[Optics in CMBB - how are they better?]

My understanding of "Notek Lighting" is that it was not much more than a little light with a battery pack, that clamped on the the respective sights for a variety of guns, whether they were field guns, or tank guns.

The idea was, that the small light "illuminated" the reticle pattern (which was usually black), but shows up at night as either a "jade", red of beige colour (with supplementary illumination). This way, the gunner could see the reticle pattern (over the black surfaces seen at night) and "aim" with a little more precision.

I'll see if I can dig up some more info on it, but you might very well be correct.

[Armor at the Beginning of Barbarossa]

In RL, the magazine can be changed at any point. You do not have to fire all of it in order to change to another magazine, regardless of the type of ammunition it is housing.

So, since the PzII has a 10 round magazine, you could technically fire 10 seperate shots (semi-auto, or 5 two round bursts on automatic, or even combinations). At any point during this firing, theoretically, the gunner could tell the loader to change the magazine. This was one of the few tanks which did not HAVE to "combat unload" in order to load either a different type of ammunition, or a fresh round/magazine - for whatever reason.

Within the context of the game, I'm not sure as to whether or not this level of detail is covered.

Yes, guns/tanks etc. can currently switch from one type of ammo to another.

The question is, are they "combat unloading" whatever they have currently loaded, or (at least in the case of field guns and magazine fed main guns on tanks) are they unloading a round/magazine, and then loading a new round/magazine of a different type?

(ex.loaded HE, unloaded completely and then loaded AP)

Again, all of this might be "too detailed" and beyond the scope of the game; I'm not sure.

As for 20mm AP-40/Pzgr40/(APCR), It would be nice to have this available during the early years of the war in the East.

I still wonder though, that as of June 22nd 1941 just how available this type of ammunition was for use by either the tank mounted KwK30 L/55 or the anti-aircraft Flak30/Flak38 guns respectively? If it were "rare" then that should obviously be reflected in the game - were 20mm AP-40 to be available at all.

[Optics in CMBB - how are they better?]

Wow!!

Thanks for the responses guys. Yet another feature of CMBB I can't wait to see.

I found it interesting that discussion of Panzer Elite cropped up. I have that game as well, and I found the optics to be a little misleading.

In particular, many German optics were capeable of being "set" to a given range. Comparing the size of the target to the triangles was only part of the sights functionality (that helped the gunner correctly tell/guesstimate range to target).

Being able to apply the range to the sight and then aim accordingly (which inadvertently applies elevation or depression of the gun) is what really makes them usefull in combat, and gave them an edge over "fixed" optics, fixed meaning that no range could be "set" per-say, through using a dial, but set by the use of fixed calibrations on the reticle pattern, which denoted different ranges.

One of the best representations of this which I personally have seen lately, is from...dare I say it...gulp..."World War Two Online".

To illustrate, look at these two screenshots taken from the PzIIIF's "TZF5a" optical sight which was 2.4x magnified within a 25° field of view.

As you can see, the first screenshot shows a target at 200m, but the sight is "set" to "0"m.

Whereas the second screenshot shows how the sight is now set (accurately) at 200m

Notice the pointer at the top indicating the applied range setting to the sight (and therefore main gun).

Setting the sight, essentially entails elevating or depressing the sight, and its respective sight picture. So, using an example based off of the screenshots above, were the gunner to fire the main gun at a target which was 200m away, with his sight set to 0m, the shot would fall noticeably short. In order to place the main gun, which is "linked" to the sight "on target" or at least, on what appears to be "on-taget", the gunner actually lowers the main gun, while the reticle pattern is now "on the target".

Once the gunner sets his sight for a range of 200m, the reticle pattern lowers/depresses. The gunner then has to elevate the main gun, in order to place the reticle pattern "on target", which concurrently places the main gun on target. When the gunner fires now, the round WILL hit the target.

Long winded, but there you have it.

What I would like to know is if there is any hope (or need really) to reflect the German use of Notek Lighting system in their guns, and how that may have contributed to increasing their ability to fire accurately at night. That could have some interesting ramifications if modeled, but perhaps it is delving too much into infinite detail.

