Jasper

grognard - origins from the French army (Napolean) - translates to "grumbler" (or whiner whatever). Self applied title for people that Know More Than You.

With all the (undeserved IMHO) bitching about the tank AI with one turret, anyone care to guess how that AI will do with more than one? "I gave a Mk III a full broadside and ... " ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ or http://www.britwar.co.uk/members/FunFacts/ for military documents written during WWII.

Gotta love 'Russian Battlefield'. http://history.vif2.ru/ What you're looking for is a T-35. Who says that battleship designers can't design tanks too? http://history.vif2.ru/t35.html ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ or http://www.britwar.co.uk/members/FunFacts/ for military documents written during WWII. [This message has been edited by Jasper (edited 03-12-2001).]

Must've been a temporary glitch. They're back now. Thanks for the input.

I saw where they where merging with someone (blah blah Remember blah blah) and now http://history.vif2.ru/ doesn't seem to be there any more. Anyone know what's going on? Thanks. ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ or http://www.britwar.co.uk/members/FunFacts/ for military documents written during WWII.

This falls under the heading of 'deployable field fortifications'. I'd like to add: Dig A Hole.

My ranking of spectator sports: 1,234) Paint drying 1,235) Cars rusting 1,236) Grass growing 1,237) Sniper duel 1,238) Water evaporating 1,239) A cricket match 1,240) Watching a CD spin To address a perhaps-controversial issue with my personal opinion of spectator sports. In my defense let me say that I draw a great deal of satisfaction watching water, hence the lower ranking for cricket.

And I wonder how long you've been waiting to use that word in idle conversation!?!! I'm still waiting for defenestration.

Too many too list. If you are really interested check sites below. ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ or http://www.britwar.co.uk/members/FunFacts/ for military documents written during WWII.

Gotta be careful about anecdotal evidence. I keep reading about aliens in the supermarket lines, but I don't accept the evidence as gospel (despite what jasoncawley says about Baptists and the Episcopelians!) Personally I'd say this is in the 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary support' class. Right next to the story that grown men where supposed to have mounted their horses, lowered lances and charged German tanks during the invasion of Poland. I start asking things like - how would you know something like this? Can you imagine a set of circumstances where an adult would do something like this? Is there a simpler explanation? Where the Soviet "asians" only men? Or did they send unarmed women to? What is an unarmed soldier, but a civilian? So this veteran is describing the slaughter of civilians? What's more likely in Russia - ordering unarmed men to battle or mowing down civilians? POW's - whatever. I think the racial term is suggestive of where to lean on this one. ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ or http://www.britwar.co.uk/members/FunFacts/ for military documents written during WWII. [This message has been edited by Jasper (edited 03-05-2001).]

Primal - I agree with you almost entirely in substance, but in the research that I've been doing - evidence the sites below - I think that the Soviet soldier was an ornery tough SOB to start with. I acknowledge that the German war with Russia was different than the war with other countries. Not sure why. But I think the Soviet Army gave the Germans too much trouble too early (before the Nazi policies could be put into effect and then for the Soviets to learn about them) to explain it entirely. Seems to me, reading the early Soviet literature, that the Soviet's put some thought into what units should do when surrounded. If that's so, then when some units found themselves surrounded during 1941 they may not have freaked out - but followed a thought out course of action. I'm pretty sure the German plans didn't involve fighting the Soviets into the winter of '41. So somewhere between the start and the winter, the German plans got deposited in the crapper. The difficulty in reducing surrounded Soviet units may have been one factor in that. ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ or http://www.britwar.co.uk/members/FunFacts/ for military documents written during WWII.

Neubaufahrzeug = "Parade Tank"? Boy those Germans had a gadget for EVERYTHING! So what was the name of the German gadget to dispense the little bits of ticker tape used in victory parades?

TC: "OK we'll dash around and catch him from behind." Driver: "Yes, sir - sound pretty dangerous as we might run across some currently hidden enemy unit on the way. Full speed ahead." 10 seconds later. Gunner: "He's spotted us sir. He's pivoting to face us. Should I fire?" TC: "No dammit, drive faster than he can pivot or his turrent can transerve. I thought you said this thing was fast!". 2 days later. "... Sgt. Gutz believed that his Hellcat could move faster than a Panther could pivot. The tactic of flanking the enemy, is of course encouraged, but only when the enemy is unaware of the manuenver. Once spotted Sgt. Gutz's flanking manuever was doomed to failure, becase the M-18 is not fast enough to get behind a pivoting Panther. After being spotted his best hope for survival was to (a) knock out or damage the Panter's main gun and / or ( dash for cover. Sadly he did neither. The surviving members of his crew mourn his loss, while the investigation continues into the new German .45 cal MG's apparently mounted on Panther tanks. The single bullet through Sgt. Gutz's head killed him instantly."

Maybe the crew really REALLY hated that d*mn car. One of the springs was broke, the engine would backfire occasionally - giving everyone a heart attack, fuel would drip on the drivers feet. They'd complained about it for weeks, but as long as it ran nothing would be done. Now they'll get a brand new car - right out of the factory. And best of all: IT'S NOT THEIR FAULT! I'd be a little worried about that tank gunner though - sounds like he's dangerous to friend and foe alike!

but terrible aim . . . They then crawled back into the unharmed armored car and drove away? ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ or http://www.britwar.co.uk/members/FunFacts/ for military documents written during WWII.

