crudely made the logs will be round and the padding between round logs. If the logs are crooked enough you can go through the joint with a wooden stick. german official penetration data for the 9x19 when fired from the MP40 (as per DV 167/1 Maschinenpistole 40) roughly coincide with you data, except for the iron at 300m (no penetration of iron at 200m). No penetration or not even tested ? [ August 07, 2002, 05:23 AM: Message edited by: tero ]