Claus B

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables: What I was attempting to describe was that in heavy aka damp, sodden or muddy ground the clutch and break steering would prove more of a handicap for the veh with limited transverse weapons than one, which mounted a turret. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That makes sense. Regardless of steering type, the turreted vehicle would always have an advantage over the non-turreted when a quick change of aim is needed. Which is why, of course, the tactics employed for the two types of vehicles should be different. Claus B

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Victor Semensi: I seem to recall a post on the old Tankers forum that a French armor museum has a working, i.e drivable, king tiger. Does anyone know if this is true?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They have that and a number of other runners, including two Panthers. Here's a pic of the Tiger II going through its paces in 1999 ( http://www.mobilixnet.dk/~mob75281/pic/Tiger2.jpg ) Claus B [This message has been edited by Claus B (edited 10-16-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables: This of course leading to a crazy backwards and forward gymnastic when StuG’s, PIV/70’s and Hertzers were caught on the flanks past the 10/11 and 1/2 o’clock position. Sherman’s the Crusers/Crusaders/Cromwells and the PIV/III could just make the initial pivot and then lay the turret on target. It should be noted that the Germans captured several Churchill’s with their ability at single radius steering, which they found so cunning they decided to stick it in the Tiger but with another radius (which meant you could have 2 turning circles at a single speed/gear), the cads. I remember when every one was talking about how the StuG in Chance encounter had immense problems in the attack; imagine the problems with out neutral steer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am a bit confused there. You say that "PIV/III could just make the initial pivot" while the StuG and Jpz IV had all sorts of problems turning - they all had the same type of steering, clutch and brake. The Sherman used the Cletrac system which did not allow a pivot turn at all while the Cromwell could do a neutral turn but used a diferent system from the earlier cruisers. The Churchill did not influence the design of the Tiger as the first Churchills were captured in August 1942 when Henschel had already produced the first Tigers. The Hetzer could do sort of a pivot turn, by turning over one track as previously described. The ability to neutral steer a tank was not something new in WWII, it was done very cleverly by the French in the Char B1 in the 1920ies, using a hydraulic unit instead of fixes gears, giving the tank an unlimted number of turn radii for each gear. The downside was that that thing tended to fall apart, but still a fine piece of engineering. Claus B

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: About that damaged Sherman quote... some Shermans were outfitted with an electric traverse motor because there were initial shortages of the hydrolic model. So perhaps this Sherman was one of them and was running the turret off the batteries? Either that or it had enough hydrolic pressure to move the turret for the length of the battle (presumably getting slower and slower over time).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Any hydraulic turret traverse needs power to operate. In the Panther and Tiger(s) the power came from the engine and was taken either directly off the transaxle or from a separate axle off the gearbox (Tiger I). So a stalled engine would result in no power and no powered turret traverse. The Sherman used a hydraulic turret traverse from Oilgear with another hydraulic system from Logansport and an electric one from Westinghouse being used as substitutes where the Oilgear unit was not available. The brilliant thing about the hydraulic units used in the Sherman was that they got their power not from the engine, but from an electric motor driven off the batteries. Of course, the electric Westinghouse system also got its power from the batteries. So, as long as you had power in you batteries, you would have powered traverse regardless of whether the motor driving the turret was hydraulic or electric. And that is not all: The Sherman also had an auxillary generator, a small two-stroke engine that could be started separately to charge the batteries when the main engine was not running. It would also be used to supplement the main generator when the demand on the batteries where high. Regarding neutral turns: It seems that most people assume that a neutral turn would be faster than driving a bit back or forward and perform a normal turn. I've never seen any data supporting this. Neutral turns are not necessarily fast and they can be taxing on the mechanical components, especially off road and on soft ground. Unless the ground underneath is hard (surfaced roads), the tank will tend to dig in and push up a mound of dirt as it turns. Tanks with simple clutch/brake steering can also perform a turn on the spot by simply brake and de-clutching on track. It will then turn over the braked track. However, in most cases it would probably be a lot faster to back up and turn than to fiddle around with a neutral turn. Regarding French reports on the Panther: As the report contains comments on how fast German repair units worked, it seems that the tests was conducted with Germans who had experience of the vehicle. Also, the report is not negative as such, it contains both pros and cons of the Panther, the lack of vision devices for the gunner being one of the major cons. It also emphasizes that the Panther needed an experienced and well trained crew as well as trained and experienced mechanics to keep it running. Claus B