Food for thought perhaps.

It is good to know though, that now vehicles/weapons and the like which use optics, will function off of "rated" optics, which will dictate their functionality in battle. I'm curious to see as to what degree this might off-set the "hive mind", as that unto its self marks a complete change in the way players will be able to commi forces into battle.

I don't even have this game yet and I can't stop thinking about it.

[Optics in CMBB - how are they better?]

Okay - I did a search, and could not find anything immeadiately relevant to my question.

What I want to know is what was changed to the optics in CMBB? How will they be "better" than what we currently have in CMBO?

I recall reading something a while back (that I foolishly didn't bookmark), which briefly touched on this topic.

Essentially, the jist of what I remember, was that CMBB optics will play alot more on the fog of war, and that range will now actually be a benefit for weapons which were designed to make use of it (like the Nashorn or Elephant for instance).

Anti-tank guns, and Tank Destroyers will finally be able to use range so as to stand off from the enemy, or ambush him without fear of being immediately compromised and then honed in on by the "hive mind".

I just can't recall all of the specifics.

Can anyone help?

[Armor at the Beginning of Barbarossa]

Most versions of the PzII's gun we will likely see, will be the KwK30 L/55, 20mm automatic cannon (as opposed to the 20mm KwK38 L/55 automatic cannon).

The KwK30 is essentially the same gun as the Flak30 anti-aircraft gun, only it was modified to fit inside a tank.

The Flak30 had a cyclic rate of 280 rounds per minute, though its practical rate of fire is closer to 120 rounds per minute. As the KwK30 is essentially the same gun, I would imagine that its quite safe to use the same stats for it too.

The KwK30 was fed by a 10 round magazine (as the 20 round magazine as used in the anti-aircraft gun is too large to fit in the crampt turret).

I read somewhere, but can't remember or locate where, that PzII crews often loaded their magazines with a staggered load of both HE and AP.

In any event, the gun can fire HE, AP and AP-40. Like the anti-aircraft gun, the Flak30, the KwK30 had two triggers. The trigger on the left was for automatic fire, while the one on the right was for semi-automatic fire. The gun could be fired in bursts by holding the automatic trigger briefly (as opposed to the whole 10 round duration of the magazine).

I don't believe that there are any anti-aircraft guns or tanks in CMBO which mount either the Flak30 or the KwK30, as the period in the war CMBO spans (1944-45) saw the employment of the Flak30/KwK30's successor, the Flak38 (AAA) and KwK38 (tank main armament).

So, the rate of fire we saw in CMBO for the Flak38/KwK38 guns was;

Cyclic RoF - 420-480 rpm

Practical RoF - 180 - 220 rpm

The bottom line is, that we should expect to see a slower rate of fire for the German early war 20mm guns, if RoF is actually modeled (I'm not sure on that one).

The statistical information comes from Pp.144-146 of Ian V. Hogg's "German Artillery of World War Two".

What I would still like to know is - if 20mm AP-40 or Pzgr40 (APCR) was used frequently enough that we should see it in the game. I posed this question a few months back in a thead called;

"Panzer II in CMBB - AP-40/Pzgr40 available?".

That sure would add an interesting edge to the KwK30.

Hope that helped a little.

[Anti-tank gun formations available for purchase in CMBB?]

I'm still reading on about anti-tank weapons, for both the Germans and the Russians, and again - how both sides used concentrated formations of anti-tank guns with the intent of creating insurmountable kill zones with respect to each others tanks.

As I mentioned above, one might be able to throw together an ad-hoc anti-tank formation of this nature in the editor, where they would use an Infantry headquarters unit co-located with a few guns.

However - it is not currently possible to construct such a force in a quick battle - and it should be.

In a hypothetical CMBB Quick Battle, if you were on the defensive, and chose an Infantry based force, defending against either a mechanized or armoured opponent, would this not be a viable, if not highly desireable option?

Would it not make sense to allow for batteries as individual formations, so that their inherent commander might be able to better influence their conduct in battle?

