Doodlebug

Careful Jason. You'll get me up on my soap box. That line of argument will raise my favourite query about behind plate effects for shot compared to shell in the game. AP shell is the big killer in this game.

Hmmm. It's always a state of continual hostility between me and search functions. Either 10 gazzillion results or..... nowt. Find damn you. Find.

I recall reading a long time ago about a Matilda tank commander who reportedly kicked his gunner for repeatedly missing an Italian M11/39 he was engaging at point blank range. Later it apparently transpired that the gunner wasn't missing but the AP shot was in fact going in one side and out the other. I have no way of knowing if the above story is true or not but it did raise for me a question about high powered guns and very thin skinned targets. Is it conceivable that this situation could occur where the attack/defence is completely out of proportion? I visualise it being possible with AP shot if it connected with nothing substantial (engine block breech block etc) along it's trajectory but AP shell? Exactly how much resistance is necessary to trigger the fuse on a typical AP shell? Could that too simply go in one side and out the other or indeed detonate beyond the target?

I feel like an old timer sometimes and I'd missed this one somehow so thanks.

Thanks for the assist on the mod front. I checked out your site but didn't download for the same thoughts as above.

I absolutely demand some frolicking nymph mods

Well I read it all: every word. I can only thank you for another very enlightening piece. If only my attacks ran as efficiently as that. With ideas like those given here and in some of your other posts I'm looking forward to putting them into practice in my future games.

I think it is quite an assumption to make that they were 'good' at some point. </font>

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the same Mohnke in the film - bravely and stalwartly defending Berlin - the same Mohnke whom in June 1944 was murdering unarmed Canadian prisoners of war in Normandy? Even by SS standards he was considered loopy. </font>

Looking forward to this one as well any idea of release date for UK cinemas ? Cheers </font>

Absolutely. I'm just waiting for it to open over here.

I think he has more important things to worry about just now.

kind of makes you wonder how the PBI ever went forward and beat their opponents. But they did and on a fairly consistent basis. I can only think that it'd down to the support of other arms (armour artillery or CAS)or some intangible "moral" factor(defenders more prepared to give up to western allies compared to Eastern Front?)

Penal units?

All the comments here seem to highlight the need to trade off accuracy, effect and sheer size of gun and mount. The observation regards the need to control the raw power generated and apply it most efficiently is hightlighted by JK's comments above re. 15" guns. We are all familiar with tales of weapons being tweaked to squeeze a few more percent performanceout but the above is a good example of having to adjust the other way when the calculations don't pan out in reality. Perhaps on reflection something more "humble" like the Pak40 is worthy of more respect.

I do like your nomination for the title

Sorry. Yes. Just double checked and tungsten is just a solid round carrying no charge. AP shot in effect. Why is it modelled as so efficient when every other type of AP shot is modelled as having so ineffective behind armour effects?

What's the accumulated wisdom on this? The hollow charge round is dependent on size yes? so the bigger the better. What about HESH? The same must apply I'm thinking. Did HESH ever see action in WW2? My "bet" would be for tungsten. The higher velocity it can be fired at makes for more accuracy at the longer ranges and it seems to have pretty reasonable behind armour effects. Can anyone tell me the size of HE charge carried?

Good quality maps are always to be appreciated. Thanks for taking the time to make this one available.

I only cringe at the Brit voices. The other nationalities sound fine to me. Perhaps that's because I can't understand a blessed thing some of them are jabbering. A little feedback on first language perceptions would be interesting.

For longer than I care to recall something has been annoying me on an almost subconcious level. I've never really managed to put my finger on what was wrong, something I couldn't pin down, until now that is. Those dreadful British voice files. I don't doubt that the voice actor was actually a native speaker but oh boy! The more I hear them the more annoyed I get. I've reached the point of frustration that they sound increasingly like a cross between Mr Humphreys from "Are you being Served" and Norman Wisdom. At first I thought it was just an intonational thing. The emphasis on the phrases seems all wrong and most unmilitary sounding but then I realised there was more going on than I had first thought. Who wrote the script? Too many inappropriate modern words for my taste. Since when would a 40's Tommy say barbecue, son of a bitch, listen up or frig(!!!!) That's just to quote a few. There have to be others. I can think of better and more appropriate period phrases than that without even trying. Barbeque: brewed up. Listen up: Pay attention to the officer. Son of a bitch: Gor blimey. As for swearing the average Anglo saxon isn't that creative even now. A fairly limited vocabulary of two or three swear words used in differing combinations would suffice for most situations. The accents are alright as far as they go but I've more than a sneaking suspicion that the officers should all speak with more of the BBC English about the voice. They'd more that likely be ex-grammar school, university or middle class types and taught to "speak properly" anyway. And for my final rant. Medics??? Why the hell do they keep shouting shout for a non-existant person?The cry if need arose would be for a "Stretcher Bearer". It's basic stuff for pity's sake. For a game that prides itself on accuracy it don't half take the shine off things. For real immersion the audio environment is just as important as the visual.

Never mind his urges thanks for the outstanding mods. Ooo-eerr.Can't linger. Suddenly I'm having urges of my own.

Fabulous look to that one. Appreciate the efforts.

An interesting discussion so far. The Lee Enfield has, by all accounts, a much faster bolt action than it's other bolt action contemporaries hence it's higher factors in comparison to them. The Garand, as a semi automatic, has higher factors again realistically representing the difference in ability to put rounds into the target at a greater rate. One can quibble about the numbers but one cannot argue, I believe, with the 1)Garand, 2)Lee Enfield, 3) Other bolt action rifles ranking. The comparison of MG42 and Bren is a little bit unfair surely? One is the forerunner of the modern GPMG and the other is an LMG a class of weapon destined to be ousted by the GPMG. Both are very different weapons. To touch briefly on that other theme running through the comments: the one of accuracy. It surely ultimately matters not the slightest how many rounds can be fired or how quickly if none hit their intended target? A single round on target is probably enough to do the job. Any more than that: overkill. The Bren, certainly the early models, was noted for it's precision. My father recounted to me in my younger days how he was trained on the gun. Squeeze the trigger. A three round burst and release. Repeat as necessary. 1,2,3. 1,2,3. 1,2,3. That is evidence, is it not, of training and tactical useage designed to take advantage of the weapon's characteristics to the full? 30 round magazine? Good grouping on target? 3 rounds. Next target. Simple but easily overlooked in an entirely firepower factor driven equation. The MG42 for all it's significant advantages in rate of fire and belt supply was not without critisism at the time. I am aware of at least one contemporary who spoke of MG42 casualties being found with 4 or 5 wounds in them. Overkill? Perhaps. That observer also spoke of MG42 being loaded with a 1:4 mix of real and wooden training rounds so as to conserve ammunition and still maintain kill rate without having to reduce rate of fire. I have no corroboration on this point (Grogs? Please speak now) but it does seem to me a plausible solution to a situation if ammunition supply is an issue. If that were the situation then the rate of fire of an MG42 would be, in effect, 1/5th it's quoted rate of fire. On that basis an entirely rate of fire driven numerical combat analysis can never be the 100% literal truth. The accuracy of a particular weapon coupled to the ability and training of the individual wielding it comes a very poor second if it gets any consideration at all.

Outstanding mods once again. I'm sure I'll not be the only one to sing their praises.