dieseltaylor

huffpost Actualbeach and filmer ANother HuffPost article reveals:

http://elcomercio.pe/player/1384898

Only two. Last year I think it was four , German Panther doing the damage. : )

I am always impressed by the depth of knowledge ... This is a posting in the WeBoB forums by an American living in Australia about British uniforms!

Yep its the pistol shots that do it. BTW in RL there is an action in Normandy where a British tank commander uses his pistol to take out an enemy sniper in a tree. : )

Great link. And welcome to the forums. : )

Its an interesting question. If you mean decisive to mean a final resolution it s not easy as a lot of things happened to end the war. However if we change it slightly to what may have been decisive .... The Battle of France was decisive for Germany in knocking out a major opponent and allowing it to get embroiled - to its eventual detriment in the East. All of this flowed from BoF and if that battle had ended in a stalemate or Hitler got a bloody nose then WW2 may have been avoided as Hitler got thrown out by the officer class.

There is also the possibility that both tanks had HE up the spout expecting only infantry. Movement in a tank is jerky. The training manuals in the US at the time suggested expert crews could fire at under 600 metres however the advice was do not fire on the move. Having said that it did give the procedures as gunner sand driver had to work together. If in this instance the crews were not working together it would make life difficult. I am always curious as to how much sway you get in a long-barrelled gun as you move. The IV advancing seems odd as it should have know its SOP is to fire from stationary.

First off we do not know if this was a fight in clear terrain or an urban landscape with fences and hedges walls trees bushes signs and even buildings. They probably were not square on to one another. A angle across the frontal armour of the Sherman would be quite a waste. Firing whilst moving is certainly going to make misses very likely. Or possibly they were playing peek-a-boo , or trees were masking gunsights, or barrel movement. "The tanks were only separated by 100 m yet both sides had difficulties hitting each other. It took a half a dozen of rounds before the Pz IV bursted up in flames" The IV could have been dead after 2 shots fired by it and the Sherman could have been making sure. I do subscribe to complicated circumstances increasing misses and glancing hits. We do know being hull down decreases the chances of being hit by a big percentage in real range statistics. However there is absolutely no doubt that BF in CMBN bought a busted armour spotting and accuracy model to the original game. It is is therefore not at all surprising we are antsy about this area of the game now.

"The Vickers Tank Periscope MK.IV, invented by Polish engineer Rudolf Gundlach, was first patented in 1936 as Gundlach Peryskop obrotowy. It was the first device to allow the tank commander to have a 360-degree view from his turret, with a single periscope. By rotating the periscope and allowing the tank commander to look backwards through the second eyepiece, he no longer had to change position to look behind the turret. Early tanks had small turrets and fixed seating, without an independently rotating cupola, and so the commander wasn't easily able to move himself to another rear-facing periscope. The design was first used in the Polish 7-TP light tank. Shortly before the war it was given to the British and was used in most tanks of WWII, including the British Crusader, Churchill, Valentine, and Cromwell and the American Sherman. The design was later copied and used extensively in tanks of the USSR (including the T-34 and T-70) and Germany. It was first implemented in TKS and 7TP Polish tanks. As a part of Polish-British pre-war military cooperation, the patent was sold to Vickers-Armstrong. It was produced as the Vickers Tank Periscope MK.IV (pictured), and built into all British tanks (Crusader, Churchill, Valentine, Cromwell). After the fall of Poland, Germany, USSR and Romania captured some equipment, allowing them to copy the invention. In USSR the Gundlach periscope was known as MK-4 (harking to the British designation, as Russian sources openly confirm that it was copied from samples acquired with British-supplied tanks) and implemented in all tanks (including the T-34 and T-70). All Axis tanks and APC (including tanks of Italy, Romania, Hungary, Finland and Japan) were equipped or retro-fitted with this periscope till 1941. Later technology was transferred to USA and as a periscope M6 implemented in all US tanks (M3/M5 Stuart, M4 Sherman and others). AT the end of WWII this technology was adopted throughout the world."

SO if they could not even drive it, and they could not fire, would their morale be somewhat shaken at least?!!

: ) good point Perhaps a warning to all scenario designers and players that fanatical troops are also very stupid would be helpful : )

It is worrying because fanatics of all people would wish to fight to the death so with no targets in the designated arc they refuse to try to kill the enemy where they are plainly visible - and dangerous. Is this logical or bad coding? Moronic=Fanatic

LOL and possibly :) to get the right number of characters

Great colour http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/

Exceedingly worrying piece of coding to my mind.

The question is whether the information gathered is eventually used for controlling the US public [figures] or whether it is actually uncovering a hot bed of conspiracies. I favour the first as being an incidental but important bonus for the spooks

The accuracy of an ATG on a range is excellent. In the field I imagine that it would be worse if the gun had been hastily laid, the approaching target was from an awkward angle, obscured , the gun crew were suffering from nearby shot. Similarly a stationary tank with a well prepared position should be approaching the same accuracy. SO what is needed is the kind of battle practice figures where the guns are not optimally set-up. The question then is does the game engine provide bonuses for tanks that remain stationary for a few minutes and can get ranged in .. ? Possibly Rexford's figures take this into account but without any other information has it been plucked form the air.. This from a later Rexford thread: And with a lower velocity gun:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1 Seems highly likely that this is true. Is it a concern?

The figures on higher rates of car crashes is very interesting.

I think the TC at least had too high a motivation level to leave the tank

Definitely seems wrong. Standard drill was if you were hit you bailed as the next shot would do you. Shermans being particularly bloody in lost crew.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=31528 Is another early thread with rexford. If I had the time it would be interesting to see how they match to War Office stuff and other stuff from J D Salts collected works.

I think we have a problem here. Rexford's figures VAB quotes are a trifle worrying. They appear to ignore the fact that with very high velocity guns the sights could be set to 900 metres and they would hit any tank target between 20 to 900 metres. However this is on a level surface and I have yet to see any detail of what happens on rising or falling ground. Intuitively I feel that accuracy drops off considerably compared to firing across level ground. Range estimation surely becomes much more important for getting hits. And then spotting the shot to adjust - tanks like the Tiger and the Panther were better gun platforms than the equivalent Allied tanks with HV guns where obscuration by smoke/blast made good spotting tricky.

Those who know suggest that indeed the Lee-Enfield was easier to fire quickly compared to the Kar. There is a War Office paper which I have quoted on the pistol thread for the Lee-Enfield though I have yet to find anything for the Kar. And a 10 shot magazine is always going to be more useful than a 5 shot magazine.