A battery of guns, regardless of type, can take up a considerable amount of room on the ground. A batteries' Commander is still able to effectively conduct their operations, and for the most part conduct those operations as a single unit, rather than as individual guns. While I don't expect (or want) on-board field artillery batteries to be able to conduct fire missions, I would like to see an entire battery of field guns brought onto one (direct fire) target, or as seperate targets (player's/"commander's choice) in a scenario where enemy armour or Infantry has come into direct view of the battery its self.

Obviously - this idea is more geared to anti-tank gun batteries, but as you can see its availability to other types of artillery would also make sense, including possibly - anti-aircraft artillery, which might have its own ramifications.

Anyhow - I still think this idea has merit and deserves consideration.

From a lamen's perspective, it doesn't seem like a terribly difficult or undeserving feature to add within the game. But thats cause I don't know jack about coding.

[Eastern Front book recommendations]

I recently have begun reading Peter G. Tsouras' "Panzers on the Eastern Front", and found it quite interesting, that the same story in reference to the obstinate KV was covered, as seen in Robert Kershaw's "War Without Garlands: Operation Barbarossa 1941/42".

Tsouras' story, covers a few more different/new interesting details, including the specific tank type in question. According to him - the Heavy Russian Tank covering the bridge, which has caused the Germans so much trouble, was indeed a KV-1 in case anyone was interested.

[Anti-tank gun formations available for purchase in CMBB?]

Well, I think that being able to purchase elements of formations - could be an interesting addition to the game.

Perhaps not allowing the availability of such elements past the platoon level (or battery with repspect to the artillery) might be prudent.

It would be kind of nice to click on a battalion, and then be able to eliminate different elements of it, with the intent allowing players to quickly be able to construct understrength formations OR to single out sub-units (like anti-tank guns for instance) in order to centre either a scenario or a "force" around them. I do think that this kind of unit manipulation, might be better off being constrained to the platoon level of each respective component of a larger formation.

So, within the context of a Battalion as an example, you could either eliminate an entire company altogether or knock the given company down to one platoon, but you could not break it down into individual sections.

I think a modular appraoch like this might be easier to implement, and easier to work with. One day there might very well be an option to further breakdown units into sections, or perhaps even teams or fire teams, but for the moment I don't think that kind of detail is really necessary or worth the development time.

I could be wrong though - thoughts anyone?

[Eastern Front book recommendations]

Well - regardless of whether the tank in "War Without Garlands" was either a KV-1 or KV-2, it still proved a tough nut to crack by this account. Within the context of CMBB, until I have access to later model 75mm guns, I imagine I'll likely hold my breath every time I see a KV crop up on the battlefield.

Scares me a little to imagine what one of either of those tanks is going to do to my precious panzers. :eek:

I just recieved my copy of "Panzers on the Eastern Front: General Erhard Raus and his Panzer Divisions in Russia", edited by Peter G. Tsouras. I haven't had a chance to read it yet, as I've got M.K.Barbier's "Kursk: The Greatest Tank Battle 1943" on the go. From what I've read above, it sounds like I'll enjoy it.

From what I've read out of "Kursk: The Greatest Tank Battle", I'd have to say that it is a fairly deceptive book. It has the appearence of being one of those books, full of lots of pictures with little substance. Fortunately, you indeed can't always judge a book by its cover, as this one is in my opinion quite well done. Its is not equal to David Glantz's level of detail, but is still well written, full of enough details to adequately tell the story, and it does have some rather cool pictures complemented by interesting if not informative captions too.

Military Book Club - curse or blessing?

I guess that all depends on whether or not 9'er Domestic (the wife) sees how many books I've been ordering lately.

[Eastern Front book recommendations]

I recently finished Robert J. Kershaw's "War Without Garlands: Operation Barbarossa 1941/42".

It is simillar to Gottlob Herbert Biddermann's "In Deadly Combat: A German Soldier's Memoir of the Eastern Front", which was mentioned above. Its not someone's memoirs, but does recount the opening stages of Operation Barbarossa through a series of eye-witness accounts. The book's general discussion is heavily augmented by these accounts. I don't think the book intends to be so much a definitive source on Operation Barbarossa, as it is trying to make the war more personal.

