The DesertFox

Since Dick mentioned Washington Something to think about: Of all the great heroes of War for Independence, no one has been more persistently ignored than General Friedrich Wilhelm Von Steuben. The majority of history books and textbooks in American classrooms devote little space to this great man. What is even more distressing is that when questioned, we find that today's students know hardly anything about this remarkable individual. But upon investigation of the cold facts surrounding the victory of independence, no other individual besides Washington showed such ability, perseverance and devotion to the great cause of liberty than Von Steuben. It was the veteran Von Steuben who trained the army, created it's discipline, prepared it's victories, and subsequently identified himself closely with the new born republic as a public-spirited citizen. It is safe to say that with out Von Steuben's invaluable assistance, experience and wise counsel, the history of our country might perhaps read very differently. General Von Steuben has never been given adequate credit for the tremendous service he rendered our country. A true American in every sense of the word, he should be remembered as one of the most heroic figures in American history. Quote from: http://www.steubensociety.org/monum.html Cheers Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

Lindan, A MUST SEE is the Bastogne Historical Center on the N874 to Longvilly. Don´t miss the Museum in Clerveaux (Clerf). It´s in the old castle and worth a visit. IIRC they have a ko´ed Sherman and a PAK 43/41 there. Furthermore have a look at the Panther G at Grandmenil (west of Manhay) And perhaps at the Panther at Houffalize. Have FUN Cheers Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

If you´re interested in the actual colours used by the factories and by the units in field this might help you: Furthermore visit Geoff Waldens site http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Barracks/1525/panzercolors.htm Cheers Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891 [This message has been edited by The DesertFox (edited 10-10-2000).]

Tom, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"The Tiger I and Tiger II could open fire for effect at 1200 meters and 2000 meters respectively. At greater ranges, bracketing was to be employed with jumps of 200 to 400 meters, switching to fire when within 100 meters of an armoured target. On practice range, an average Tiger I was expected to hit the target by the fourth round at 1200 to 2000 meters. Exceptional individual Tiger I's had scored hits against stationary tanks at 2500 meters and concentrated platoon firing could be used against targets at 3000 meters. The Tiger II could fire at stationary targets at 4000 meters. The same applies to moving targets for both Tigers." from: http://redrival.com/leibstandarte/fire.htm source: Jentz?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> saw you asking...yes the above text is a Jentz quote. This and much more can be found in : "Germany's Tiger Tanks : Tiger I & II : Combat Tactics" by Thomas L. Jentz (February 1997) Schiffer Publishing, Ltd.; ISBN: 0764302256 Chapter 7 pages 8 - 22 "Operational Characteristics" Cheers Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

Hi, It´s the tank of the unit commander of heavy tank batallion 507 on the Eastfront 1944. Schwere Panzerabteilung 507 used the A B and C for it´s staff tanks. Cheers Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And don't underestimate the power of the 17lbr. It is a very capable weapon and is a match for the 88L/56. This is realistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh yes it is. A deadly gun! And BTS is doing good if you have it in the same group as the 88L56 and the 75L70. Cheers Helge PS: I hope this thread remains as constructive as it is. ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

Tom, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BUT is it accurate or is it (as I suspect) the smae as the Jentz source that has been debated for historical accuracy in the 88 lacking punch thread?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you trust the german Waffenpruefamt it is accurate, well at least this data is primary data, recorded by Waffenpruefamt, the testconditions are recorded (everyone who want´s to see them can do this, most of the documents can be found at the Bundesarchiv Freiburg) The dataset is open to peer review. It´s everyone´s free decision to trust he, who has the most expertise in the field. I assume german engineers who conducted the tests back then knew what they did. To clarify this: ALL figures which are published in Thomas Jentz books are original primary source Waffenpruefamt data. He doesn´t crank the data out himself as some folks here obviously seem to believe. Cheers Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

Tom, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Can anyone comment on the accuracy and authenticity of this source and these data?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As I have already mentioned the data is Waffenpruefamt data and published in "Germany's Tiger Tanks : Tiger I & II : Combat Tactics" by Thomas L. Jentz (February 1997) Schiffer Publishing, Ltd.; ISBN: 0764302256 and "Germany's Panther Tank the Quest for Combat Supremacy : Development - Modifications - Rare Variants - Characteristics - Combat Accounts" by Thomas L Jentz (October 1995) Schiffer Publishing, Ltd.; ISBN: 0887408125 Really nothing new. Cheers Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891 [This message has been edited by The DesertFox (edited 10-06-2000).]