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Warren Peace: Took my kids Ben, age 5, and Rebecca age 3 today. We had a great time. Highly recommended for Combat Mission Fans. We saw Chruchill, Hetzer, Panzer IV, Panther, Sherman Firefly, Sturmgeschutz, Jagdtiger, Jagdpanther, T34/76, T34/85 just to name a few. The place is increadible and is free! It took us about an hour and a half from just North of Philly. A striking feature is just how large these vehicles really are. Perhaps "Tank Terror" does need to be modeled in the game. Also, it is hard to believe that these behemoths could be knocked out as quickly as they seem to be in combat Mission.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you look at some of the chunks taken out of the Jagdtiger armour, it becomes a lot easier to understand See also http://www.mobilixnet.dk/~mob75281/ga/bd/bd.htm Claus B

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by brucer: Keep looking: there are better sources out there, most of which don't happen to share the author's deeply pro-American bias, either.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Can you name some of those sources? Claus B

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: Claus what would realy help is an better explanation of how the L4S worked. my question concerns the selector switch for high low, this indicates to me the traverse speed was independant, in that the gunner selected the ratio then the power takeoff kicked in, then the gunner pressed the foot pedal, and the hydraulic pump & motor then kicked in as well to bring up the desired traverse speed. No where does anything say I have found yet, indicate the driver was sitting their giveing the Panther gas or shifting gears to build rpms for the traverse. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If we agree that the L4S hydraulic traverse used in the Panther A and G could turn the turret faster if the engine was run at higher RPMs (as shown by Jentz figures in "Panther" p.60), then someone must be able to influence the speed of the traverse by revving the engine. I've never seen any indication that the gunner or indeed anyone but the driver could influence the engine RPM. Using Spielbergers description of the Tiger I traverse mechanism, which appears to be very similar to the one used in the Panther D (M4S), I understand it as a system with two parts. 1. An oil pump, driven by the engine. 2. A hydraulic motor (Ölmotor) that was driven by the flow of oil generated by the oil pump. The gunner controlled the turret traverse hydraulic motor (not the engine) by A: Using his foot-pedals, where he could control the oil pump and the amount of oil that was pumped around in the system and thereby the speed of the turret traverse, as well as the direction of the flow of oil in the system, thereby controlling the direction of the traverse. B: By use of a lever, he could control the flow of oil in the hydraulic motor, setting it to high or low speed. When the pedals (A.) were not depressed, the pump was idling and no power transferred to the hydraulic motor. What is puzzling is not how such a system would be dependent on engine RPM, but rather how the pump, driven by the transaxle, would NOT be effected by engine RPM? But I take Spielbergers and Jentz word for it when they state that the M4S was not dependant on engine RPM while the later L4S was. Claus B

