MajorBooBoo

Aren't sights designed depending on weapons characteristics? If there were that great a velocity increase, it would throw off the sights. I have read of super-charging (extra propellent to)ammunition of weapons when they are outclassed. I believe the germans did it in the desert. The super ammo is held in reserve and only used as a last resort. I would suggest that extensive training with the ammo is out because of increased wear and operator damger/weapon damage. Unless someone can produce information such as rifling differences (of PAK39 lets say) or something else, it would appear that ALL L48s had similar penetration performance. The L43 had nearly the same and the PAK40 ATG was superior.

There is also a maintenance issue. These progressive twist barrels wear out sooner. This would put an increased strain on the overloaded workshops in the field. The progressive twist actually is a sort of 'squeeze bore' technology that the germans went for in 88s and other high performance weapons. The 88 barrel was designed to be swapped out easily when worn out by changing the outer length that had the most severe increased twist. It really would have been too much to service all the L48 weapons fielded.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/willphelps/Specs-03.htm This page also gives comparisons of the AP40 velocity and HE velocities for the L43 and L48 used in the Panzer IV. They are equal. The AP39 velocity is 740 m/s and 750 m/s for the L43 and L48 respectively. Most sources I have seen put the L48's (stug, etc) at 750 m/s.

http://homepage.tinet.ie/~nightingale/indepth_75mmat.htm Heres a PAK40 antitank gun website page. I am not sure if I follow everything so just want to lay out what I think I know.. stug III, stug IV, Panzer IV, JagdPanzer IV (early) and Hetzer are the same weapon: They use a L48 weapon with a MV of 750 M/s. Doesnt matter if its called PAK or KWK or STUK, same weapon and same performance. SOME stugIII and Pz IV used L43 but its nearly the same weapon (actually shoots the same ammo) and has a MV thats slightly less a 740 M/s The actual PAK40 ATG (in the webpage) is a different beast. It has a MV of 792 M/s and fires its own unique ammo (but perhaps the projectiles were common?). It is only used in Marder type vehicles, RSO type mounts and rare things like the 234/series armored car. It isnt used in Stug or hetzer or tanks. Its more powerful and was alot more common than most think. 1,000 a month being made at some times. The germans really should have made common ammo for the vehicles and the ATG. It would have made these discussions easier at least. I think BTS can comment and perhaps set the record strait?

I would also like to know why the L48s are rated differently. The L48s all share the same ammo and the same length. The chambers then would all be the same. The only real difference is the muzzle brake which doesnt play into the performance. I didnt 'alude' that the L48s have different ammo or shells or barrel length (in fact I posted a pic that shows the hetzer PAK39 L48 USES bottle shaped ammo). The L46 PAK40 has different ammo but the L43 and L48 share ammo. Theres a difference in MV between L43 and L48 thats slight. Perhaps its a typo because of the PAK name. Did the german 37mm PAK and KWK share ammo (performance)? Did the german 50mmPAK and KWK share ammo(performance)? The 75mm PAK40 was different thats for sure. [ February 21, 2002, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: MajorBooBoo ]

7,5cm KwK37 L/24 7,5cm Stuk37 L/24 7,5cm K.37 7,5cm K.51 L/24 7,5cm StuK L/33 7,5cm K. L/40,8 7,5cm KwK40 L/43 7,5cm Stuk40 L/43 7,5cm KwK40 L/48 7,5cm Stuk40 L/48 7,5cm Pak40 L/46 7,5cm Pak39 L/48 7,5cm KwK42 L/70 7,5cm Pak42 L/70 7,5cm Stuk42 L/70 7,5cm KwK44 L/36,5 Heres a list of tank/panzerjager weapons for main guns that I stole. The germans did have a slew of 75mm weapons [ February 20, 2002, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: MajorBooBoo ]

This is from: http://www.geocities.com/pzfahrer/autopsy.html Autopsy of a Hetzer. It shows the bottle neck type rounds used in the hetzer pak39.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/willphelps/Specs-03.htm This page seems to claim that there is a slight difference between L43KWK and L48KWK. The AP39 MV being slightly less for the L43. If the L46 had a higher MV and the same shell, it should have more penetration too. But I get your point, you are asking if there is soem error in hetzers, etc? They essentially have a panzer IV gun, correct? [ February 20, 2002, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: MajorBooBoo ]

Is the 7.5 cm L24 used in the panzer IV and stugIIIb (early one) the same performance? What about the Panther vs late JagdpanzerIV? I lost the PS in my main computer and only have the craptop right now (no CM available). I read that the 75mm PAK L46 had ammo as long as the panther KWK (but it was just strait and didnt have the panther case bottle shape). The panther AP shells were also different from the other ammo in that it had two bands and a different shape. At first it was the same then it was improved. That came from an encylopedia of german tanks btw. I always thought that all the L48 and L43 weapons were about the same performance. They used the same ammo in both types. Did Jagdpanzer get a greater share of tungsten ammo perhaps?

