offtaskagain

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JunoReactor: I was thinking of not answering, but hey, for you I will make an exception, because you are an exceptional case. Did your mom talk to you about flowers and bees when you were young? Yes? Ok, she was alluding to the greater nature so that she can explain your nature to you. Of course, her efforts were in vain, since you seem incapable of comprehending what nature is. You do not need to hear it from me. Think before you write. Edit: This was intended for panzerwerfer42 [ 05-13-2001: Message edited by: JunoReactor ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Really? I spend many hours outside enjoying it which is beyond you apparently. One of the benefits of hunting is blending into nature and observing its beauty. So you obviously missed the part about the ignorant speaking of what they know nothing of. Humans role in nature is the top of the food chain, where we consume all living organisms.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I think the issue is more or less that human hunters kill for fun, not simply because it's how they survive by nature. Not that I want to be involved in this hunter vs. anti-hunter debate. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Lions could have evolved to eat grass, but they didn't. This is corny, but what would happen if we forgot all of our survival skills? What happens when all this technology gets destroyed in a war? There will be another global war, whether you like it or not. People just will not change. Perhaps we can eat silicon wafers when that happens? Let's quit this arguing before the thread is locked. It's OT anyways I suppose.

I recently made a little Flak test scenario. The 88 does not fire at Jabos. Even if the other guns acquire them at 2000 yards.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JunoReactor: Glad to hear that one those hunters died. Would have been better if the lion got a couple more though. If I could, I would send all hunters, and all offense is intended if some of you take it personally, to a deep space penal prison.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How do the poor innocent little lions and bears get their food hmm? The eat the wimpy creatures. And you know, those pointy teeth in our mouths aren't for grinding grass. I will take no offense from the comments of the ignorant and blind. I will merely point and laugh.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: "These shooters appear to be amateurs" Actually, it appears they are quite an experienced bunch, though obviously this gun and cartridge were new to them. With the loads they were using, this round has about 1500 joules of kick. It is an oversized (ridiculously overcharged and oversized, in fact) elephant gun. It probably has the kick of an anti-tank rifle. You'd prolly need a bipod and prone braced position to keep a full hold on it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> On their site it says it's a last resort for charging animals. Really really big, really really mad animals I would say.

A good read for this topic is "Hitler's Panzers East". I can't remember the author, but it's not biased towards either side. He points out the often missed fact that by late July-August, Army Group Center outnumbered the Russians facing them and still failed Moscow. It goes into great detail about the decisions behind taking the pocket in Ukraine rather than pushing to Moscow. He concludes the Germans lost the war in the fall of '41.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olle Petersson: Have you tried using multiple rocket batteries firing at once? I did in a PBEM! 100 rockets plastering nearly half of the map. (2 TRPs with one 15cm and one 21cm FO targeting each.) My opponent nearly got shell shocked. Cheers Olle<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I usually start my QB vs AI with 4 15cm spotters hitting 4 TRPs. It really cleans out the infantry. Even more fun is making a large town on a map and dropping 30cm rockets from 10 spotters on it. I know for sure they got the rockets off fast because I saw some footage on the History Channel of them. Took about 2 seconds per rocket. The sound is pretty cool too. [ 05-11-2001: Message edited by: panzerwerfer42 ]

I'd have trouble believing it was more than twice without reloading. I too have lots of trouble with Shermans popping smoke 5 times in one battle without the crew climbing out to reload. I also thought the Nahverteidgungswaffe thing could fire smoke as well as HE. It also was reloaded from within the vehicle. [ 05-11-2001: Message edited by: panzerwerfer42 ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by s_e_avenger: Probably the biggest advantages were range and accuracy. I've read more than one account of .50's being used to "snipe" at long range. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The longest sniping kill I've ever heard of was by Gunnery Sergreant Carlos Hathcock in Vietnam. He got a headshot at something around a mile with an M2. Of course that thing had one hell of a scope and shooter added to it though. Also, these days the Army uses the Barrett .50 cal rifle for anti-material and counter-sniping.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Emrys: That's sort of like bad breath, right? Only it's your feet that stink? Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Mitosis is the process of one cell dividing to form two identical replicas. In this case it would be whole body mitosis of the crew in very rapid succession. It usually takes around 20 minutes IIRC for a cell to complete the process. These crewmen have obviously taken part in the German nuclear research program.

IIRC Nebelwerfer batteries consisted of 6 launchers with 6 tubes each. Shouldn't each observer have 36 rockets standard then? Also, if you set more than 36 ammo, I think it should be staggered between first wave and several minutes until the next. It should be even worse for the big ones, like 10 minutes between launches of 300mm rockets.

Very pretty. Very realistic for sunsets.

