Stalin's Organ

Well what a surprise - Pansie Lister's favourite therad is languishing on page 2 again - where it belongs of course!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Berlichtingen: *KICK* <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thank you sir, can he have another?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StellarRat: Well, if they put them in, I will use them to demolish large concrete buildings. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I imagine they'll do quite well at demolishing small wooden ones as well! I'd expect a 20+ yard lethal radius vs AFV from the point of impact, and 50 yds + vs infantry & guns, so it really doesn't matter too much whether you hit the target or not!! Of course yuo won't want to shoot at anything on a crestline - imagine the roar of apin as the rocket goes off-map!!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Iskander: Your accuracy is noted... your point is not. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What made you think I had a point? And if I did have one why would I bother trying to make it to ewe, or even be interested in whether or not ewe got it?? In fact I'd expect you to miss it completely....which you did...except there wasn't one anyway......so who gives a toss?? [ 06-19-2001: Message edited by: Stalin's Organ ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: Let's look at this another way from most data we have seen on gunnery the Tiger E's 8.8 cm was considered most effective at ranges from 1200 - 2000ms the Panther's 7.5 cm was most effective from 1400 - 2500ms. Now these are just 2 examples of two tank guns & their optimum ranges. What range do we classify the above at medium or long? most will say long because were discussing WW2 tanks. If it's long range or 'extreme' range how did they come up with these numbers etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It also raises another question - was it the gun, or the tank that was considered effective at these ranges? Perhaps the only way to answer this would be to ask what range the Flak 36 was considered as "effective" in the AT role and compare it with the Tiger E - it being essentially the same weapon. also perhaps consider what ranges the Tiger B and Nashorn were considered "effective" at - one being heavily the otehr lightly armoured. If it's the vehicle package in toto that's being assessed then you'd expect different results - if it's just the gun then the same.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: I doubt (but I don't know) that either the Germans or the Russians employed anything like the Allied gyrostabillizer so I hope we won't have to worry about that issue again. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Russians received lots and lots of Sherman 75's and 76's!! Relatively speaking of course they weren't all that common - just a coupla' thousand each I think. But there was at least 1 Tank Corps equipped solely with them.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Iskander: Dammit there, Malenkov's Member, you actually entered the same time zone as a funny statement! Luck... nothing more.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What's luck? That you were sober enough to read it you leaky crawling bag of used liquor??

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mace: That is the worst Aussie impression I've ever read! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> When did you learn to read? Are they teaching it in Aussie uni's now? What about writing? I thought it was spot on!

500m is point blank range for tank combat. In CMBB you will expect T34-76's to be able to get a reasonable number of hits at 1000m, and they're supposed to have all sorts of problems with optics and command!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader: III.) What could be more degrading than to be Panzer Leader's stable boy? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Being panty litter himself springs immediately to mind as the obvious answer! Panties your recent posts have taken on an unfortunate look of thoughtfulness and sensibility. Are you sure you're cut out for this long-message format thingie? I've come to expect anything more than a few lines here to be full of meaningless twaddle best viewed through an isolation screen with a separate airsupply filtered to the highest standards. You're letting the side down you moronic fool! This squiredom thingie seems to have gone to your head, which means the thingie is definitely in the wrong place. So lift your face up out of whichever lap it's in and get with it! [ 06-19-2001: Message edited by: Stalin's Organ ]

I couldn't disagree more - why should there be a "button" to bail you out because you gave them crap orders?? Those guys are doing their level best to stay where YOU told them to...and you wanna tell them all "Oh, sorry...made a mistake there - I would have withdrwn you from that advancing company of SMG gunners but I forgot about yuo"?! Sheesh - if they're about to get overwhelmed then get them out (using withdraw) at the turn break!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Gee, I have been told by a Tasmanian friend that Kiwis and Aussies are all lower forms of life....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Funny - Tasmania is just the lowest part of Australia....... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Glad I am from Iowa.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Never mind - we can cure you of that these days!

Looks like the right shape for a torso, and the caption says "An american Pilot", so it's my guess that it's teh remains of said pilot. You can only see 1 soldiers face, and he doesn't look like he's smiling - more straight lipped.