To give you an example, here is an excerpt;

pp.68/69

"An unpleasent surprise for the supremely confident Panzer troops was the quality of some of the Soviet equipments they soon faced.

On the Second Day of the Campaign, in the 6th Panzer Division sector, 12 German supply trucks were knocked out, one after the other, by a solitary unidentified Soviet heavy tank. The vehicle sat astride the road south of the River Dubysa near Rossieny. Further beyond, two German combat teams had already established bridgeheads on the other side of the river. They were about to be engaged in the first major tank battle of the eastern campaign. Their urgent resupply requirements had already been destroyed. Rutted muddy approaches and a nearby forest infested with bands of stay-behind Russian infantry negated any option to bypass. The Russian tank had to be eliminated. A battery of medium 50mm German anti-tank guns was sent forward to force the route.

The guns were skilfully manhandled by their crews through close terrain up to within 600m of their intended target. Three red-hot tracer-based sheks spat out at 823m/sec, smacking into the tank with rapid and resounding 'plunks' one after the other. At first there was cheering but the crews became concerned as these and another five rounds spun majestically into the air as they ricocheted off the armour of the unknown tank type. Its turret came to life and remorselesly traversed in their direction. Within minutes the entire battery was silenced by a lethal succession of 76mm HE shecks that tore into them. Casualties were heavy.

Meanwhile a well cammoflaged 88mm Flak gun carefully crept forward, slowly towed by its half-track tractor, winding its way among cover provided by the 12 burnt-out German trucks strewn about the road. It got to within 900m of the Soviet tank before a further 76mm round spat out, spinning the gun into a roadside ditch. The crew, caught in the act of manhandling the trails into position, were mown down by a swathe of coaxial machine gun fire. Every sheck fired by the Russian tank appeared to be a strike. Nothing moved until nightfall when, under the cover of darkness, it was safe enought to recover the dead and wounded and salvage some of the knocked out equipments.

An inconclusive raid was mounted that night by assault engineers who managed to attatch two demolition charges onto this still, as yet, unidentified tank type. Both charges exploded, but retaliatory turret fire confirmed the tank was still in action. Three attacks had failed. Dive-bomber support was requested but not available. A fourth attack plan was developed involving a further 88mm Flak gun, supported this time by light Panzers which were to feint and provide covering fire in a co-ordinated daylight operation.

Panzers, utilizing tree cover, skirmished forward and began to engage the solitary tank from three directions. This confused the Russian tank which, in attempting to duel with these fast-moving and fleeting targets, was struck in the rear by the newly positioned 88mm Flak gun. Three rounds bore into the hull at over 1,000m/sec. The turret traversed rearward and stopped. There was no sign of an explosion or fire so a further four rounds smashed remorselesly into the apparently helpless target. Spent ricochets spun white-hot to the ground followed by the metallic signatures of direct impacts. Unexpectedly the Soviet gun barrel abruptly jerked skyward. With the engagement over at last, the nearest German troops moved forward to inspect their victim.

Excited and chattering they clambered aboard the armoured colossus. They had never seen such a tank before. Suddenly the turret began to rotate again and the soldiers frantically scattered. Two engineers had the presence of mind to drop two stick grenades into the interior of the tank, through one of the holes pierced by the shot at the base of the turret. Muffled explosions followed and the turret hatch clattered open with an exhalation of smoke. Peering inside the assualt engineers could just make out the mutilated remains of the crew. This single tank had blocked forward replenishment to the 6th Panzer Division vanguard for 48 hours. Only two 88mm shecks actually penetrated the armour; five others had gouged deep dents. Eight carbonised blue marks were the only indication of 50mm gun impacts. There was no trace at all of the supporting Panzer strikes, many of which had clearly been seen to hit.

