Shandorf

Maybe if the info was turned off for enemy tanks. Also... you should know when you destroy a tank i.e. Explosion, crew bailing out...etc.. Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by *Captain Foobar*: jshandorf, The sharpshooter abstraction does not seem to affect gameplay negatively. Sharpshooters, in my opinion are not that powerful. Perhaps you could show an example of how this abstraction, or their current firepower can be used in an unfair way? (I am not being sarcastic, just trying to see if I can figure out where you are coming from.) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Possibly... The fact that they won't engaged infantry at 100 meters or less seems to prevent you from using them in an infantry defense role. I am just waiting to see what everyone else thinks. Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: The squads were split into teams and were too close together. If set up too close together, teams will rejoin at the start of battle, though each team will have had its own foxhole. I do this all the time in defensive QBs to trick the enemy into thinking more troops are dug in than there really are. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for the INTEL there Elijah. No send me your friggin' turn so that I can rain arty down on your men some more!! Jeff [This message has been edited by Shandorf (edited 09-05-2000).]

Okay.. i ran a sniper test and found something very interesting. At 100 meters or less snipers will NOT engage a target. Is that intentional? or a bug? Here is a the test.. I took 6 German snipers and lined them up in trenches on the edge of a forest. I then took 1 squad of German 45 soldiers which consists of 6xk98,1xSMG,1xLMG and did the same on the other side of the map. I placed a squad of US 45 soldiers at 100 meters from both of them. The result after 1 turn was that the squad shot at by the snipers routed after about 30 seconds with 2 KIAs. The squad across from the german 45 soldiers held out and returned fire after only taking 1 KIA. I also ran a few other tests with FOs and bazooka teams as the target. The snipers consistently eliminated the FO or bazzoka team on the first volly at 100 meters, 150 meters, and 200 meters. The German rifle '45 squad wsa barely able to rack up 1 KIA after a full turn of firing. The american units were always in the open with NO cover. Not really sure what to say other that a I expected the results to be fairly equal at 100-200 meters but since they were so differnt with the boozak teams and the FOs I decided not to go out any further since the German Rifle '45 squad would just get worse after that. So what do you guys think? Jeff [This message has been edited by Shandorf (edited 09-05-2000).] [This message has been edited by Shandorf (edited 09-05-2000).]

Any more takers? Currently I am battling with Elijah Meeks and Fionn. Personaly I feel I am giving Fionn a run for his money but he would claim otherwise. (Insert Fionn comment here) Jeff

I have one. I will be busy with that one for a little bit but in a half an hour I could start another. I love multitasking. Jeff

