dieseltaylor

Which of course is not going to be political. I was rather thinking of if one has to have a second chamber what is the best way to constitute it? I should point out that the current House of Lords powers are pretty much it can vote and send back the elected House of Commons bills up to three times. Its great glory is that it is by far the better chamber for debate and discussing and improving Bill sent for the Commons. Better quality of brain and No party whip can be effected. Being unelected has its advantages.

Is not the book I am reading but the 2012 Birkhead book " Bird Sense" just loaned to me by a mate. Who incidentally also lent to me " The war of the Landing Craft" published 1976. The "Bird Sense" book gets rave reviews and is full of interesting items like do birds have senses of smell, taste, and about hearing, seeing, emotions and magnetic sense. I have hardly started but already I know that when nesting gannets can pack 70 to the square metre! Rather amusingly whilst scientist and ornithologists were debating whether birds had a sense of smell and working out how to prove it people prospecting for gas since the 1920's in the US already knew that a particular bird loved flying above natural gas vents! Anyway details to follow.

I go away and get complaints about a moribund board!! Sheesh.

I am sure that at certain ranges Shermans will be tougher than MkIV's and on par generally - overall the Sherman is a better bet.

Perhaps I remember it wrong Womble but are you misrepresenting the original problem on firing on tanks? The gripe was that troops would open fire on UNBUTTONED tanks with little result but for revealing ones position.

Sailor - there is plenty of evidence that the British tankers bailed from Shermans on first major hit even if the tank was OK. I am sure you can easily find verification in any tanker memoirs. Collated statistics showed that in Normandy the percentage of casualties by tank were 60.5% for Sherman crews - cause German tank. This dropped to 41.4% caused by an ATG. The Churchill's figures were 46.7% and 45%. You can see why Sherman crews would be tempted to vacate quickly particularly as Sherman tank replacements were available. As for crew reactions following a penetration I am sure it varied widely but overall going from the various reports from those who survived getting out of the tank was a primary objective after a major hit let alone a penetration. Arguably you could maintain brave gunners continued to fight on despite penetrations but died and are unable to tell their tale. However I think it unlikely to be common at all. I look forward to the results of your suggested test. : )

Funny you should mention that womble. AFAIR it was the TC who was killed first in the minute and then it was the radio operator who stuck his head through the hatch and got his blown off. The odds of nailing two crew members with their head through the hatch with an 88mm must be quite long. It shows impressive speed to get from his position past the dead body and to put his head out without creating confusion in the turret basket for the gunner and loader. It was Ver 1.00.

Not so BD because in Version 1 I also experienced a crew fighting on minus two crew members falling lifeless into the turret whilst the gunner still fired on. I mean if BF wish to model the ergonomics of a turret basket with two corpses in it whilst the gunner fires fair enough. Though I suspect using the old-fashioned CM*1 method where there were a few seconds - or more of stunned tank crew was far easier to code and actually quite acceptable in terms of realism. I am not quite sure why that was not continued with CM*2.

Good to see the video. No doubt that there is a problem with morale modelling in tanks. The manual traverse of the 105mm may be correctly modelled in that it takes 30 seconds for 180 degrees which is slower than the other Shermans. Gander does not list HEAT as a shell type in his Tank Detail book. It is in the game. Gander shows in his book an engine plate that confirms the reverse speed of a Sherman at 3mph. That is an M3A3 76mm.

Would that be "John time" then?

and much more at: http://www.stinch.com/militaria/k98_pouches.shtml

As so much of CMBN's vehicle code seems to be CMSF ported it maybe that light vehicles are assumed to be potentially ATGM armed. I am guessing - obviously. : )

Can anyone tell me why there would be a requirement for 360 degree turns in 60 seconds - or whatever. Rationally tanks will never be doing continuous 360 degree turret turns and only in rare events 180 degree traverses. Just to set the record straight the Bovington Tiger has a proven 60 seconds for 360 degrees at 1500rpm. One might well believe that at 2500rpm it is quicker! Surely surely surely the important figure is time to aim at target in the frontal arcs and that must include acceleration of turret, and slowing down, to fine adjustment and firing. Whilst total rotation time can be a handy figure the real deal is what was the combination of spotting ,traverse, and firing in practice in the frontal arc.

I think you are better to cut the kind of player who takes these things to excess. But to demand they are revealed as in use ahead of the attack as a condition of playing seems pretty unfair on the defence. And may be off-putting to potential opponents. As for the rocket cost for the Allies I am just now reading a book that covers LCT[R] and the crews were told the 1000 rockets per launch were the equivalent to the firepower of 100 destroyers! Of course with less congestion using the adapted landing craft. : ) The rarity factor of LCT[R]'s I have not established but probably a beta-tester can confirm why the rocket cost seem so cheap.

S-Tank being an interesting Swedish post-war take on non-turreted tank destroyer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stridsvagn_103 And that takes sloped armour to a new level : ) Siffo I am surprised at this as when it was being re-hashed in a thread here a few weeks ago it seemed that BF was NOT going to address this facet of the game.

I knocked out a Churchill - moving at 203m on its flank. Third shot. Did not seem to see me : ) Well as you guessed it was a schrek not a faust. I was so impressed with the accuracy.

From another forum this by Wo Kelly a man who knows things. Note the theoretical high rate of fire!! http://www.ww2f.com/other-weapons/36647-piat.html

Another example of Tiger hunting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Henry_Cain

maybe ..... http://www.lermuseum.org/en/regimental-history/return-to-battle/italy-to-the-netherlands/

I suspect for the operator the PIAT not having a significant signature when fired made their life expectancy slightly better. : )

Funnily enough a hit at longer range might be more effective as the trajectory may mean it lands on the deck. "Accurate range" for direct fire was about 100 yards but its maximum range was actually 350yds so houses were a potential target : ) It would be nice to have seen film how effective it would be at house busting duties. According to Wiki the PIAT was actually highly rated!

Haynes does have the advantage it is written with the benefit of renovating a running Tiger I - the one at the Bovington Tank Museum.

Interesting stuff. I wonder if someone has loaded a video of this on Vimeo or some other site?

I think it is important that the version number is considered in these cases as what happened pre-Version 1.10 cannot be relied upon as being current case. However searching the archive when you find a strange happening is probably worth doing to see what the response was, or workaround, or its a bug now as previously.

Interesting.