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: Spielberger's notes on the L4S I could not find last night, till you poiinted p.98 to me BTW Claus, its p.97 in the US version . Speilberger states & all we get is this rather lacking description compared to his detailed M4S data. : So me bad, and I apologise, as I took motor to represent the hydraulic motor r.p.m as in the M4S when in the L4S it meant engine r.p.m. yet reatined the same operation mode as the M4S.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I too had hoped to find a more detailed description of the L4S in Spielberger - if just someone could get the tech. manual for the damn' ting and post it Part of the story is that the engine-RPM independent M4S could turn the Panther D turret in 60 seconds for 360 degrees while the L4S in Panthers A and G had the following values: High hydraulic motor speed: Engine - 1000 RPM, turret 360/46 sec Engine - 2000 RPM, turret 360/23 sec Engine - 2500 RPM, turret 360/18 sec Engine - 3000 RPM, turret 360/15 sec Low hydraulic motor speed: Engine - 1000 RPM, turret 360/93 sec Engine - 2000 RPM, turret 360/45 sec It seems evident, that the advantage of having a constant pressure pump with a guaranteed traverse speed independent of engine RPM was more than off set by the speed advantages of having an engine RPM dependant system that could give more pressure when needed. The L4S was still on par with the the M4S at the high-speed setting, even when the engine was idling (800 rpm)! Btw, the Ausf. F Schmalturm traverse was a simplified version system with only one speed setting and a max. speed for 360 degrees at 30 seconds. Claus B [This message has been edited by Claus B (edited 10-14-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by machineman: However in the German tanks, from what combat stories I've read, it is always the commander who spots (and picks) targets, yelling out "Sherman at 6 o'clock!" or some such. It was not left to the gunner to slowly pan around and look for targets himself. Both commander and gunner had a fairly sophisticated counter-rotating clock-like devices marking turret rotation compared to hull. So the commander could spot the target and be able to give a quite accurate initial targeting info to the gunner over the intercom, who would then acquire the target on his sight after quickly swinging the turret over to the indicated position.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think that is pretty much standing operation procedure for any tank with a three man turret. It does not change the fact that... A: The Sherman gunner had much better vision devices than the Panther, even though the actual sights may have been less effective at longer ranges. B: Actual tests with the Panther showed that target aquistion was considerably slower than for the Sherman - and the French Army operated both vehicles. As I stated earlier, if you reduce the issue to include ONLY turret traverse speeds and give all tanks max. traverse, that will give an un-historical advantage to Panther. Perhaps a two-speed system as someone suggested could help, that is max. traverse used for the first 75% of the turn, the slower traverse used for the last 25% (numbers are completely random - no data). You could then give the Sherman its historical advantage by letting it use max. speed for 90% of the turn and slow speed for 10% or something like that. Ari, Yes, if you view the matter in terms of getting the thickest armour towards the enemy ASAP with no intention of actually taking a shot at him. But if you give the Panther max. traverse speed for the reason you describe, you will give it an unhistorical advantage in targetting. I think the two-speed system desribed above could help there, giving the Panther fast traverse until the turret front was pointing in the general direction of the enemy. In any case, I think the whole turret traverse issue can only be solved if changes are made to the modelling of it and seen in context of the target aquisition problem. And doing something about it will require you to find a lot of data that may not even exist. That is comparable data (tests, comparisons, hard data) for all vehicles depicted in CM. We have some data on the Panther and Sherman, but how about all the other vehicles in the game, not to mention those that may come in CM2? I'm not saying that BTS has choosen the right speed for the Panther turret, only that with the limitations in the model, it will not be possible to portray it as it was historically regardless of what speed you choose. Claus B [This message has been edited by Claus B (edited 10-14-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: Wouldn't the above effect every tank in CM then as well?, under the same criteria it questions the whole aspect of even modeling a traverse speed in the game as a seprate model. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It does. I was wondering where all the stories of Shermans outrunning the Panther turret traverse are comming from if the turret could be traversed 360 degrees in 18 seconds. I think part of the answer is found in the fact that the Panther gunner could not utilize the faster turret traverse to actually bring his gun on target. To find the target, he had to slow down the turret traverse speed. The problem is that the Panther gunner had his monocular 2.5x or 5x sight with a field of view of 19 and 15 degrees respectively as his only means of vision. Turning the turret at max. speed, the target would be in his sight for something like a second. You cannot pick up a target that way, you have to slow down the traverse speed to allow you to see what the hell is going on. Our Sherman gunner, on the other hand, can view the world through his periscope with a much wider field of vision (42 degrees IIRC) and thus has a much better chance of picking up the target even at max. traverse speed (15 sec/360 degrees). In other words, the Panther gunner would be dependent on his commander to find the target and direct him in the general direction, probably using fast traverse. But then the gunner has to slow down turret traverse considerably to actually get the target in his sights. The Sherman gunner can use his periscope to lay his gun vary precisely on target and then switch to his sight either the one built into the periscope or his direct-fire telescope. As it says in the 1947 French report on the Panther (Spielberger: "Panther..." p. 160ff): When the commander has found the target, it takes between 20 to 30 seconds before the gunner can open fire. This time, which is considerably higher than that of the Sherman, can be attributed to the lack of a gunners periscope The fact was not lost on the Germans, as can be seen in the Panther Schmalturm which sported not only a monocular sight, but also a periscopic sight (and a steroscopic rangefinder). So what the game should portray is the slower target aquisition of the Panther vs the Sherman. If the turret traverse is the primary factor here, allowing the Panther to turn its turret at 19 seconds/360 degrees will give it an un-historical advantage. Claus B