The nature of the enemy armoured threat had irretrievably altered. General Halder wrote in his diary that night: 'New heavy enemy tank!...a new feature in the sectors of Army Group South and Army Group North is the new heavy Russian tanks, reportedly to be armed with 8cm guns and, according to another but untrustworthy observation from Army Group North, even 15cm guns'

This was the KV-1 (Klim Voroshilov) which mounted a 76.2mm gun. Its sister variant the KV-2, although more unwieldly, did have a 15cm gun[actually its 15.2cm]...."

The whole book is pretty much like that, one astounding story after another, I really enjoyed it. If this peaked your interest, then you'd definitely enjoy the other 254 pages of the book.

[ July 25, 2002, 12:07 AM: Message edited by: Little_Black_Devil ]

[Anti-tank gun formations available for purchase in CMBB?]

Thanks for the detailed responses guys!

I know that, you can place an Infantry Platoon Commander in close proximity to an individul AT-Gun, or group of individual guns, and thereby provide the guns with ad-hoc leadership, so as to lend them all of the benefits of being within the command radius of an HQ unit.

I also know that, the expensive way to bring a "complete" anti-tank unit onto the battlefield, would be to purchase it, as an inseparable component of a larger formation (like a Battalion for instance).

I'd just like to see goups of anti-tank guns available in smaller units, available separately from larger formations, and provided with their own integral command unit. Additional security might also be either an option, or a task for other units to fufil.

Imagine if you were about to play a Quick Battle, for about 500 Points. You are on the defensive using an Infantry based force, and the enemy is on the offensive, using a mechanized or armoured force.

Now imagine being able to "purchase" an anti-tank battery, or even a troop of guns with its associated commander. Then, you purchse the rest of your force, which might comprise of some Infantry and some (off-board, indirect) artillery support.

The effect, of the enemy's mechanized or armoured formation getting cought within your kill zone would be a real treat! :eek:

Certainly, this could be used as a tool within the game to teach novice players about the benefits of reconaissance.

The intent here, is not to convey an Infantry Platoon or Company, with a Battery of AT-Guns in support, but rather a Battery of Guns with a Platoon or Company of Infantry in support.

I don't think we always need to include every unit within a battalion for a given battle, just so we can enjoy the luxury of a dedicated anti-tank gun commander.

What if you just want a company sized action? Well, thats never been a problem for the Infantry, just purchase a Company of Infantry and carry on. CMBB will take this concept to the next level with tanks, where tank will now be available as either formtaions OR as individuals.

Why not do the same for AT-Guns?

Yes, they usually belonged to larger formations, but so did tanks. They also were used as reserves to fill the gaps. I'm insinuating that they did at times, move around, and bring themselves into action with little or no immediate support. A perfect (albeit simplified) example of this, was during the Battle of Kursk, where the seemingly endless supply of Russian anti-tank guns moved into gaps to fill them as they were occuring. Much of the time, they were replacing simillar sized formations, usually augmented by some other means of local defence (like machine guns and in particular, anti-tank rifles).

The idea of concentrating anti-tank guns, is discussed in great detail with regards to the Russian anti-tank strong point or PTOP (Protivontankovye Opornye Punkty) in "The Battle For Kursk 1943: The Soviet General Staff Study" by David M. Glantz and Harold S. Orenstein on pages 35-38, 44, 50, 121, 178-180, 299, 301-302 and 314-316.

It is also briefly covered in "German Panzer Tactics in World War II: Combat Tactics of German Armored Units from Section to Regiment" by Charles C. Sharp, as part of the Battlefront Bookshelf's "Nafziger Collection" on pages 81 and 82, where simillar groupings of anti-tank guns were refered to as a "PakFront" or as "Paknests".

These concentrations did occur, without their respective "parent" formations always being present. Thats why I think we should be able to purchase either individual anti-tank guns or units of them - to represent anti-tank guns as formations in their own right, not just as support tools.

Assuming anti-tank guns were made available in this fashion, I would suggest, for the benefit of scenarios dealing with penetrations in depth (which might see field artillery batteries being overrun), that the same option be made available to them (field artillery guns) as well.

Thanks again for your comments.

[Anti-tank gun formations available for purchase in CMBB?]