hey, I am going to be up late. I have all the time in the world for a PBEM game. Praise to the Labor day holiday. Anyone interested? Version 1.05. I like to play the Germans. Thanks, Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas K: I knew that the M60 used the same principles as the ol' MG42 but I don't think it was a copy. For one thing it was of different calibre. 7.62mm vrs. 7.93mm. I never had a problem with the M60 except once during an ambush one of the expended links had fallen into the reciever area when I had moved to a new position and jammed the thing up. I can't remember anybody complaining about the weapon. It shot steady and could reach out and touch someone at a 1000 yds. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually it was 7.92mm. Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Kettler: Warning! Long post! Shandorf, The short answer is yes, it can. To understand why, you need to know something about explosion dynamics. Though a typical artillery shell generates a formidable blast effect, blast falls off dramatically as range decreases (forget the exact mathematical expression, though). Blast is therefore not the primary kill mechanism. Shell fragments (what some people wrongly persist in calling shrapnel) perform that function. When a shell detonates, what happens is that the casing almost instantaneously expands and stretches, much like blowing up a long, thin balloon. The shell bulges the most in the relatively unsupported middle, tapering toward the nose and base of the shell. When the elastic limits of the shell casing are exceeded, the shell shatters into a multitude of very high velocity jagged, burning hot metal shards, shards of widely varying weight and size. We live in a time when shell casings are prescored and hand grenades are filled are filled with tightly wound notched square section wire, all in pursuit of uniform fragmentation. It wasn't like that during WW II. Even those lovely pineapple grenades didn't fragment the way they looked like they would. The grooving has to be toward the explosive for that to work. Therefore, we're left with the somewhat haphazard process in which on average a shell can cause some level of damage out to a specified range, but you may well get a heavy chunk (a flier) which carries much farther. To illustrate this, I'm looking at page 131 of the 1975 edition of BRASSEY'S INFANTRY WEAPONS OF THE WORLD, in which there is a photograph of the fin assembly from a Spanish 120mm mortar shell. That assembly is surrounded in successive circles by the recovered shell fragments, with the lightest ones on the inner ring and the heaviest ones on the outer ring. There are at least twenty distinct fragment sizes there, with the largest (total 92) being about the size of one of the fins and the smallest about the size of a BB. That's for a modern shell. Thinking back to my days as a military analyst, I seem to recall that a Self-Forging Fragment (a kind of inverted shaped charge that fires the liner, used in standoff weapons against armor) comes roaring out at something like 8000 fps. Now imagine the kinetic energy in a chunk of steel, say, an inch on a side and maybe 1/4" thick, traveling at better than twice the muzzle velocity of an M-1 rifle bullet. Do you really think that mild steel (road wheels, possibly lower hull, tracks, etc.) can take that kind of punishment without at least the possibility of trouble? It doesn't take much to make a tank throw a track, and I assure you that a .50 cal in the running gear, especially in this period, was a real threat. We're talking about something at least as heavy as that which is going twice as fast. The kinetic energy is enormous and is quite capable of going through an appreciable amount of unarmored steel. There is an entire volume devoted precisely to this kind of calculation called Project Thor or the Thor Equations, investigating the effects of fragment shape, size and velocity on penetration of steel plate. I know this because I got stuck running some calculations of this sort while working on a blast/frag warhead analysis for a Maverick missile version for shipping strike. Let me put it this way: the Air Force, which owned the target vessel, was most put out when the target ship sank after only one hit. What happened was that the Maverick plunged into the ship, the warhead exploded, and the resulting heavy fragments turned the bottom of the hull and several successive bulkheads into a metal sieve, completely wrecking watertight integrity. The ship didn't sink right away, but she definitely sank. She was there after the test, but wasn't there the next morning. You might also be interested to know that the mujahideen in Afghanistan discovered that a close-in shot to the mild steel lower side of the driver's compartment of a BTR-60 (8-wheeled armored personnel carrier) using an AK-47 and ball ammo would pierce the compartment, kill the driver, and immobilize the vehicle. Of course, figuring out what happened and why in your case is, in reality, a complex problem, getting into such things as shell orientation at detonation, shell standoff from the running gear, shell fragment density (number of fragments per solid angle; this is a 3-D problem, after all); presented area of mobility related components (including engine compartment items)/vulnerable area = chance of mobility kill given a sufficiently powerful hit. Another thing you need to remember is that whatever gets hit won't be uniformly stressed. This causes intense forces at the point of impact, forces which tend to bend and distort what they hit, such as shear loads to track links. Bend that pin far enough that holds two links together, and you've got a track which won't work even if it doesn't break outright. Or consider what happens when our fragment slams into nested Panther roadwheels. It might pierce the outer one leaving a ragged egress hole which jams the inner wheel. Imagine what effect that same fragment might have on a wheel bearing. If you doubt this, think about what would happen to your car if you went out and sledge hammered a chisel into your car's wheel bearing. That would be only a tiny fraction of the energy we're discussing applying. Paradoxically, given a low, close airburst it seems that your tank's mobility is at greater risk than it would be if the shell simply landed on the ground nearby. This is because the shell tends to bury itself at least partially before detonating. That allows the ground to reduce the blast effects and absorb/slow down the shell fragments. The airburst produces unhindered blast and fragments slowed only by obstacles and air drag. Summing up, although it's not likely that an airburst would immobilize your tank, Shandorf, I see no reason whatever that it couldn't. Indeed, the attack geometry you describe could easily yield such a result, though I would expect it to happen more often if hit by large (4.2" up) mortars or 155s, since the fragments would be considerably larger and heavier. By the way, field artillery shells have to withstand some 100,000 Gs of acceleration, hence are machined from high grade steel. Mortars can get away with even wrought iron projectiles, though I believe we used steel, simply because the launch stresses are far lower. Finally, there is at least one case in which a Sherman was completely disabled using only small arms. Apparently an isolated tank wound up the target of an entire German rifle company. The immense fusillade cracked all the vision blocks, destroyed the weapon sights and even jammed the treads, completely immobilizing, blinding, and defanging the hapless Sherman. All this with projectiles a mere 7.92mm in diameter! Hope this helps. Sincerely, John Kettler <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ack! Okay, I with ya now. Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Johnson-<THC>-: Its a very dangerious place in a tank, everyone is trying their best to take it out. In a perfect world you would let your AT guns and other tank killers concentrate on tanks, and you would use your arty on infantry. But they are such a great force multiplyer that everyones shooting at it, even VT rds. I've not done any tests, but are they actually blowing up the tank or just forcing the crew out? Any large arty round or bomb burns up so much oxygen, that the vacum created can suck your lungs out your mouth. Tank crews still have to breath too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My specific encounter with this was that my tank got tracked from an airburst above and to the right of the tank. The crew is fine. The tank is fine except the track is out which I think would need an armor penetration hit to knock out the tracks. Shrapnel just can't do this and if it can the chance should be VERY small. Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KwazyDog: Shandorf Im no expert here so Im not going to comment too much but I just wanted to add that one thing your forgetting about is the shock wave from an explosion. Fragments from a 105mm airburst may have no chance of penetrating a Panther but I wouldnt mind betting the shock wave from the explosion couldnt buckle or even break metal.. Just a thought <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> i would expect something if the arty round landed next to the vehicle but remember. A tank is designed to absorb direct fire from AP rounds. I would image the shockwave from an AP round striking would be greater than a shockwave dispersed already through the air.

I was just wonder what people's opinions are on arty airburst concerning tanks. IMHO I feel that there should only be a very small chance for damage to the tank such as tracking it or damaging the gun. This is because shrapnel, no matter how fast it is going, has no ballistic penetration capabilities and to damage hardened steel such as tank tracks I feel is almost impossible. If this was so then a .50 machine gun or 20mm gun should be able to track tanks with ease. In general though I feel Artillery is still a little too powerful in CBM when it is applied to reinforced structures or armored vehicles such as tanks. What do you guys think? ------------------