Brian

I knew a young fellow who decided to do that as well. Silly boy. He'd just finished stripping it when the call came, "On Parade in 5 minutes!" He put together the externals and threw the rest into his locker. Luckily for him there wasn't a weapon inspection or they'd have figured out there wasn't anything inside. I have quite a collection of pams. I used to collect them when when they were thrown out of the unit library. I've got a few gems, such as a complete collection of "The Enemy" dating back to 1964. I've also got the very rare (now) "Pentropic" Division pam, which shows all the you beaut stuff we never bought for Vietnam. I actually quite liked the F1. For an SMG its a light, small, handy weapon and its use of the L1a1 Butt and Trigger group is quite clever. The PIRA in Northern Ireland quite liked them, by all accounts, as well. SAS aren't quite the man eaters most people assume. One of my recruit camp instructers was one and I've known another ex-SASR for most of my life. Both were pretty unassuming blokes but superb soldiers. Competition between instructers can get pretty intense, IIRC.

No, they were/are a useful place to get some grounding in the military arts. I used to do Cadet Camps as a member of Staff. Lots of fun and very amusing as well. Well, that dates you, I think, considering when the Owen was phased out. I've only ever handled but never fired an Owen, I'm only a youngster. Basically right. I was always taught to breakup the outline by pay attention to nose, cheeks, forehead, ears and neck, using elongated "blobs", rather than covering the whole area. As I said, the problem is if you do cover the whole area, you still need to open your eyes and there is your mouth. Children as young as 3 months can recognise a face shape based on just those three points, so its deeply instinctive to identify even the most minimal representation of a face, if it can be seen. Each to their own. I used it, as I said, to hide my glass's reflection. I actually preferred not to but my corporal got upset the first time an ambush failed on my IET course because the "enemy" caught the glint off my spectacles.

95mm How. armed CS tanks were issued usually on the basis of 2 or 4 per Squadron, and were usually part of Squadron HQ, basically parcelled out to the troops as required. The Challenger was employed usually as either a complete troop in each squadron or as one or two vehicles per troop. They were IIRC only issued to each Recce Regiments of armoured divisions though, after about August 1944, when they could be brought ashore via proper harbour facilities, rather than over the beach because no provision had been made for wading for them. Comets were basically issued to complete regiments and used in the normal squadron orbats. [ March 07, 2002, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: Brian ]

Not only would Nomanhan be possible but also the couple of other Soviet-Japanese clashes along the Korean-Soviet border in 1938-39, as well as obviously Manchuria in 1945. If, as promised, the game allows the use of captured equipment, effectively it would be possible to have the game's Russians, represent the Japanese (to allow wave attacks, etc), while the Germans could represent the Allies, with each side using the best vehicle for a particular mod. The real problem might come with Sino-Japanese battles - who gets to use the human wave? CMBB will I think be perhaps the best of the two games to use in such an enterprise, rather than trying with CMBO. I do hope you're not going to concentrate solely on Palm trees though! Lots of different trees in a Tropical Rainforest. If the crops work the way they appear to, they'll make a good substitute for Kunai grass in New Guinea. [ March 07, 2002, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: Brian ]