Tom, here you are. On this site you will find the Waffenpruefamt data for Tiger IE and II. http://redrival.com/leibstandarte/fire.htm And here you find the Waffenpruefamt data for the Panther. http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891/pzpanther/pzpanther-Charakteristics.html Or if you want to have a look at US/UK/RUSSIAN etc data too, hop to David Honners site. Here´s his 88-Accuracy site: http://www.wargamer.org/GvA/weapons/german_accuracy7.html Cheers Helge BTW: This stuff is published in the Jentz publications about TigerI&II and in his Panther book ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891 [This message has been edited by The DesertFox (edited 10-06-2000).]

Interesting report. The gunner must have been either "Puck die Stubenfliege", suffering from Hypovitaminosis A, or have been drunk to achieve such an outstanding performance Cheers Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

Hmmm how nice and warm it is here OK back to the topic: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>WAS THERE ANY HELP IN THE AMERICAN SIGHTS TO DETERMINE RANGE ? YES OR NO ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Danielh, Of course the US/UK sights had rangefinders, that isn´t the point here. Neither is it the point if one side or the other had a higher acurracy below 1000m due to their optics. I think we all can agree (can we ?) that quality of optics below 1000m did not influence acurracy, at least not enough to be quantificable in game terms. The question is: Were both sides able to exactly measure the distance of the target with help of their optics up to...let´s say 3000m ? Or was one side limited in their ability to measure target distance due to the limitation of their rangefinder equipment ? If this limitation was existant you have a difference which can be modelled. This difference is between exactly measuring target distance and guessing target distance or braketing. Only thing we need is to agree that exact measurement of target distance is more exact than guessing/braketing. Furthermore we need someone who knows how the US/UK optics worked and if it was possible with them to measure target distance up to 3000m. Isn´t this stuff published somewhere ? Cheers Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

Hi, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Panzertaktik German Small-Unit Armor Tactics by Wolfgang Schneider (Fedorowicz publishing)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The best book on german WW2 Panzertaktik ever ! Strongly recommended as everything written by Wolfgang Schneider. He was Tankbatallion CO in the Bundeswehr and knows what he is talking about. Cheers Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

Cav, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think more important is at what range did a gunner START to use the range finding device. Beyond that range is when you would worry about "optical" sight quality.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That isn´t that hard. Look at one of the FIBELN how german gunners aquired the target and range. The guns were calibrated at 1000m and due to the flat trajectory of the 88s and the 75L70 it doesn´t matter if one engages a target at 800 or 900 metres. If one aimes exactly middle of the target between turret and hull one scores a hit. Nevertheless does the gunner have to measure the exact distance of the target, for that purpose he has the triangles. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If all other things were equal, perhaps. But we know this is not the case. Even if German and Allied optics were EXACTLY equal, the Germans, for the most part, would be more accurate because their guns fired in such a way as to be more lenient because of round trajectory.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is correct because of the flat trajectory of the gun. It doesn´t matter if the target is at 800 or 900 metres. Exact measurement of the range becomes the more important the more the trajectory of the projectile is less than flat. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So I take it you are no longer debating for better optical QUALITY in German sights but for a better range finder?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That goes hand in hand, but it doesn´t play a role at short distances. The farer away the target and the more exact the optic including the rangefinder (which is part of the optic), the higher is the propability to hit the target. German optics allowed to measure distance up to 4000 metres (dependant on ammo used, see above) which allowed EXACT targeting at maximum ranges. So you see, if one optic has the rangefinding equipment for long ranges and the other has not it´s not the question if you can see the target through your optic, but if you can measure the distance to your target at all or if you have to rely on trained guessing (which can be mostly exact for an elite crew, but without doubt would not be as exact as measurement would be) Bottomline is that the rangefinding mechanism which is build in the optics makes the difference between a hit and a near miss. And this hit very often decided about life and death. So as I already stated, first find out until which distance you can exactly measure and then try to quantify the difference between distance measurement and distance guessing. And this quantification will be the hard job. cheers Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>ahh, but that is assuming that the data was indeed for a 9.5kg projectile! (petitio principii?)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sure, pure guesswork and nothing more do I say. <G> Same applies of course to the propellant charge stuff. However, as it seems to me, it was possible to optain the same (nearly) penetration with a lighter projectile fired with a lower muzzle velocity. Now how can you compensate the shorter barrel and heavier projectile of the 88L71? With a higher amount of propellant charge ? Or am I off the mark here ? Cheers Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