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: Well I think the below settles any question's of the Panther's traverse being linked to driver cooperation, engine r.p.m. & or gear when moveing etc, while showing the Panther had a dedicated system for turret traverse similar to the Sherman. The Panther gunner controled traverse speed useing foot pedals and when the traverse speed data refers to r.p.m Ie, 360^ in 18secs @ 2500rpm, it is not refering to the engine r.p.m. but to the hydraulic turret traverse drive r.p.m. : The pressure needed to traverse the the turret was produced by a hydraulic drive, which was driven by a cardan shaft from the turret drive. During road marches the hydraulic drive could be disconnected by a lever from the loader's position by means of a jaw clutch coupling mounted in the same houseing as the drive. The hydraulic drive, a Boehringer-Sturm Type M 4S, operated independantly of the engine r.p.m. and consisted of two vane-type units with rotateing housings; they were both of the same design, but one was driven as the pump, and the other functioned as the hydraulic motor. They were joined together in an enclosed cycle by a suction and pressure channel inside a fixed tubular body. Regulateing the drive r.p.m. of the hydraulic motor, i.e. regulating the traverse speed of the turret, was controled by monitering the discharge from the pump. See: Spielberger Walter J. "Panther & its Varients" p.76 Now off to determine if the Tiger B traverse operated the same way & I believe it does as Jentz states it was independent as well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> John, That is a description of the turret traverse mechanism in the Panther Ausf. D with the Boehringer-Sturm M4S, which had a system independant of engine RPM. As I understand it, the engine drove a pump which provided the necessary pressuring for the hydraulics to work. The speed of the traverse was regulated by regulating the flow through the hydraulic unit. "Independant of engine RPM" is to be taken with a grain of salt - with a stalled engine, I am pretty shure that pressure would soon drop to a level where the turret could no longer be traversed. The Panther Ausf. A and G used the engine-RPM dependant Boehringer-Sturm L4S (Jentz: "Panther" p. 56,57, Spielberger p. 98) Claus B

The issue of Panther and Tiger II turret traverse speed opens an interesting can-o'worms: If Panther or Tiger II engine is damaged, the turret traverse drops to something utterly rediculous. Can this be modelled in CM? There can be little doubt that the German turret traverse system demands more cooperation between driver, gunner and commander compared with the system used in the Sherman or in the Panzer IV. So there should probably be a benefit for turret rotation for experienced crews. But I wounder if not turret rotation speeds should be viewed as a part of the whole target aquisition issue? That is, the ability of the tank and crew to get the gun on target once a target is reported. That includes turret rotation speed, but also available optics for the crew, sights and rangefinders (or rather, range estimation aids). Focusing on turret traverse speeds because it is quantifiable while ignoring other issues of the whole target aquisition complex is likely to unbalance things - perhaps the reason why it was decided to do an average on the Tiger/Panther turrets rather than a max.? After all, spinning the turret at lightning speed is of little use if you cannot properly direct the gunner onto the target! Claus B

Dunno what happened here, but the board ate half my (long) post of posted 10-04-2000 06:04 AM - bollocks! Claus B

Probably will regret to enter this flamin' hell hole of a thread but anyway... I recently had the opportunity to operate the sights of an SP, 17pdr M10 ("Achilles) and have previosly played around with the sights of several German AFVs and anti-tank guns. I won't comment on clarity, because many of these are museum examples and more than 50 years old so you really dont know where they have been and what they may have been subjected to. And yes, I am a civilian and have no training in this whatsoever. The PaK 40 sight is easy to operate because of the ranging scales for the various types of ammo. Look, make a qualified guess on range and set the dial according to ammo type. If I recall correctly, the PaK 40 sigh also has these small triangles you can use to estimate range. The 17pdr sight was quite a dissapointment, as it has no scales, just two knobs to adjust the sight horizontally and vertically. You immidiatly get the feeling "Hey, this looks primitive". But when you think it over, all the 17pdr gunner had to do was to know the standard settings for the 3 or 4 different ammo-types used. He had no fancy scales, but as long as he knew how many clicks he had to turn the knob, he would be no worse off than the German PaK gunner. There is no aid in the 17pdr sight to estimate range, just a simple cross-hairs. I just wonder how much these ranging aids in the sight helps? With high-velocity guns like the 7,5cm PaK and the 17pdr, at normal combat ranges (up to 800-1000 meters?) it would basically be point and shot because of the flat trajectory of the projectile. At longer ranges, having the little triangles to help you estimate range may give you an edge, but it is still only an estimate. On the other hand, I know from firing manuals of the PaK 39 (Hetzer) that when firing at longer ranges, it was recommended to use "bracketing fire", that is to fire one round deliberately long, observe the fall, then move back so you would hit short of the target. With the observation of these two shots in relation to the target, you would now have a pretty good idea of the actual range to the target. The firing manual states that you could use this method firing the slow-moving Gr.38 Hl (HEAT) round against *moving* targets up to 1200 meters, so I guess it must have been a pretty effective way of measuring range. The point of this is, that this method is not related to the "quality" or ranging devices in the sights. As long as you could observe the fall of the shot, you would be on your way to a hit. And this would be the same for any gunner with any gun. Furthermore, observing the fall of shot was often done by the commande