I dont feel that theres a need for me to answer any more of these "Calculation demand" type questions. No one is addressing the issues I bring up so theres no need for me to bother.

As clearly stated in the other thread, there is the issue of needing a person as a buffer to turn on the system (and for him to be a distance in front of the sensors (mics). You arent grasping the real world technical parameters and I cant keep repeating them. I dont mean to be rude but you dont have enough real world experience perhaps.

You are forgetting the human again. You are calling the sensor points (mics) listening points. How big is a pinpoint? Think about it. How much time to find the pinpoint? Do I want to bombard a pinpoint or a real target full of enemy and weapons? Do you believe in Fuzzy Logic? yes or No?

Asok I will make an attempt.. Here goes: I was demonstrating how someone in the other thread SHOULD have deduced mathematically why I was "wrong". Get it? I was demonstrating a mathematical technique called iteration also. I used the iterative technique to show how I saw the math involved. The math does not converge. It diverges. Read my last Q&A post in the other thread very slowly and see this. "Here we have the heart of the iterative technique: 1. Guess an R 2. Calculate a X that fits this R from the equation above C. to get a Y value 3. Use that X and Y to solve both of the equations A. and B. 4. Compare the R’s obtained. They will not be the same and a midpoint value chosen between them, Use that as a second guess and go back to step 1. Congrats, you are iterating. 5. If the R converges to a single value, you have a solution. If the R diverges, then the equations cannot be solved via this method. This is a very powerful technique in real world applications. Experience also could have told you that since X and Y are squared, there are a range of solutions. I knew this but wanted to see what discussion/proof would come up. Anyone with any education beyond a high school level should have done this way back when Thomm posted the high school solutions. Anyone beyond a BS degree makes me wonder about the education institutions nowadays." Do you see what I am saying? I am NOT saying that it converges and THAT is why it is obvious to me. The missing link is the human as explained also in that Q&A post! The combo of a human AND the easily produced hyperbolas for different time differentials (which are very good) makes the two MIC solution viable. I also wanted to show that the math is not that involved as people were saying. Given this iterative technique, perhaps I can propose a challenge: Can the very difficult math for the 3 sensor (one human, have to not forget him), be made easier with this iterative technique? I cant explain it any more than that. [ February 18, 2002, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: MajorBooBoo ]

Here's proof you're still as wrong as you've been for the whole time: two different solutions using your technique gun location candidate 1 = (1358,1000) gun location candidate 2 = (1134, 500) Getting to multiple solutions means that your technique can't find guns. If you want more proof than to different solutions, I'll be glad to supply some. You would have been a little more convincing, if you had at least tried to take into account that extra LP you just invented. That would have allowed you to save at least some face. regards, Asok</font>

A slight clarification; you need 3 mics AND a human first line of detection. He must be sufficiently in front of the MIC line to alert the CP to turn the whole deal on. It cannot be left on. If you read through the other thread, it is explained why. You also need some sort of talented computationists to figure out that math. The 2 MIC solution can be done by any high school grad I believe.

I like to think it out first, then go on a research binge when I hit a good library. I can then compare what I come up with and the people of the day did. Try to ignore JonS' importing his nastiness from the other thread. Is everyone from NZ like some of the characters that share themselves here? I think I am seeing a trend unfortunately.

The microphones are sensor points (there is no need for a human to be at the mics). The human is at the LP (listening post). There must be a separation because of previously stated "time of flight" of the sound. The human must be in front of the mic line sufficient to allow the turn on of recorders before the sound reaches the mics. This has been gone over before in this thread. Nice illustration in that new thread by the way. He is showing a four pen recorder too.