Markus, Only 2 short remarks [i´m still digging through my bookshelf ] However, why I asked for FLAK 41L74 data: Hogg states that the FLAK 41L74 projectile was 100% identical with the FLAK 18/36 L56 projectile. They only changed the cartridge cases which makes sense if you want to reach the "Aussenballistik of a 12,8cm FLAK", furthermore as we all know the FLAK 41 was totally different gundesign. Interesting sideremark, the SpGrPatr, which was fired from the 88L/71 was 100% identical with the SpGrPatr of the 88L/74. Now the interesting part: I have a penetration-valueset here, out of Piekalkiewicz "Die 8,8 Flak im Erdkampfeinsatz" which is within a few milimetres of the 88L71 and we have Hogg who says about the PzGr 39/1 Flak 41 "....giving a muzzle velocity of 980mps(3215fps) and a claimed penetration of 202mm at 1000m at 3° (7,95in at 1095yd)." Now this would mean that it is absolutely no problem to reach the ballistics of the 88L71 with a 9,5kg projectile. I guess it´s more a question of the amount and quality of propelling charge, and as I dug out so far, the amount of propelling charge was 2,52kg for the 88L56 (Digl R P) and 5,12kg (Gudol R P) for the 88L74 and 6,83kg (Gudol R P) for the 88L71. Of course this is only my totally privat conjecture Cheers Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

Rune, Yeah, only problem is the APCBC@30@1000 metres value is the only one wich is lower in the bunch of data out of your source. Look at them. All other values are significant higher than the WaPruef data. Interesting is that in this dataset the decrease in penetration with increase of range is significant lower (10mm at a range of 1000m between 1000-2000m) than some well known datasets wants us make to believe (33mm at a range of 1000m between 1000-2000m WaPruef or 30mm at a range of 1000m between 1000-2000m CM-data). You seem to have focussed on the 150@30@1000 value only eh ? and disregarded the @2000 values and the APCR values. Cheers Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>These projectiles are said to have been able to penetrate over 150mm and 200mm armor, respectively, at 30 degrees obliquity at 1000 meters, and 140mm and 160mm at 2000 meters, at the same angle of attack. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Rune, These figures are even higher than the WaPruef data (PzGr39-1 165@30@1000 and PzGr40/43 193@30@1000 and PzGr39-1 132@30@2000 and PzGr40/43 152@30@2000) and of course much higher than the CM dataset (PzGr39 151@30@1000 and 121@30@2000) Makes me wonder where he got the figures from ? Cheers Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Helge do you or Markus know what the hardness level is on the ballistic cap of these rounds as it may have a bearing on the discussion? Rgds Paul.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Paul, Nope, sorry but I don´t recall to have a single source at hand which describes in any detail the hardness of the ballistic and/or armour piercing cap. I´ll let you know if I find something. Marcus, On the 9,6kg projectile: I finally managed to dig out a source. It´s Chamberlain, Doyle, Gander "Deutsche Panzerabwehr 1916-1918&1930-1945" There you can read at page 101...Flak 18/36...shot weight 9,6kgs. Something perhaps even more interesting: Jentz "Tank Combat in NA" Page 48 ...8,8cm Flak L/56 PzGr. 9,5kg 810 m/s Penetration@30deg: 98@100, 93@500, 87@1000, 80@1500, 72@2000 This would coincide with the table in "Encyclopedia ..." Chamberlain, Doyle page 245 where you can read of 2 projectiles for the 88-Flak, the earlier with lower pen values and 9,5 kg and the later with higher values and 10,2 kg. Cheers Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891 [This message has been edited by The DesertFox (edited 10-02-2000).]