Obviously depends upon many factors. Generally IIRC the main "rules" for camouflage are: Shape; Surface; Shine; Silhouette; Movement; Generally Cam is intended to preferrably hide and at least obscure an object that isn't moving. Obviously, a object thats covered in green folage is going to be rather inappropriate for a desert and a vehicle painted for desert cam isn't going to work in the middle of a forest. So, camouflage must be appropriate to the terrain and conditions surrounding the object. Shiny surfaces are more visible than matt ones. Regular shapes are more visible than irregular ones. Flat surfaces more visible than bumpy ones. Something that sticks up above the surrounding terrain will be silhouetted like a sore thumb. A moving object is more visible than an immobile one. Appreciate that and then its possible to try and correct them and if you're reasonably good at it, and you have some degree of luck, then it will remain hidden. There is also a problem of sometimes "more is too much of a good thing", in that many novices try too hard and end up looking like moving bushes. In the case of personal cam, its better to try and break up the outline, and apply a minimum of face paint rather than trying to turn your skin green like a frog's (too much face paint makes the areas you cannot colour, like your eyes, mouth and nose more prominent and so hence more easily detected through shape recognition). When I was in the Oz Army were were always taught to apply sufficient face paint to break up the face's outline and leave enough skin free to allow you to sweat easily without smearing the face paint. Another useful item is a face veil but they appear to have largely fallen out of fashion, for the most part ('cause I wear glasses I always wore a face veil as it prevented the glasses from reflecting sunlight). On vehicles, important areas to hide, particularly in arid environments are the shadow under the vehicle (which is why you'll see vehicles with rolled up hessian along the edges in pictures of the Western Desert. When halted, the hessian was quickly lowered and the vehicle would then look with a quick glance from the air, like a big rock, rather than something on four or more wheels suspended above the desert with a shadow underneath) and other overhangs. In less arid environments, its possible to use folage to hide that shadow and its not quite as stark as in a desert. Barrels on AFVs are also an important feature to hide, their length and regularity can be quite revealing. The ADF has also found a useful way to both shade tanks in the far north of Australia's "top end" and to break up their shape has been to use large umbrellas over the top of the turrets, like those used in many open street cafes (except they use camouflage clothe). This is an important consideration when it gets over 60 degrees C inside a tank up there in the dry and over 35 degrees with 90% humidity in the wet. Avoid movement as much as possible and when you do move, follow the (hopefully) established track plan, so that its not possible for the enemy to either spot fresh tracks or determine strength from them. I'm sure there is more but thats the basics as I remember them.

Approximately 10 years. Not that much has changed and as I pointed out, uniforms are basically issued free of issue, with the exception of dress ones, which is quite a contrast with the Marine Corps which apparently expects the member to pay out of their own pocket for all uniforms. I wonder Gyrene, do they expect you to pay for your own weapons and ammunition as well? BTW, you didn't actually mention was the scales of pay were. How much would a Private earn, for example? [ March 07, 2002, 03:16 AM: Message edited by: Brian ]

And perhaps a bigger range of early/mid-war Allied vehicles, as well. If the Matilda and M3 Stuart are included, along with the M4 Sherman, then you basically have most of the Allied tanks, with the unfortunate and notable exception of the M3 Grant/Lee, used in the war against Japan. With the addition of Panzer I's, and T26's, it then becomes possible to do Chinese armour as well. Hopefully the H39 will remain in the game, making it possible to utilise the existing Type 97 light tank Mod.

Doesn't Fletcher though, in "Universal Tank" note that the AEC's and Staghounds were basically being phased out by 1945 in the Armoured Car Regiments? Never make assumptions, John.

Its basically a screw on adapter to produce a squeeze-bore effect with for AP rounds. Developed in the UK by an emigre Czech (?) engineer whose name escapes me at the moment, they used the same Gerliche principle as the various German squeeze-bore guns but applied it only at the end of the barrel. Basically it used an APCR round with "skirts" around the body and grooves just behind them. As the round came to the Little John Adapter, the pressure forced the round into the decreasing diameter bore and the skirts would lay flat in the grooves, thereby ejecting it at a higher velocity than it would normally have had. They were developed both for the 2 Pdr and the US 37mm gun. The adapters were issued to Armoured Car Regiments and the Airborne Recce Regiment in NW Europe on an unknown (to me at least) scale and can be seen in several photos in various books (look at usually Daimler armoured cars and see if they have a longer barrel than normal and you'll find they have a Little John attached). It simply screwed on the end of the barrel with a hexagonal nut. However, one usually reads that the users had complaints against its use because it prevented the use of HE. Which in itself is interesting, as generally its considered that a HE round for 2 Pdrs was rarely if ever issued in the British Army! While as I said, a version for the 37mm was made, it was even rarer than the normal 2 Pdr version. The only reference I've come across that mentions it being issued is usually in connection with the Locusts of the Airborne Recce Regiment (I think Chamberlain and Ellis mention it. They might even have a picture of it IIRC). David Fletcher, the head librarian at the Royal Armoured Museum has told me that he's working a book on the Armoured Car Regiments in NW Europe and it might clear up a lot of the questions about both the HE round and the LJA. If I was to make an educated guess, I'd suspect that it was issued at perhaps one or two per troop, which would have provided several specialised AT vehicles which were exclusively only available for AT work while the rest of the cars were able to used their guns in a more versatile manner.