I did a search and found nothing related to this, I appologize in advance if its already been covered.

What I'd like to know, is will we be able to "purchase" anti-tank guns in CMBB like we will be able to with Tanks - i.e., in formations as opposed to as individual units?

I suppose I can always "borrow" some poor platoon commander, and perhaps even press his associated platoon into the local defence of a few individual guns grouped together - so that more importantly, the guns have some sort of command element.

Still - this is a piecemeal solution, and indeed nothing says that the platoon commander's troops HAVE to stay with him.

The reason I'm curious to see whether or not we will have access to anti-tank gun formations, is related to some reading I've been doing lately about the Battle of Kursk in particular.

Something that has cought my eye, is a tactic used by both sides, which saw their anti-tank guns employed en-masse, and in dead ground. They would also be under the direction of a single command element, who would delegate a common target for ALL of the guns to fire at, quickly killing any tank or tanks which happened accross this deadly little web.

I think it would be useful for all on-board artillery units (and anti-tank artillery units in particular) to actually have their associated command units with them, which could delegate targets for the whole of the formation. In short - I think it would make sense to make artillery and anti-tank artillery units (as opposed to individual guns) available for "purchase", or use within the game - in addition to the currently available individual guns.

Surely, a battery of anti-tank guns could prove more usefull in some situations, than the same amount of individual guns through the existence of a dedicated command element? Would it not be feasible for a given commander to delegate targets to his battery to engage?

Individual guns should still be available, I just think the option to "purchase" a formation of guns would have its own benefits.

Aside from the additional variety, and perhaps versatility of units, I also think that the availability of Batteries of guns, would make the prospect of scenarios entailing penetrations into an enemy's rear a little more interesting, if not clourful.

Does this interest anyone else?

Thanks

[Pistol Ports]

I pretty much figured as much.

I DO look forward to those rear firing MG's in the Soviet KV's though. I may not get my pistol ports....but I WILL get my "bragginf rights" from one of these puppies...even if it costs me my tank

Thanks Fionn

[Pistol Ports]

LOL, Hi Mike!

Thanks for the feedback Doug.

[Pistol Ports]

I was reading another post here - and the question occured to me;

Are pistol ports actually rendered (and used) wihtin CMBO? I don't think they are.

I can't think of any AFV's which still had them by 1944 which are in CMBO - but I could be wrong.

Most importantly - I relate this to CMBB;

If pistol ports are not available as yet - might they be in CMBB, or a patch perhaps?

Or is really worth the effort?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think pistol ports actually did a lot to provide a tank with any fearsome means of local defence. It would still be nice to see though.

I recall a few scenes out of a IHF video I have called "Men Against Tanks and Engineers to the Front", where you actually see an example of when a pistol port would have been used. While the acting was "hokey" to say the least, it was still interesting to watch - I mean after all, this was a training video of sorts. Perhaps pistol ports actually were something to be feared after all?

I have to admit - that while I will likely lose the battle only to have my face rubbed in it, all I want is bragging rights after one of my tank crewman cap some cocky enemy Infantryman attempting a close assault; by way of the pistol port.

Then I'd be cool - oh yea! :cool:

Who needs a major victory when I've got a pistol port kill.

So what does everyone else think, 'am I right out of 'er on this one or what?

[ July 17, 2002, 07:27 PM: Message edited by: Little_Black_Devil ]

[Bone, please! Are the full-game movie replays in CMBB yet?]

Well - thats too bad, but I understand.

I'm still gonna have fun when I finally get my copy - even if I do get blowed up by "mysterious" forces.

I will be looking forward to the re-write though.

[Bone, please! Are the full-game movie replays in CMBB yet?]

I'm gonna come outa the woodwork on this one.

I really think that this would be a very impressive feature to the game. What a welcome complementary addition to your AAR's.

How many people have ever played a game, which they spent as much, if not more time recounting their "war stories" as they did actually playing the damn game?

Surely - the ability to view the whole mission would be food for much of this (friendly) "after game banter".