There a couple of articles comparing tanks on the website listed below - should anyone be interested. ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ or http://www.britwar.co.uk/members/FunFacts/ for military documents written during WWII.

I'll supply some web space for it, if you want. Drop me an email to: funfacts20001@yahoo.com

. [This message has been edited by Jasper (edited 02-28-2001).]

Depends on what cover your guys are in. If they're in buildings you could probably go say 200m. There will be a random shell or two falling all over the place, so personally I wouldn't have anybody (important) under trees if I could help it. It's best to use then as soon as you can: (a) most likely chance hitting the enemy while they are approaching ( since they're moving you can guess where some of them will be in a couple of minutes © best chance to spot a target big enough for rockets (d) as they approach the range will only get shorter 109 Gustav and I disagree on using rockets for dug in infantry. There's a case I'm playing now where I *know* the enemy is in a village. I'd like to start shelling the village sight unseen to: (a) perhaps start suppressing a few of the enemy units ( Slow down or stop his (hidden) maneuvers preparing for my attack *MOST IMPORTANT IMHO* © Maybe get a unit, or two, to route out of cover (d) Maybe get lucky and knock out a gun or something before I can see it. So I can: (a) 'Target Wide' for a couple of minutes with more expensive gun artillery ( 'Target' building by building hoping I guess right © Let'er rip with rockets as I approach - (c1) the range is at it's greatest - (c2) Buys me a minute or two of advancing while the enemy is catching "most" of my rockets. - (c3) Since I'm not targeting individual units (yet) speculative shelling is done with cheap rockets - saving more expensive artillery for more accurate targeting. (d) I'm the Americans - so I don't get rockets - rats! Ok I'll do what the historical practice was - lots of gun artillery. But wait! Cost is based on effectiveness not 'supply and demand' - meaning 105mm US artillery costs substantially the same as 105mm German artillery - so I can't load up on it as I'd like. Guess I'll do it the hard way. Oh well - makes it a more rewarding expirence if can root him out.

Time for rexford to come out with metallurgical analysis - not of projectile versus armor, but armor versus armor. I wonder if there's a "shatter gap" with ramming to. Hit the enemy tank just right - sets up internal resonance vibrations, amplified by the running motor . . . BOOM . . . Driver sitting on the ground - showered with pieces. The TC standing on top of a loose pile of metal. The gunner - squinting through nothing, pulls the trigger and shouts "BANG".

I don't understand what rockets have to do with selecting German tanks, but I won't stand by and let my favorite weapon system be badmouthed. What you is a shortcoming, I think is a benefit. One of the big benefits of rockets is you don't need the detailed targeting information like you do with lemming artillery. Since no matter what you do, rockets are going to do their own thing seeking out the enemy. So let them! Best to point them in general direction of the enemy and let the rockets figure out what's best. Another is benefit is - they are *very* hazardous. Lots of *big* explosions. And of course they're cheap. So you can afford to take a chance with them. But if you guess wrong where the enemy is (and so point your rockets at the wrong place) no harm no foul. Some rockets will undoubtedly overcome your inaccurate guess, and end up hitting the enemy anyway. One of my recent 'random act of rockets' immobilized an enemy tank. It was on the same side of the map where I pointed my rockets, so maybe someone could claim I was aiming for it. But the truth is I was pointing my rockets at the woods where the enemy infantry seemed to be gathering, and the rocket seeked out and immobilized the tank on it's own. ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ or http://www.britwar.co.uk/members/FunFacts/ for military documents written during WWII.

In most cases yes. But you had the unfortunate bad luck to run across John Jones - aka the Michael Wittmann of US jeep crews. We all marvel that Wittmann could somehow survive his suicide tactics, but I think Jones is no less daring. Not everyone agrees with me, but I think Jones probably would've beaten Wittmann during their famous Jones-Wittmann duel. Personally I feel not enough attention is given to the fact the Jones driver failed to top off the fuel in his jeep. I think this is the fundamental cause for his fatal lack of mobility two hours into the fight. ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ or http://www.britwar.co.uk/members/FunFacts/ for military documents written during WWII.

Hey, in the book "DeathTraps" the author mentions that a Sherman tank came back from a fight with half a gun barrel. Turns out the Germans shoot down the barrels of their enemies to. Seems like that hard way to do it, but it's probably a great way to intimidate the enemy with your marksmanship. I guess that Jeep crew didn't fall asleep during their antitank training. "When you get within fifty yards in front of an enemy armored vechicle - your first priorty is to shoot out the sighting optics for the main gun. Next comes the optics for the bow MG. Now on a Panzer III you'll see that the aiming points are ... a Panzer IV ... a StugIII ... "

You and I are probably the only two people on the planet that care about night tactics and CM. We're probably better off considering 'night' as 'predawn' or 'just before night' and getting on with our lives. And leave the night to the bats.

I just posted a file containing the German article: "Stalin's Organ" and Other Rocket Weapons. I've made a new site on Britwar, and put it there. Points out that the acceleration of a rocket is less than a shell, so the walls can be thinner and explosives used can be different. And that launchers, unlike cannon, can shoot a LOT of projecticles in a very short period of time. ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ or http://www.britwar.co.uk/members/FunFacts/ for military documents written during WWII. [This message has been edited by Jasper (edited 02-23-2001).]