Thankfully, they will be making the bill of the floppy hat smaller, it's freaking huge as it is. Gyrene</font>

Just as they would only last through a limited number of any firing, Andreas. As far as I'm aware, the German army did not issue a specific round for artillery work, instead relying upon the basic HE round, the 8.8cm Sprgr Patr L/4.5. As it was a fixed round, the muzzle velocity for it would have been exactly the same if it was used for AA or indirect fire. The only difference in it when used for each role was that it was fitted with a time fuse AZ 23/28 for AA and an impact fuse, the Zeit Z S/30 for indirect artilery. This would mean that the barrel would wear at the same rate, no matter which role it was used for. So, if your batteries are firing indirect, they'll need to replace those barrels at the same rate as if they were firing AA.

Thankfully, they will be making the bill of the floppy hat smaller, it's freaking huge as it is. Gyrene</font>

Weight was only one consideration, and actually a pretty neglible one, Michael. Much worse was friction. The RAF higher-ups insisted that all camouflage had to be matt, to make it effective. They were correct but in doing so, they robbed their aircraft of between 20-30 mph. Something which was noted by the squadrons who fought against the matt decision. Various alternatives were tried, from making the leading edges gloss to putting wax on and polishing it. In the end, it was decided that because of the marginal speed performance of most fighters against the Fi-103 V1, fighters engaged on "Diver" patrols would have gloss or semi-gloss finishs. Many individual pilots had their aircraft unofficially polished and others had wax applied to the leading edges and smoothed. While the weight of paint might be an issue on a very large aircraft like an airliner, on an aircraft the size of most WWII fighters, it was only in the tens of pounds, not the hundreds.

Well, the real problem is that BTS has not provided the Daimler with either the Little John Adapter or the HE rounds which seem to have been issued in NW Europe for use with its 2 Pdr. While other armoured cars were developed or purchased by the British, they weren't used extensively in NW Europe. The primary gun armed cars were the Daimler (with some Coventrys) and the Humber. The primary scout cars, were the Dingo, the Humber and an odd assortment of various Light Recce Cars like the Otter. Rather than campaigning for new vehicles, I'd much rather see a patch issued, which is of course now impossible, which allowed the Daimler to have HE. Just as nice, would be the provision of the Little John Adapter (but that precludes the use of HE). I can just imagine the howls from German players if that was included in the game.

Barrel wear was indeed an issue for the 8.8cm, Andreas. Hogg makes the point that the design of the weapon was changed several times in an effort to try and make it easier and more efficient to change the barrel liner sections. The Germans however proved too clever even for themselves with the Flak 41, which had the join between two sections of liner just where the shoulder of the cartridge case was, with consequence problem that it would often expand and make extraction difficult. It was never really cured, despite moving to brass, rather than steel cases and even changing the number of liners. Pity, 'cause the Flak 41 was the best of the marque as far as AT performance goes. The general rule of thumb though, is obviously, the higher the MV, the more barrel wear and the shorter the barrel life. The Germans tried to improve on that through the above mentioned use of multiple loose liners. They also tried (comparatively) novel shell designs, utilising different numbers of driving bands made of various materials. Even so, they never cured it. On some of their proposed superheavy AA guns, the barrel life was so short that they'd have barely lasted a single raid, with a life of only ~400 rounds. The British, as far as I can tell in comparison simply bore the cost and changed the barrel as often as necessary or possible in their various marks of 3.7in. I suspect the Americans did similar. Where that wasn't possible, occasionally strange things occurred. My father who served in Darwin during WWII, would relate stories of one 3.7in AA gun whose barrel had run its course but there was no replacements available. Excessive use and wear had resulted in a noticeable problem with accuracy. Apparently it tended to throw its shells in one particular direction. The resourceful gunners merely produced a correction table and continued to use the gun against the frequence Japanese air attacks until it was declared unsafe.

See my response to Jason below. The need to penetrate 40mm at 500m was part of the design specification and the 3,7cm would have been utterly incapable of providing any support to the infantry as it had no HE round. The StuG was envisioned to have a dual role and the 7,5cm StuK 37 was the only weapon that could fill both roles. Claus B</font>

I just had a thought, shouldn't we call this thread "The Maus that Roared"?