Quite right too Simon - you should never criticise your superiors!! [ 06-19-2001: Message edited by: Stalin's Organ ]

Thanks Simon - I hadn't thought to check the blast factors!! doh! Yes I know they're different weapons - the US one is rifled with a fixed propellant case IIRC - looks much like a regular artillery shell. The Brit one is a "standard" Stokes/Brandt type smoothbore that fires a projectile much the same as the 3" bomb only bigger.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gyrene: It is hard to gauge the accuracy of your mortars if there's more than one mission being fired at the same time. . 2 minute times are pretty good for 4.2, what quality spotter? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Regular, Airborne. the pattern from the 3 FO's was nice and tight - I'd have been happy with 1 landing within the same boundaries. After all you're expect 3 times the "outliers" with 3 times teh FO's firing too, and there really weren't any.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Am I seeing things, or is that a photo of two Rumanians proudly posing with the headless corpse of a Ploesti raider?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Dunno about the proudly bit....but I think that's what the extensive english caption to the photo says - yes.

Pansy litter's abandoned this to page 2 in favour of a bigger, prettier thread on optics just 'cos it's got almost 600 posts in it!! Sheesh - some people are so shallow! Bum-titty bum-titty bum-titty bum-titty...

One of the reasons I asked was that I am in a game where I bought 3 4.2" brit mortar FO's - each had a 2 minute frop time and when they all fired at hte same target the made it a moonscape! I had no problems with their pattern or times!

I'm told that thsi has been answered before, but the machine I'm on has a 4 minute timeout fo the search engine isn't much use! Does ayone know why US mortars are so much more expensive than UK ones? A 4.2" FO, for example, costs 92 pts for the UK, 164 for the US (both regular) - both have the same ammo, and pretty much the same reaction times. Also the 3" is a steal at 111 pts vs 200-something for the US 81. Sure it has a bit less ammo, but it's got much better blast. Is the points cost supposed to represent relative availability or something like that?

Nah - I was just looking up the Russian Military history web site and noted that the Sov's report engagements at ranges of 12-1800m quite often, with 1000m being mentioed some times as a "short" range, sometimes as the range for the first shot from ambush. Ranges under 1000m are not mentioned as often often, and are sometimes termed "very close" or even "lethally" close (150-200m). Otherwsie I jsut object to people saying that the Germans must've had superior optic's 'cos they could kill T34's from 2-3km away when it's not a legitimate conclusion from the information given.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: This report from s.H.Pz.Abt 503 dated 02.15.43 might help: However with good visibility sucess is even possible at ranges over 3000 meters. As an example, at ranges of 2500 to 3000 meters, one PzKpfw VI fired 18 rounds to destroy five T-34 tanks of which three were moveing across its front . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks John. One Tiger did this? What about the other 2500 that were made??? My point remains - this is a report that mentions a single tank specifically because it's feats were unusual - if they weer common then one particular tank would not have been singled out. also the report says nothing about the erlative quality of the optics. You might say "Well we don't read of any Russians killing German tanks at 2km+"! True - but why would the Russians be shootign at that range in the first place? Even if they did hit they weren't going to kill any tigers! they had to close the range, so I'm not surprised that we don't see any reports of them trying to engage at 2000m. Yuoocould probably take pot shots at 5km if you could see the target with any gun in WW2, and kill a few T34's at that range if you fired enough shots from an 88. But it proves nothing appart from the law of averages - throw enough shells in a direction and one of them will hit the aiming point sooner or later. If there were reports of IS-2's killing Pz-4's at 2500m would that mean that Soviet otics were wonderful?? Not to me it wouldn't - it would jsut mean that the medium tank got zapped by a big gun at long range! [ 06-18-2001: Message edited by: Stalin's Organ ]

Roumania seems to be the European spelling - it's used in many official papers from GB, Germany, etc. Romania appears to be the American spelling, and is therefore inherently wrong! And it isn't named after a Roman province - the province in that area was "Dacia". I read somewhere that it's actualy named after Rome itself, but I forget teh whole story.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rexford: To assume that U.S. tankers would not have ability to figure out how to test things really assumes the worst. I give them credit for being able to figure things out using some logic. Read the Eisenhower report and see if it sounds like U.S. tankers had enough sense to test the sights for comparison purposes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Rex I assume nothing - I simply refuse to believe the best about reports for which there is no verification. To me it is you who are assuming that the reports mentioned in this thread are good comparisons, and I see no evidence that that is the case. If there is such information (detailing the reports so the quality of the testing can be assessed) then I'm happy to look at that and reach an appropriaet conclusion. However lacking such information I suggest that your own assumption that the reports are of good quality is unjustified.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader: Don't mind me, but Ghostnumber has besmirched my good name <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Utter nonsense of course - that which does not exist cannot be besmirched!