Jeff Hays

the stryker is soon to have a 105 or 120 on it. FT, Knox, KY here.

The russians have a similary round for thier RPG Launcher that is thermobaric in nature, they used it alot in grozny as mobile artilery. Also in the old cold war inventory there was a 4 tube 66mm rocket launcher that was part of TO&E up till the late 80's

The stryker is here to stay till the new FCS comes online in the next decade. One of the most cool features of the stryker is its ability to be stealthy where the bradley is alot more noiser with the tracks. The slat armor offers great SHaped charge protection and it has some cool features that are just not in the bradley and all this coming from a tanker...

If you have ever tried to move, acquire, and shoot at targets while buttoned up it is very difficult. Yes the gunner can see the "acquired target" but he has to do lots of scanning to pick it up in the first place. This is where the TC can bring the gunner on to the target and manuever his tank into the best position. So I would say it would be realistic especially for movement purposes if the TC was unbuttoned during movement and spotting. Also moving especially when off road is very dangerous buttoned up.

One of my favorite gun is the 75mm Inf gun. I use this little devil in city fighting, woods, and open terrain. It is quite effective at taking on infantry at long ranges and it is movable by it s crew. It even has a good chance of at least damaging a tank and not to mention a great halftrack killer. They almost always end up dead but nothing better to have enemy infantry occupy a building only to be faced with a 75 inf gun sitting a few rows over pounding them with infantry support of course.

Lets not forget the ZB-37 from Czechoslovakia. Techinally it was not captured in combat but nonetheless it was used by front line troops in all theaters. As the Suomi model 31, finland used these. The PPsh 41 and PK series may have been loose copies. Lets not forget the Beratta 38, it also was issued to german troops. By the way most of these weapons are now available now that eastern Europe has been opened "up".

"from the landser who desires a PPSh to replace his bolt action K98" I would not want to rely on a weapon that I had no reliable means of ammunition for. The PPsh would soon become a liability in any serious firefight also not to mention the a long range fire fight where it couldnt hit a barn at a barn at 100 meters, ok not literally though... BTW my SR-41 which is a cut/converted PPsh 41 in semi auto is a blast to shoot but the mauser has excellent range.

7.92mm or 8mm is what the Mauser (Kar98) used. 8mm is One of the most plentiful types of ammunition still around after the 7.62x39 . I have 8mm rounds on stripper clips manufactured in 43 & 44 in perfect condition (corrosive) but prefer SA, Russian, or East bloc manufacture due to higher quality for shooting, and very cheap at around 3 to 5 cents a round. As for the use of captured 50's I wouldnt waste time on a captured weapon that had no reliable supply source for ammo and parts and would soon become a liablility in combat. As for the use of captured T-34's and russian 76mm ATG's, the Germans did capture these in sufficient quantities to have parts and produce ammo for.

My father was issued a M14 in the mid 60's. I believe they did not get the M16 till 67 or 68. this was in the marine corps and they way the navy would budget things it seemed like they always got the last stuff. He said he once got a C-ration that was almost 15 years old!

I would pay good money to see you run with an acetylene tank on your back!!! hahahaha, I can see your point and maybe a future feature might be something called "dash" or "run like hell".

If you want to get a feel for a flamethrower, just put a welding acetylene bottle on your back and hike around with it on. Did I say total miscomfort? Also dont forget you need a buddy with you to turn it on, blend the mixture if so, and light it. Then try doing this while running. then hope to god you dont burn yourself with the pilot light or drip fuel on you burning you. then also you are so high from the fumes that you forget why you did this in the first place.

I believe if you end your movement path in short ranges you may achieve the desired effect depending on the delay between each stop and move point. I would probably stick with hunt since your apt to engage the enemy than to risk moving with out taking some kind of action.

I cant remember but do any of the WWII tanks from any nation have superchargers? I know some american vehicles had water injection to cope with varying levels of octane but I can remember about the superchargers except in planes (Wildcats)

I do believe the Germans fielded a bomber that had diesel engines and I think the HE111 replaced but I can't remeber the desingation right now...JU86's!!!! thats them!!! they used these up in desperation to resupply stalingrad from the air. And yes superchargers rule gas engines and probably helped win the war in the pacific. But oh lets not forget turbocharged diesels!! oops that wasnt till the early 50's!

Reichman, you are correct in your assumption. Diesels have to be manufactured with stronger blocks, pistons, rods, crankshaft. As for precision, machining tolerances and such, the soviets were up to the task. All engines depending on their design and application must have exacting tolerances. the unique thing about diesels is that you can engineer them to run on just about anything. In college in one of my courses we rigged up a small John Deere 4 cylinder diesel to run off of oil that had been filtered straight out of the fryer vat (french fries!). It ran of course and the engine was forgiving until the injectors were coated with soot from the wrong combustion temperature. But this proved a point in alternative fuels and the diesels ability to withstand punishment. As for the previous question of diesels "gelling" in the winter. All the soviets would have to do would use a more viscous fuel or what is known in north america as #1. There are also additives that can be used in the fuel to prevent the fuel seperating into solids.

Actually wasnt "bucholtz Station" and SL 12 which I can remember right now were done but are kind of on the bootleg list... enough said. I for one am looking forward to CM2. Ohh those wonderful COI scenarios! I remember this one with the Rumanians and Germans attacking near a coastal city near the border. enough said!

In all actuality, diesel engines are much more complex than gasoline engines. It is the fuel delivery system that requires precision where a gasoline engine in the 1940's was carbureted for the most part (some exceptions). A diesel engine would have less horsepower than a diesel but what really matters is how much horsepower in the form of torque is delivered to the ground via the tracks and the power systems of the AFV. Also a high HP gasoline engine must have large displacement for high HP and torques and a diesel could provide a high torque value at a lower displacement in engine size. As for the Russian use of diesels I believe it was used in vehicles due to the fact that high quality (octane) gasoline was in short supply. Also to counter this though a well engineered gasoline engine can be quite powerplant. If you look at all major powertrains in use today in most equipment it has a diesel engine. Of course the M1 Abrams series has a gas turbine! diffrent animal all together!!!