Combat accounts report that it was inaccurate beyond 500-600 meters. This meant that the germans had to get within the effective range of the enemy weapons. These accounts also reiterate that it took multiple hits to get a destroyed target. Hard to get hits and multiple hits needed is not a formula for success. If it could at least have a high percentage of destruction when it DID get a hit, then I would consider it mildly effective. But I consider it marginally effective at best. </font>

According to all the evidence, no Maus saw combat. When it was first revealed that a Maus actually still existed, at Kabinka way back in 1986 (or was '87) through the UK magazine Wheels and Tracks (BTW, if you can ever get a hold of that journal, I'd heartily recommend it), it was even then suggested that the Kabinka beast was an amalgam of the two prototypes. Since then, with the fall of the fUSSR, the new evidence has been only to confirm that the vehicle in Russia is made up from two vehicles. One of which was destroyed in order to prevent it falling into Soviet hands. The hull of the other was then given its turret and shipped off for testing to Moscow. Apparently the hull does have some signs of having been fired at but as to whether or not this was the result of testing or the damage caused during its capture, I have no idea. As the manufacturing plants were all in the western zone, your scenario would have been far more likely there. When the British occupied the factories in the Ruhr they found quite a few E100/Maus turrets and only one incomplete E100 hulls. I've seen pictures of one factory/proving ground with three or four turrets and two E100 hulls and another with two other turrets.

Out of a matter of interest, does anybody have any information about the performance of the following 7.5cm rounds, beyond what is briefly mentioned in Hogg's "German Artillery of World War II"? 7.5cm Pzgr PAK Patr TS 42 7.5cm Sprgr 38 H1/C Klappleitwerk Were either ever issued?

Why do you consider that it was "marginal at best", MBB?

You appear to have missed a few: 7.5cm Pak41 7.5cm Pak97/38 7.5cm Pak50 7.5cm Geb K15 7.5cm Geb G36 7.5cm FK 16 nA 7.5cm le FK18 7.5cm FK38 7.5cm FK 7M85 (Wansee) 7.5cm FK 7M59 Then there were a whole slew of various captured 7.5cm weapons the Germans utilised.

As MBB aludes to, the three different guns had, despite the same length barrels, different shaped chambers and hence cartridge cases. The shape and size of a chamber determines, along with barrel length the rate at which the powder burns, so hence the velocity of the round. They may all fire the same projectile but they fire it at different velocities and accelerations. This is why for the British, the 17lb and the 77mm may be of the same calibre (both are 76.2mm) and they may fire the same projectiles but their rounds are very different. The 17lb being an artillery weapon, its case tends to be long and thin, which is close to the optimal for the burning of powder to provide a constant acceleration throughout the length of the barrel. The 77mm, being a tank gun and designed to overcome the associated problems with trying to cram the 17lb into a tank turret, has a shorter, more stubby case. That makes it easier to handle in the cramped confines of a tank turret but because it also has a slightly short barrel, in order to achieve the same velocities it must burn its powder faster. A short stubby case provides more surface area for the powder to burn and so a faster acceleration. Whereas in a tank, the mass of the vehicle can absorb the sharper recoil, on an artillery piece, such a sharp recoil requires a heavier mounting, and so decreases the utility of the weapon. So, basically there has to be a tradeoff. In the case of the German 75mm, they essentially designed different weapons, all utilising the same projectiles, rather than utilising the same weapon, for all roles, in all mountings. Now, here's a comparable question. What is the difference between a Pak40 and a late war Pak36®, apart from the obvious one of calibre? [ February 20, 2002, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: Brian ]

Sounds a bit like the old wives' tale of giving your loved one a cigarette case/pocket bible/flask/etc, in the hope it will deflect that one fatal bullet. However, your story is similar to that told of the Mongols who were supposedly reputed to wear a silk shirt under their armour, so that any wounding arrow could then be withdrawn from a wound by pulling back on the threads of silk. However, as one author I know points out, as they rarely washed, any such shirt would have been rendered rather moot after a few months of wear.