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan: When the tank was lifted out it was placed at a gap in the sand dunes just west of Courseulles as a memorial to all those from Britain and Canada who came to liberate France. I don't know how accurate Ambrose's footnote is, but the rest of the story is the 50 year old recollection of the Canadian Captain.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It is a different vehicle from the one in the picture. There are no less than three monuments with Chruchills AVREs in this area of Normandy. Claus B

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by argie: In IF, even the short barrel guns have a greater minimal effective than mortars. And this are GUNS, not HOWITZERS, which where made to fire in high angles. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ian Hogg has an interesting comment on this. When comparing the Soviet 76mm Model 1927/39 Regimental Gun, captured and used by the Germans as the 7,5cm Infanterie Kanone, with the German infantry guns (Infanterie Geschütze) he writes (referring to the Soviet gun): "...it was called Kanone rather than Geschütz, the more usual term for an infantry gun. In German terminology, Kanone indicates a high velocity, flat trajectory weapon, and it is probably applied here because of its limited elevation and the use of a fixed round of ammunition with a non-adjustable charge." Ian Hogg: "The Encyclopedia of Infantry Weapons of World War II" As for the minimal effective range, the 7,5cm IG had a MAXIMUM range of 800 meters with the smallest charge which gave a muzzle velocity of 92 m/s. I am not a math man, but when firing a 6kg HE shell at 92 m/s at an angle of 75degrees, I doubt it would go very far! Similar numbers for the 15cm sIG are: - muzzle velocity with smallest charge 122 m/s - max. angle 73 degrees - shell weight 38kg Claus B

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by machineman: What seems up in the air right now is if the shells of the short and long 88's WERE actually the same. There has been some debate but from what I can see no one has yet to post the definitive answer. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm looking at some photos I took of these shells at Panzermuseum Munster and the two projectiles look very similar in terms of size and construction. They weighed the same and were of the same type. The only difference I can find is that the 8,8cm PzGr 39/43 (for the KwK/PaK 43) had a different driving band, allowing it to be fired with sufficient accuracy by worn guns. Of course, the propelling charges used for the rounds were different as were the guns so the PzGr 39/43 was fired at much higher muzzle velocities. Claus B