Marcus, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Besides, if you check page 207 of Vol. I on Flugabwehrwaffen, you will find that he mentions the FlaK 36 using an AP projectile of 10.2kg (auch das habe ich eingangs schon erwähnt), so he isn't really consistent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah I know, but he mentiones "von denen die bessere...." so there were 2 different PzGr which is consistant with Hogg. Quote: 8.8cm Pzgr Patr: fuzed Bd Z f 8.8cm Pzgr, projectile weight 9.50kg(20.951b), complete round weight 15.40kg(33.961b). This was an anti-tank projectile of the usual type with penetrating and ballistic caps, a bursting charge of 155grn(5.47oz) of PETN/wax and a base fuze. The propelling charge was 2.52kg(5.561b) of DigI R P. The penetration was claimed as 105mm at 1000m at 30o(4.13in at 1095yd). 8.8cm Pzgr Patr 39: fuzed Bd Z f 8.8cm, Pzgr. This differed very little from the previous round except that the projectile had two soft-iron driving bands instead of two copper ones, and the ballistic cap was slightly more pointed. Only problem is that there is no other source which gives the projectile more than 9,5kg (at least I don´t know any). So I suspect a typo or something at Fritz Hahn´s page 207. Cheers Helge

Marcus, Whoops... I really should have read all posts in the thread and not only the last 2 pages <G> My bad. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I would be interested however in the other sources you mentioned which say the L56 uses a 9kg Panzergranate (unfortunately I cannot "easily see§ because I don't have the works you mention). Charles suggested some sources point to a 9.6kg projectile. It would be nice if you could relate what these other sources are saying.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I will check my library and put the stuff together and post it in the still ON TOPIC 88 lacking punch thread. 9,6kg ? I can´t remember a source which mentioned 9,6 kg. Are you sure, or Charles, that it isn´t by chance the PzGr-39 or PzGr-39-1 of the FLAK 41 ? BTW: Any pen data available for the FLAK 41 except Piekalkiewicz ? See you in the 88 thread and leave the TROLLS alone Cheers Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

John, Don´t feed the Trolls Cheers Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

Markus, Nice graphicwork, but check Fritz Hahn "Waffen und Geheimwaffen..." Page 55 for the 88L56: He gives the PzGr39 9kg Page 61 for the 88L71: He gives the PzGr39/43 10,2 kg As you easily can see if you consult further sources as Senger und Etterlin, Hogg, Spielberger etc...the projectiles didn´t have the same weight. Cheers Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

Guys, 2 points here: 1st: The weight of the 88L71 projectiles: PzGr39-1=10,4kg; PzGr39/43=10,16kg; PzGr40/43=7,3kg; Sprenggranate43=9,4kg; Hohlladungsgranate39=7,65kg; Hohlladungsgranate39/43=7,65kg Sources: Spielberger,Jentz,Senger und Etterlin, Hogg, Fritz Hahn (Seite 61, Zitat: "Die am meisten verwendete Munition war die 1125mm lange Panzergranatpatrone 39/43 von 22,kg Gewicht. Das durch die 6,8kg schwere Treibladung mit einer Vo von 990m/s verfeuerte Geschoss von 10,2kg durchschlug auf 1000m Entfernung 165mm Panzerung." 2nd: A nice sketch which might be of common interest. Whoops forgot to mention the source: It is published in Walter Spielberger "Schwere Jagdpanzer - Entwicklung, Fertigung, Einsatz", Seite 22, Motorbuch Verlag 2. Auflage 1996, ISBN 3-613-01517-X Cheers Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891 [This message has been edited by The DesertFox (edited 10-01-2000).]

Juardis, You can´t fight mass market games with a niche product. We all know about the quality of CM, if they want to reach the masses they will have to sell their game in stores. But as we all know they have a very good reason to stay independent and not sell otherwise than the internet. Cheers Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

FYI, Interesting reading....enjoy! http://www.ospreypublishing.com/features/6 cheers Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891