John D Salt

I believe (staring at pages 135 to 136 of the International Defence Review special issue on Main Battle Tanks, 1976) that the first vehicle in service with a laser range-finder was the M60A2, originally designated M60A1E2. This was produced by the Hughes Aircraft Company, which had been experimenting with laser range-finders since the Colidar Mk 1 in 1961. The M60A2 especially needed good rangefinding for the low-velocity 152mm round fired by its Shillelagh gun/missile system. The same system was fitted in the M551 Sheridan, which also needed a laser range-finder. The orders for these were completed in 1970 and 1971 respectively. Neither vehicle was successful in service, largely because of difficulties with the Shillelagh system. The first "real" gun tanks in service with laser range-finders were I believe the Chieftain Mk 3/3, equipped with a Barr & Stroud laser range-finder, and the STRV 103 ("S" tank), with one developed by Jungner Instrument AB. Shortly thereafter the Cobelda system, developed by SABCA in Belgium, was adopted for Belgian Army and later Australian Arrmy Leopards. Both the Barr & Stroud and SABCA units were developed under licence from Hughes. The original Hughes family of range-finders used pink ruby lasers, but the STRV 103's sytem and contemporary designs by CILAS of France and Marconi Radar Systems used neodymium-doped glass. Later systems used neodymium-YAG lasers and CO2 lasers. All the best, John.

C E M (Cyril) Joad, philosopher and Brains Trust panellist, whose catchphrase was "It all depends on what you mean by..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._E._M._Joad All the best, John.

It appears to make no difference at all in the case of 2% ranging error, but with 20% a 4.9Kg penetrator adds at most 1, and a 10Kg penetrator at most 3, percentage points to the P(hit) at the most sensitive ranges (1200 to 1300 metres). So I hardly think it matters. All the best, John.

Hey, I didn't bother to do any more research than a rough estimate demanded. I just googled "125mm muzzle velocity", and the first hit was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/125_mm_smoothbore_rounds which looked good enough to me. I'll try re-running the calculator with a 4.5Kg penetrator, but I don't expect it will make a blind bit of difference. All the best, John.

Get it. I really can't think of much more to add. "Get it now", maybe. All the best, John.

According to Zaloga & Grandsen, the T-26S model 1937 had single-axis stabilization, as did the T-28 1938 model for its main armament. The Sherman was not even the first US production tank to be so equipped; both the Stuart (from mid-1941) and the Lee had stabilizers. All the best, John. (Edited because I munged up James Grandsen's name) [ June 25, 2006, 05:24 AM: Message edited by: John D Salt ]

Assuming a 3.6Kg projectile with a diameter of 41mm with a muzzle velocity of 1800 m/sec and a dispersion at the muzzle of one mil, my patent steam-powered P(hit) calculator (whose trajectory modelling may well be rubbish) gives the following percentage hit chances on a target measuring 2.5 x 2.5 metres, ...with a range estimation error of 20%: 500m__1000m__1200m__1400m__1600m__1800m__2000m 99%____75%____50%____31%____19%____12%____08% ...and with a range estimation error of 2%: 500m__1000m__1200m__1400m__1600m__1800m__2000m 99%____79%____70%____63%____57%____51%____45% I believe that the calibre, mass and velocity figures are reasonable for a 125mm projectile, the muzzle dispersion is a SWAG but I should think of the right order. Under these assumptions, the improvement in rangefinding essentially makes no difference up to 900m, and becomes increasingly important from then on, as you can see. If "normal combat ranges" are 800-1000 metres, you can get by fine without a rangefinder. At 1500m, you really need it. Well, it was the Russians who put the first gyro-stabilizer-equipped tank into service, was it not? All the best, John.

To go into Joad mode for a minute -- that all depends on what you mean by "near" 100% and what you mean by "long" range. Obviously, the P(hit) of all guns tends to 100% the more shots they take. The hard bit is scoring the first-shot hit. The dominating source of error for first shots has traditionally been the error in range estimation (typically 20-25% of the true distance of estimated by eye), and this explains why high-velocity guns are often thought of as "more accurate" than low-velocity ones. All else being equal, high-velocity guns tend to be less accurate, in the sense of having higher projectile dispersion at the muzzle, than lower-velocity ones, because the higher velocity requires a higher muzzle pressure. However, a relatively flat trajectory "irons out" the ranging errors much better than a relatively curved one, so the H.V. weapons tend to have higher P(hit) against targets with any height. So my answer would be that tanks started getting long-range first-shot P(hit) with the introduction of laser rangefinders in the late 70s. By eliminating the biggest source of error, they made it worthwhile to start work on the lesser sources, and so made it worthwhile to develop the integrated digital ballistic computers and muzzle reference sensors we see today. All the best, John.