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: See http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/002023.html for one of the more illuminating of the many discussions on this topic..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for the ref. The problem with that discussion is that no one is providing any solid evidence that the German IG were "primairily used as direct fire weapons" while there are many solid references, including veterans accounts that show they were often used this way. Come to think of it, I've rarely seen accounts dealing with these guns being used in the direct fire mode. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: The Buechner book is cited as well. If you have new or better evidence, now would be the time to cite it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I did. The quote from Fleischers book AND a quote from a German field manual. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: There is no "age-old wg myth of IGs only firing directly".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh yes there are. Mention one wargame, board or computer, that treats the German IGs as indirect fire weapons. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: The argument was that they were suited to both roles, but in CM's time and geographical scales, the IF option was impractical, as in "not worth coding". It was not a common enough practice to make it worth modeling, the minimum ranges were corner to corner on most CM maps, and it took a long time to set up and register the guns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What is practical in CM is not really my concern; My concern is that people, even those with a lot of knowledge on WWII persist in claiming that IGs were "only" or "primarily" direct fire weapons without presenting any data to prove their point. If you compare the German IGs with for exampe the Soviet 76mm infantry gun, it is evident that the latter is primarily a direct fire weapon with its elevation of only 25 degrees. The German IGs were designed different because they were used differently as both the veterans accounts, books dealing with the weapons and the field manual quoted before say. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: There are also discussions of tanks using indirect fire which are similar. Yes, it happened, but not very often or very well, mostly beyond the scale of CM, and not significantly enough to stop progress on other projects to model for novelty value.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is a completely different issue. Tanks and tank-destroyers were not DESIGNED to be used in the indirect fire role. Using them that way usually required the vehicles to be parked on slopes to get the necessary elevation and the assignemnt of artillery personell to control the fire. I cannot agree that "it did not happen very often and very well". The 3" gun on the US M10 TD was used for indirect fire missions from Tunesia onwards and the minimal cratering caused by its shells made it very effective for interdiction fire against lines of communications etc. Based on the experiences of the Tunesian campaign, TDs were issued with the necesary sights and equipment for indirect fire and trained in their use. (see for example Gabel: "Seek, Strike and Destroy..") Using tanks or TDs in this manner in a game of CMs scale and timeframe would probably not make sense, as it would require a lot of time to make the setup for indirect fire for tanks and TDs. You would need to find a good slope (there is some programming for you ), hook up with artillery spotters, make an ammo dump (not many shells carried in those M10s) - all in all not something you do from one minut to the other. In a way, the direct/indirect fire discussion is somewhat silly since most guns were, at one time or another, used either way. We all know of German artillery having to fire directly at oncomming tanks, of 25pdrs being used to fend off German armour in the desert and the Soviet practice of issuing every artillery piece with AP ammo so it could double as anti-tank gun - the most notable one being the 76mm field gun. Perhaps less known is that the Germans, in an attempt to mimmick Soviet practices issued the 7,5cm PaK 40 to the artillery (were it was known as the 7,5cm Feld-Kanone (FK) 40). When you read about the defensive battles around Narva by the III. SS-Panzerkorps you will also find references showing that in the defense, basically everything that could fire a shell was incorporated into the overall fire-plan. Mortars, anti-tank guns, infantry guns, artillery and (here comes another bone of contention) heavy machineguns. Such temporary measures would probably not fit into CM for reasons of time and scale and perhaps the use of IGs for indirect fire in CM would screw up play-balance or be too troublesome to program. That does not change the fact, however, that the IG was DESIGNED for this work, its crew TRAINED for it, the ammo DESIGNED for it - the whole setup is prepared, ready and intended for indirect fire missions. Claus B

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rob Deans: I realize that these have been subject of much conversation but text on these weapons is had to come by and I did so I'm passing it on. The reference is "The German Infantry Handbook" by Alex Buchner 1991. A translation from the German. All in all a fery good reference taking the Arm and describing it from the individual soldier, building into sections platoons companies and so on, adding appropriate weaponry and HQ descriptions at the varying levels. In the chapter on the "Infantry Regiment" it talks of both the lIG 18 and the sLG 33. I quote "since the (firing) postions were generally concealed, indirect firing was used" and "aiming was done with the ZE 34 panoramic telescope" (only used for indirect fire) The characteristics of the weapon give ranges with different charges (800m Ch1 to 3475m Ch5) similar to a mortar or howitzer. The orbat of the lIG platoon accounts for 2 directing NCOs and 3 linemen (signallers) The photographs that correspond to the text show indeed both a stand alone IG with its very distinctinve panoramic sight and one in action with the gun number who is laying peering though, yup you guessed it, his sight. All this combines as weighty evidence for indirect fire. Now as I recall, the arguement was made against indirect fire due to lack of evidence and the thought that it would give an unfair advantage to the German having his own "artillery" When one considers the IGs to be "fancy and slightly more accurate mortars" why the aversion? Granted there is not a lot of evidence as it regards IGs however, direct fire "artillery", roled as such, went out in the Great War and it went out for a reason. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It may be unfair to opponents of the Germans, but so is Tigers The German 7,5cm and 15cm IGs were indirect fire weapons, indirect in the same sense as mortars: able to fire at high angles against targets hidden from view. The evidence is: 1. Basic logic. Why would you build a gun with elevation of 70 degrees unless you wanted it to fire indirectly? 2. Pictures and film showing infantry guns positioned in woods, behind banks etc. firing at high angles. 3. Wolfgang Fleischer: "Die motorisierten Schützen und Panzergrenadiere des Deutschen Heeres 1935-1945" writes about it (translated from German, so bare with me): "The development of the SP sIG 33 was based on a wish to support the mortars and light infantry guns (7,5cm lIG) of the heavy company of the motorized infantry platoon when giving indirect firesupport at the Schwerpunkt of battle." 4. Also from Fleischer a quote from the manual D2025 for the use of the sIG 33/1 of June 1st 1943 it says: "The heavy infantry gun 33/1 (SP based on Pz38(t)) is a heavy infantry weapon with the fire characteristics (direct and high-trajectory fire) of the sIG 33...." and goes on to emphasize that the Grille was NOT a Sturmgeschütz (your quintessential direct-fire SP-gun). It would be wonderfull if we could finally lay the age old wargamer myth of the direct-fire-only German IG to rest Claus B