Its use as a learning tool seems kind of self explanatory. Having reached the coveted rank of "target drone" myself, I really would like to see a complete picture at the end of it all - just to see what killed me and how. Needless to say - I'll be making extensive use of the feature should it make it in.

As for HD space - I really don't think thats a concern. You don't see "IL-2 Sturmovik" players crying about the HD space taken up by their saved missions now do you? Just like any saved game - you can delete it if you don't want it anymore.

It might be worthwhile adding an additional feature, which allows players to view the film in one of three ways;

The first way, would allow players to see ALL units, from both sides. The other two views, would be from each of the sides respectively (as you or your opponent saw the battle).

Alternately, perhaps a single means of delivering the film, with some sort of graphical enhancement (shading, or glowing) of units, to indicate that they were not seen, or know about by one side or the other.

In any event - I do think - is that it should be an option, players should have the ability to choose to use or not - and I do hope that it makes the deadline for CMBB.

[Questions on 75mm L/24 ammunition for the early Panzer IV's]

Well - I was able to track down a web-site which I had bookmarked a while back, but it ended up getting shut down.

LUCKILY!!

It was archived. I'm sure most of you will probably remember; Guns vs Armour 1939 to 1945

In any event - while isn't quite as stable as it was when it was actually running, it is still for the most part accessible.

Most importantly, I found this passage;

The Gr.38 Hl entered service in June 1940. The service dates of later patterns of German HEAT projectiles are unknown.

Some clues can be gleaned from Hogg in German Artillery of World War Two where he says of the original Gr.38 Hl design that “…few were used since it was soon replaced by the improved model Hl/A.” I can speculate that the late model Gr.38 Hl/C was used very late in the war because it was developed for so few weapons; nearly all German HEAT projectiles are either Gr.38 Hl/A or Gr.38 Hl/B.

which came from this archived page;

HEAT Projectiles

Anyhow - while not conclusive, it is interesting to note Ian V. Hogg's comments regarding the Gr.38 HL.

[Questions on 75mm L/24 ammunition for the early Panzer IV's]

Wow - thaks guys.

I guess - the evidence and or sources suggest that its more likely that the K.Gr.rot.Pz was an APCBC round.

If there were an APHE round for the L/24 gun, then I imagine it was likely phased out of service before Barbarossa. I wonder if it saw any action during the war - or moreover, IF it actually existed at all?

Aside from that - I'am still curious as to the availability and implementation of the respective Hollow Charge/HEAT rounds for the L/24 gun and which one(s) would have likely been the "standard" HEAT round then available. Aside from that - who (which types of tanks/assault guns) would have carried them?

[Questions on 75mm L/24 ammunition for the early Panzer IV's]

Your absolutely correct wwb_99.

Sorry if I came accross as saying that the PzIIIN was developed as an exlusive anti-armour platform - thats not what I was trying to say.

My intent was to illustrate what I'am aware of; as the first (and perhaps easiest to find) obvious widespread employment of the hollow charge/HEAT round with the intent of its use in the anti-armour role. Thats not to say that the PzIIIN was designed as an anti-armour asset (not at all), but rather the HEAT rounds it was being equipt with (more as general practice) were intended to give it a fighting chance in tank vs. tank combat, IF the PzIIIN found itself in a situation where it was faced against enemy armour. (Not that it sought out enemy armour)

These HEAT rounds were substantially more effective than the underpowered 75mm L/24 APCBC rounds against armour. I just wonder when the Germans realized this and made a concious decision to employ the hollow charge rounds as anti-armour weapons, and which 75mm L/24 armed vehicles would have recieved these rounds with the anti-armour capabilities in mind.

Now, in the case of the early PzIV's which were armed with the 75mm L/24 at the begining of Barbarossa - would they likely have been armed with these "newer" HEAT rounds like the Gr.38 HL/B and C, or would they have been limited to the older HEAT rounds like the Gr.38 HL and/or HL/A? Thats ultimately what I'm after, which is - did the L/24 armed PzIV's carry HEAT rounds as general practice when Barbarosa began, with the intent of using them in the anti-armour role? Or had the necessity for these rounds to be used as anti-armour weapons yet to evolve?