Well, quite. And while it might make sense to put a time-fuze in an 8.8cm round for reasons other than self-destruction, it doesn't for 2cm. Apart from anything else, how would you do the fuze-setting? All the best, John.

And with good reason, I think. Page 260 of "The Battle for Kursk 1943: The Soviet General Staff Study" (tr. Glantz & Orenstein, Frank Cass, London, 1999) has this to say: "Ground forces highly valued the work of aviation on the battlefield. In a number of instances enemy attacks were thwarted thanks to our air operations. Thus on 7 July enemy tank attacks were disrupted in the Kashara region (13th Army). Here our assault aircraft delivered three powerful attacks in groups of 20-30, which resulted in the destruction and disabling of 34 tanks. The enemy was forced to halt further attacks and to withdraw the remnants of his force north of Kashara." Kashara is on the northern flank of the salient; I cannot make out what German units were deployed around there using the dreadful maps in the book, but the date I think is too much of a coincidence to be other than the attack your source refers to. 34 tanks claimed is a bit of a come-down, and I think very much more believable. All the best, John.

I rather think that HE rounds need a direct hit on the airframe, too. Unless you imagine that 2cm rounds had proximity fuzes? All the best, John.

"Airlanding" means they land, by trasport aircraft or glider, "parachute" means they parachute. Although I've only ever heard of German airlanding divs (IIRC 52nd Lowland was trained for the role but never did it, otherwise airlanding formations were brigades), and in the German case the difference was usually that one operated like conventional infantry, and so did the other. Very light tanks, very big parachutes, or extremely thick air. All the best, John.

Yes thanks. "Aggressors Volume 1: Tank Buster vs. Combat Vehicle", by Alex Vanags-Baginskis & Rikyu Watanabe (Airlife, 1993) credits it with 120mm at 30 degrees and 100 metres (plate type and penetration criterion unspecified). "Handbuch der Flugzeug Bordwaffenmunition", originally published by the Erprobungstelle Rechlin and collected by Matthias Braun in 1977, gives 140mm and 95mm at 100m and 600m respectively at normal impact, 68mm and 47mm at 100m and 600m at 30 degrees, against hard armour (penetration criterion again unspecified). All the best, John.

Crikey, you must be one of the few CMers who actually find half-tracks useful. Share the secrets of your success, I insist! In real life, remedying the lack of an APC was one of the first equipment priorities for the Soviet Army (with provision of assault rifles and shoulder-fired anti-tank weapons close behind). But I've never found half tracks much use in CM:BB, partly because of all those bloody PTRs. According to Zaloga & Ness, "Red Army Handbook 1939-45" (Sutton, Thrupp, 1998) Soviet tank production was never higher than 25,400 annually. Production and loss ratios between the Soviets and the Germans, adapted from page 181 of the abovementioned book: Year Production ratio Loss/exchange ratio 1941________2:1___________________7:1 1942________5.6:1_________________6:1 1943________3.3:1_________________4:1 1944________1.85:1________________4:1 1945________4:1___________________1.2:1 Overall the Sovs produced 3 tanks for every 1 Germany produced, on the basis of much the same annual steel production. The Germans used the other two-thirds of their steel on SPs and half-tracks. All the best, John.