Finally, real answers. Now I vaguely know what all of this "Peng Thread" crap is supposed to be about.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: [QB Incidentally, just as a piece of military trivia, there have been tech developments of some mortars in very recent times that could overcome the ordinary innaccuracy of mortars. Terminally IR guided 120mm HEAT rounds have been developed, both in the US, and by Bofors. Which potentially make heavy mortars a serious threat to tanks, in a way they never have been in the past, simply because they couldn't hit them.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There is also the Copperhead laser guided 155mm round. Good for tanks and bunkers, but they are rather expensive. There weren't that many made, but it would be cool to have in a modern day CM.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf: It would be interesting to see the armor penetration differences for these guns. Jeff<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just hit enter. It'll give you 174 for Panther and and 154 for Tiger at 100m 0 degree slope. At 2000m its 114 for Panther and 103 for the Tiger. 60 degrees 100m is only 62v59. At 2000m its 46v44. As far as my calculation errors, I had Pzgr 39 named originally, but for some reason switched to Pzgr 40 and forgot the data change.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kingfish: So, which is it? Anyone know for sure? [ 05-09-2001: Message edited by: Kingfish ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I really doubt you'll find any definite answers, as they existed in both forms.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fishu: [QB} whew, Panther is actually less than half of the Tigers cost! In CM, cost for Panther is 195 pts and Tiger I costs 178 pts. I find this quite interesting that Tiger I actually is as cheap as it is compared to the Panther, even though there were alot more Tiger I's made. (I also found out that Tiger VI H prototype had 75L70 cannon and Porches prototype had maximum speed of 30mph, but less maneuverable)[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually there were 5976 Panthers produced, with only 1355 Tiger Is made. Shell energy is very dependent on muzzle velocity. It can be modeled by E=m(v^2). The Panthers shell mass for Pzgr40 was only 4.75kg, the Tiger was 7.3kg. But the muzzle velocity for kwk 42 cannon was 935m/s, the Tiger had only 773 m/s. Therefore the Panthers shell energy would be 4.75(935^2)=4152568.75 (Joules?). The Tiger would have 7.3(773^2)=4361961.7. This would make the Tiger seem better. However the Panther's energy is focused on an area of 4417sq mm, whereas the Tigers is on 6082sq mm. The Panthers shell would put 940joules/sq mm, with the Tiger only putting 717.02 joules/sq mm. Probably just confused you all more but at least I finally got to pretend to know alot. [ 05-09-2001: Message edited by: panzerwerfer42 ] [ 05-09-2001: Message edited by: panzerwerfer42 ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ramor: .There were also designs for a twin 30 mm antiaircraft panzer with a closed top turret on the panther chasis. Neither vehicle saw combat to the best of my knowledge.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That vehicle was called the Coelain or something like that. A few Flakpanzer IVs armed with twin 30s in a full turret were built. They were called Kugelblitz, meaning Ball Lightning. Those did see limited service in the last month or two.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pvt.Tom: No, sounds cool, what's the name of the movie? The funnest part of the Lend Lease info is that we sent them our crappy torpedoes, Hee Hee Hee.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If they thought our tanks sucked, I would really love to hear their opinions of our torpedoes if they ever used them. Probably just took out the explosives and fuel for other uses and recycled the bodies.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wwb_99: When the Germans invaded Russia they found out about some very superior Red Army weapons systems, mainly the T-34 and the 120mm mortar. The T-34 begat the panther, but the 120mm was just copied and put into service. WWB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've heard they used the same factory they captured from the Russians to make the 120mm mortars initially.

Why does the 75mm artillery get a 39 blast whereas the larger 81mm gets only 18? Wouldn't the 81 be higher because it's bigger and low velocity so the casing doesn't need to be so thick? Same thing with the 150mm inf gun. Or is the better fragmenting modeled and I just don't notice it. Search takes too long, so please forgive me for bringing up old stuff.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Grisha: Yes, it is a very good list, though I cannot agree with their conclusions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If lend lease didn't win the war, then how would Koniev have launched the offensive on Berlin with only 3000 home-grown trucks for an entire Russian front? And where the raw materials for half of those trucks come from?

I believe 4.5s were in U.S. service in Italy. I know they weren't declared obsolete until the day the war ended. We should ask someone from Talonsoft, as they gave the U.S. 4.5s for West Front.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CombinedArms: While we're on the subject of US arty, I understand that the US 90mm antiarcraft gun was not used as an antitank gun--but the US would seem to need a big antitank gun even more than the Germans and after D-Day their need for AAA steadily declined. So why wasn't the 90mm used in a towed AT role? Was it unable to depress to AT levels? IF so, couldn't this have been modified? [ 05-07-2001: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The 90mm AA was indeed modified for AT use. The new variant was called the M2 I believe. It was mounted on a new carriage that allowed it to depress below horizontal and be unloaded faster.

It would be great if it caught on. They were a major tool in planning, so why not put it in?