Wow - did I just make that way too complicating or what?

[Questions on 75mm L/24 ammunition for the early Panzer IV's]

Thats entirely possible. Seems difficult to actually confirm though.

I find it interesting however, that the PzIIIN for instance, was fitted with the 75mm L/24 gun to provide a fighting platform which could throw around the very effective 75mm HE round, while also having access to the more modern and successful HEAT rounds (like the HL/B and C). These "newer" HEAT rounds, either had surpassed or were surpassing the 50mm L/60 AP rounds penetration capability, and were seen as a welcome addition to the front in order to help deal with the ever menacing T-34. This had to have counted on the supply of HEAT rounds for the L/24 gun were being steadily available, as even the 75mm L/24 Pzgr39 (APCBC) round was not effective enough to realistically deal with T-34's.

I imagine that this is the first "real" advent of widespread HEAT rounds with the exclusive intent for use in the anti-armour role, and - the answer to part of my question here. I just can't seem to clearly confirm it.

I think maybe I need to get my hands on some of Ian V. Hogg's older books which deal with some related subject matter.

The people at Amazon.com/Amazon.ca must love me.

In any event, earlier HEAT rounds may have existed in service - and been used even as early as 1940. I also imagine, that these rounds were more likely to have been limited to StuG's with their availability being quite rare, and their use being intended for bunkers and other hard targets - but not exclusively as anti-armour weapons.

Thats all conjecture though - based off of more of those darned anecdotes.

[Battlefront Bookshelf looks a little empty ;)]

Hic up :eek: Cut back on the beer!

Time to take the empties back for refund so I can do both.

[ July 10, 2002, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: Little_Black_Devil ]

[Questions on 75mm L/24 ammunition for the early Panzer IV's]

Originally posted by Pak40;

Have you looked in the Handbook of German Military Forces? My copy is at home, I will give it a look when I get home tonight. But, my personal opinion is that there was a AP round for this gun, although it wouldn't be very effective because of the low velocity. They did make a HEAT round but I have no idea when it became available.

Yup, I checked my copy of the good 'ol "Handbook" - no dice. I know for certain that the low velocity 75mm L/24 gun did fire an AP round, I'm just not exactly sure what exactly it was at this stage of the war (K.Gr.rot.Pz or Pzgr39? - AP/APC or APCBC?).

I also know that this gun had access to hollow charge rounds (like the Gr.38 HL/A or Gr.38 H1/A). What I don't know, is specifically what type of Hollow Charge/HEAT round would have been issued during the opening stages of Barbarossa - and in particular, if these rounds were only issued to assault guns or the L/24 armed PzIV's.

I guess these aren't exactly the types of questions which can easily be answered by any single comprehensive source.

Anyone know these answers?

[Battlefront Bookshelf looks a little empty ;)]

The "Nafziger Collection" went down like an ice cold beer on a hot summer's day....well almost.

If only I could get good books at the beer store I'd be set.

Anyways, I'm just wondering when the Battlefront Bookshelf might be updated/added too, and (though unlikely), if its possible for some advance notice as to specifically whats next or coming soon.

Thanks

[Anyone know anything about a telescopic sight on the Flak38?]

Wow!

Thanks for the Info guys.

I have a copy of a British wartime intelligence document which identified the sight as being 8x magnification, but that was about the extent of how detailed it got in reference to the specific sight. The same document was quite explicit about the Flakvisier 35, Flakviser 38 and the Linealvisier 21 as they pertained to both the Flak30 and Flak38/Flakvierling38 respectively. My copy of the U.S. War Department's "Handbook on German Military Forces" didn't mention this sight - or any other ground role specific sight for any anti-aircraft gun.

M Hofbauer, Where might I find mention of the Erdzielgerät or Erdzielfernrohr?

Any book, periodical or other historical abstract which contains data detailed enough so as to provide this kind of obscure information goes straight to "my must have" list.

Thanks again.

[ June 25, 2002, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: Little_Black_Devil ]