These seem to be points in which Russian kit in the game does worse than its expected performance (and I would add that the Russian 85mm seem under-rated, too). One might also add places where German kit performs better in the game than one might expect; air-cooled SFMGs having higher firepower ratings than water-cooled ones, German bolt-action rifles reaching to 500m when Soviet ones for some reason don't, and the PzGr 40 round for the 50mm L/60 not bulging the cartridge-case and rendering the gun inoperative every time it's fired. Finally, the excessive effects of large-calibre HE rounds seem to favour the Germans, as they have the 15cm sIG in their force-mix, and the Sovs can never pick 122mm or 152mm weapons in the direct-fire role despite the fact that it was done historically. However, this isn't really the "advantages and disadvantages of the Soviets" for force selection, this is a bunch of quibbles about perceived historical effectiveness. For most QBs, I would tend to favour the staple weaponry that tends to be thought of as typically Sov: -- A good, cheap, general-purpose MBT in the T-34. Use them en masse. -- Good guns. The 76mm field guns are excellent tank-killers early war, and usually cheap; the 76mm IG is useful, mobile and usually cheap; the 57mm AT gun is a great hole-puncher, and the long 45mm is not to be sneezed at for side shots right until the war's end. -- In the early war, some extremely hard-to-kill heavy tanks in the KV series. -- 120mm mortars -- usually cheap, big bangs, and not as unresponsive as most things that size. -- SMG infantry -- don't muck about at a distance, get stuck in close. Also benefit from Soviet 7.62mm SMGs being made unaccountably much better than German 9mm ones. -- Most infantry anyway -- big sections (section size doesn't appear to matter much in real life, but it does in CM), plenty of LMGs from mid-war, and a good few SMGs too. Also benefit from the "Human Wave" rule, which applies only to the Sovs. -- PTRs. Yes, I know they are a joke when used against MBTs, but it is often nice to have ranged anti-vehicle fire against light vehicles, of which the Germans have plenty (recce vehicles, light Panzerjagers and SP sIGs, half-tracks carrying all sorts of things), even if it isn't all that effective. Use at least three on any single target. -- RPG-equipped tank hunter teams. Once the RPG-43 grenade comes in, it can be fiercely effective if a tank is foolish enough to get close. There is something deeply satisfactory about zapping an opponent's Tiger with one, especially when the bailed-out crew sneak up to the nearest available cover where the lurking tank-killers polish them off with SMGs. All the best, John.

Another good reason for never touching salad. As Tom Mouat says, why would anyone want to eat camouflage? Salad -- it's what food eats. All the best, John.

"And what is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good - need we ask anyone to tell us these things?" All the best, John.

Please provide a complete list of ubertanks. All the best, John,

I wouldn't worry about the odd 2mm; German armour plate was not manufactured to such fine tolerances. And it hardly makes any difference compared with the accuracy with which any penetration model reflects Real Life anyway. The T44 is not all that unlike the T54. And they did try putting a 100mm in a T-34 turret, they just didn't adopt it for series production. All the best, John.

If you're in arbitrage and derivatives, why can't you convert dollars to pounds accurately? Oh yeah, I remember, you're a Jew-hating imbecile. John.

Up to a point, Lord Copper. If you are talking about Adolf Hitler, I would point out that he broke the treaties of Versailles and Locarno, the Washington Naval Treaty, the Munich agreement and the non-intervention agreement for the Spanish Civil War before invading Poland -- probably plenty of others, too, but all those are pretty well-known to anyone who has looked at the rise of Nazism. If, on the other hand, you are talking about William Hitler of Liverpool, then you're probably right. Not much, unless he really wants Iran to become the world's biggest radioactive glass ashtray. All the best, John.

Right -- does the ocean really count as "thermally well-mixed", as the other bits of quiz assume? Is there, does anyone know, any evidence of any world-wide temperature increase in the abyssal depths? Or is it something we just don't have the research on yet? All the best, John.

Where does the 2km figure come from for the depth of water-column? All the best, John.

I suspect a misprint for 575 m/sec, the m.v. given by the same authors in their WW2 Fact File on light and medium field artillery, and corroborated by Hogg's "British and American artillery of WW2" and "German artillery of WW2" and Chant's "Artillery of WW2". A slightly higher figure of 610 m/sec, specifically for the M1897A4 gun firing APC M61 or AP M72, is given in Hunnicutt's "Half-Track". Curiously, the first two of editions of Chris Foss' "Artillery of the World" give an m.v. of 624 m/sec, but I think the more widely-agreed figure is easily the more believable. All the best, John.

If you mean the %age quality ratings used in the game, I believe that this means that the armour resists penetration like good-quality armour of that %age thickness. So, e.g., 80mm of 90% quality armour is treated as having an effective thickness of 80 * 0.9 = 72mm. If you mean in real life, then as far as I understand it the ultimate strength of the plate determines the resistance it offers to penetration, and I imagine has some effect on projectile shatter for those projectiles vulnerable to it, but precisely what I haven't yet discovered. All the best, John.