A couple of points. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fernando: BTW the front lower hull armor wasn't 80 mm. It was 60 mm in the Ausf A and D and 50 mm in the Ausf G.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, but the quote says the hit "broke a triangular piece several centimeters long out of the glacis plate and the hull side." The glacis plate is 80mm thick. Regarding the British reports they do apparently not state how the vehicles were hit, only that they were hit by artillery. so speculating <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fernando: "I guess most of them suffered enough damage to render them useless but very few of them (if any) were top penetrated." .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> is pointless. But I found something else, you may find interesting. In 1942, the British experimented with the operation of tanks under shell fire. Test where conducted with 16 Churchill tanks (turret top armour 20mm) advancing slowly through a 600x400 yeard square while the area was shelled by 25pdrs firing airburst HE. In one test, the 25pdrs fired 72 rounds pr. minute for 8 minutes, in another 108 rounds pr. minute for 5 minutes. In the first case, casualties were one broken track and a broken suspension bogie rendering two tanks immobile, in the other test the tanks were unscathed. I know airburst is a far cry from a direct hit but still, these tanks were driven throug the carnage by British crews so they must have been pretty confident that the crews were safe even if the odd shell should fail and land on a vehicle. To Jeff: I think that "artillery fire" in the captions for the pictures at the RMZ means guns - anti-tank, field gun, whatever. But ask Valera, he probably knows. Claus B

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fernando: I'd like to know if you're just guessing or you've some data to support your stattement. Please remember Guderian's report about the Panther: "The Panther is basically invulnerable to artillery fire. However, direct hits by calibers OVER 150 mm on the roof of the hull and turret had the effect of deforming the armor and causing internal damage. Hits by lighter caliber shells hitting the comander cupola and the roof armor showed no effect" It seems he and his crews were wrong and you're right <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Once saw a Panzer III with cracked turret armour. "Gee," I thought, "that must have been caused by artillery landing on top it." Later I learned that the vehicle had been reversing across a minefield, hitting a mine that caused the track to snap and hitting the roof like a giant whip, cracking the roof armour. I have a picture in a book somewhere showing a Cromwell tank, hit on the side turret by direct fire HE, probably 88mm. The outer layer of armour (51mm thick) has been "burned" away in a small circle with deep grooves going off in all directions from the point of impact. Luckily for the crew, the inner, 12.7mm plate held up to the blast. This HE round was probably fired point-blank at 600 - 800 m/s. Eye-witness accounts tend to put too much emphasis on the effects of artillery against tanks. On June 14th 1944, an artillery observer with 22nd Armoured Brigade called a "Pandemonium" on Panzer Lehr armour assembling in a wood. The combined efforts of US V Corps and UK 30th Corps artillery assets (some 160 guns) were unleashed on the wood, eyewitnesses believing hundreds of Germans killed and dozens of tanks destroyed. In reality, no tanks were lost, but most had their periscopes and vision blocks destroyed and various fittings rattled loose, so the pending attack was aborted. Regarding the data found in Jentz' book on the Panther, it is not conclusive. It is true, that Guderians report states that the Panther is all but invulnerable to artillery fire, save a few buckled plates (p. 133) but moving on to the October 1943 report from Panzer-Regiment 2 (p. 138) shows that " A Panther was fell out due to a direct hit on the front from a 152mm HE shell that ripped the hull." and "A direct hit from an artillery shell at the lower front plate broke all the weld seams back to the middle and broke a triangular piece several centimeters long out of the glacis plate and the hull side." Clearly, hits by high-explosive ammunition could make considerable structural damage to the Panther EVEN on the the 80mm thick frontal armour and the 40mm side armour. If a +150mm round could rip apart the 80mm thick front plate, a 25pdr should not have too much trouble doing ugly things to the 16mm top armour. As seen the 21st Army Group report quoted by Jeff Duquette somewhere else in this thread, overall, artillery did not count for very many kills (3%). A German report from early 1944 states that about 9% of Soviet tanks destroyed on the Eastern Front from January to April 1944 fell to mines and artillery. The bottom line is that tanks being destroyed by artillery must have been a fairly rare occurence, while structural damage, broken periscopes, buckled plates etc. would be more common effects and certainly take a tank out of commission for some time. Claus B

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elvis: Yes. The patch is being worked on for TCP/IP. No ETA at this point but with any luck it is coming very soon. If we are lucky within a month.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So you will be able to play over the LAN via TCP/IP? Claus B

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott Clinton: I have only read one first person account from a member of a crewman of a Hetzer. I lost the link long ago, but he was amazed and slightly amused that people today seemed to like and admire the Hetzer so much. He moved from a Stug (I think) into a Hetzer and was the loader. He went on and on about how cramped it was, about how their vision was nil when it was buttoned, how unreliable it was and how he had to reach over the gun to load it on the other side. The gun used in the Hetzer was made so that loader was supposed to be seated on the right side. You will notice when you look at a Hetzer that there is no way a loader could sit on the right, so he had to sit on the left and reach across the gun, to load it the get the Hell out of the way again before it fired. I believe he also said that the ammo was stowed in a very inconvenient place. He said all the crews hated them. He was quite amused that it was such a popular tank for modelers and gamers. Just relating what I remember him writing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Hetzer was an astounding succes from a production viewpoint. Using an otherwise useless tank-chasses, producing it in factories that could not handle larger vehicles and still comming up with a mobile and reasonably well protected 7,5cm L/48 gun. And that is the point: The Hetzer was essentially a self-propelled anti-tank gun. Because it could be produced in large numbers it was possible to issue more infantry anti-tank battalions with StuG/Jagdpanzer, thus giving the infantry and Volksgrenadier divisions a company of Hetzers, giving them a considerably increase in defensive and offensive capability. Yes, the Hetzer was unreliable (too heavy for the mechanical bits), uncomfortable for the loader, problematic for the commander (no cupola, smoke getting into his optics) and a sitting duck if caught in the open. Not much fun in moving down from a StuG III to this critter, but helluva improvement from an unarmoured tractor pulling a 1.5ton gun with virtually no crew protection. Someone mentioned that the Hetzer was crap in the offense. I cannot say how it works out in CM, but in the real world the Hetzer was succesfull. Used correctly as an infantry support vehicle, giving covering fire and taking out MG-nests and strong points, the Hetzer worked well. But it is not a tank and it does not have the same level of protection as the StuG III, Jagdpanzer IV or a Jagdpanther and should be used accordingly. Claus B

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: I've seen photos of the Flak 88 being fired while still on its wheels. The legs that you refer to (there are four of them BTW) were not deployed. I think probably they would not have been in any case as they might not have reached the ground while the wheels were still on, at least that's my impression. Also, the entire point of firing limbered was to bring the gun into action *quickly*. The technique was to drive the tractor and gun towards the target until both were aligned, then turn the tractor to one side. As long as the gun was aligned along the longitudinal axis of the carriage, it was stable enough to tolerate the recoil without tipping.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Michael is right. The 8,8cm Flak guns and the PaK 43 (but not the Pak 43/41) all had a cruciform carriage where the two side legs could be folded up when the gun was limbered for transport. When firing from the limbered position, the two side legs were folded down to allow easy acces to the gun and to add some stability while firing. The gun could then be fired from while on its wheels. There are both pictures and footage of this. An interesting aspect of this practice is that the limbered gun could be hooked onto the front of its tractor and pushed forward so only the gun was exposed. Handy in street fighting as seen on some photos from the French campaign in 1940. Btw, there was a special version of the 8,8cm Flak specifically built as an antitank gun in the late 1930ies. Besides having a the large shield, it also had some ammo stoorage containers mounted on the gun itself. This version of the Flak 8,8cm could no longer be used in the AA-role. Also built at this time was a special armoured version of the 12-ton tractor for towing these guns. Claus B

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aussie Smith: Man oh man I wish we had stuff like this to climb over down under - I feel AFV deprived - oh how I want to see a Panther/Tiger up close and personal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There are a bit more on the Jagdpanzer IV and variants at http://www.mobilixnet.dk/~mob75281/profiles.htm. Last year, I had the opportunity to look around inside a Jagdpanzer IV and it is actually quite spacious compared with, for example, a Panzer III or IV, even compared with the StuG III. Because you are inside one big box, rather than sitting in some small enclosure like a turret or drivers compartment, you have a lot more air around you, making it a somewhat less claustrophobic experience. Claus B