It would appear that you have painted yourself in a corner. Is it possible to locate an enemy gun using just two sensor mics that can record a time differential? Yes, under real conditions. It has limitations just as three or more mics has limitations. It also has benefits that the 3 or more mic solutions doesn’t have. What is the answer then? How can this be done? As outlined previously, the system as used in WWII (maybe till 1944) needed an LP post. This is the human that initiates turn on the system. Due to technical limitations already explained, he must participate and can’t be ignored. Sorry if anyone considers this cheating but its real world and life’s a bitch. I gave enough clues and no discussion came of my previous Q&A threads where I spelled out that he was there. Just goes to show that reading AND math comprehension isnt what it used to be. How does that change anything? Humans have binaural hearing. That is the missing link in the puzzle. The human also knows where he is on the X-Y plane along with the mics. He is situated between the mics and forward. The triangle that is formed has a 1000 meter length and two other sides of equal length. How does the hearing play into this? Please demonstrate? The CB process plays out as follows: Gun fires LP hears and signals “turn on” first to CP He then gets an angular estimate/fix and reports this to CP CP computes raw time differential Quick-aids, like clear acetate with black hyperbels that correspond to different time differentials and 1000 meter constant separation (or whatever the true separation is) of mics limitation is placed over map and an angle drawn from LP report. This quickly gives the intersection of the raw immediate data collected. The time to get to this stage could be in the range of a minute or two. This is the major advantage of this system. Quick retaliation and not prone to long calculating time and calculation errors. What are some of the disadvantages? Its range limited. The further the range, the greater the error. The accuracy of the LP report decreases with range. His report will have an angular center and angular error. This angular error then manifests itself as an arc length error along the hyperbola solution from the time differential. The further away, the longer the arc length. If it’s possible, the CB artillery should hammer along the length of the arc (the gun is along the arc with some precision so hammering from both end of the arc inwards ain’t such a bad idea). The obvious use of a technique like this is for counter mortar operations. The logic is the mortars are close and mobile. A quick retaliation is much better than a more precise late retaliation being the thinking. The obvious disadvantage is the scenario of the sound coming from a perpendicular angle to the layout of the two mics. The time differential is very low and the locus of points along the asymptotes giving too many solutions. The overall system is range limited no matter how many mics/LPs you use. I believe that a 6000-meter range limitation was thrown out in another post. Sound takes 17.5 seconds to go 6000 meters. In terrain like hedgerows, sound ranging would be highly questionable. What would you say are some real world parameters? What would start happening after experience builds in the units? The LPs would get good after awhile. They could start recognizing sounds and associating them with ranges too (from feedback from the CP) and the weapons that produced them. They could choose positions that would maximize the angle of most effectiveness. A guess would be that his angle of effectiveness is between 45-50 degrees at most. The whole two-mic/LP system then wants to point itself so that the “deaf” perpendicular zone is not pointed at a likely enemy weapon location line. As the LP can estimate better, he can increase the angle of effectiveness better. Since Arty/mortars are not just explosive events (which ARE hard to binaurally locate) they can be fixed to within an angle of perhaps 10-15 degrees and maybe better. The better matched a persons hearing is between his two ears, the better a receptor he is. Young guys would be chosen and tested for this job. I make no apologys here. the human is in the system and is not a one eyed, one legged, one earred fool. What do you think of the Neanderthal like math demonstrated in this thread? It’s not the math as much as the narrow mindedness/pissy attitudes. I don’t believe that it took as many pages as it did before anyone could express what they thought was the math behind this. Its laughable that someone would say “Oh, its trivial”, and then 4 days later he has the “answer” (but I liked that guys idea about the unspotted arty animations way back when , so I will not name names). Someone came up with a high school level solution but decided that was the end of it. I would like to expand a little on the math and describe a technique. This technique would have revealed the “answer” they all sought easily. I will describe it and if needed will post a follow up to clear up any confusion. I am doing this in case there are silent followers of this thread that could learn something. The vociferous elements in this thread are clearly beyond learning anything. When you have X amount of equations and Y unknowns (Y=X-1), the attempt should be made to find an iterative solution. Here is the data: The knowns are: Speed of Sound 343 m/sec 1372 meters between recievers. 2 second time lag from sound (dr2) r2=r1+686 meters exact cartesian coords of recievers taken as: "left" reciever will be expressed as origin (0,0) "right" reciever will be expressed as (1372,0) If you have two mikes (x1, y1) and (x2, y2) and a time difference dr12 then you have three equations r1^2 = (x-x1)^2 + (y-y1)^2 r2^2 = (x-x2)^2 + (y-y2)^2 r2 = r1 + dr12 To be clear, we are solving for x and y (the enemy gun location). r1 is the distance between the source and the "left" receiver. dr12 is known and 686 meters. r2=r1 +686. x1=0, y1=0 x2=1372, y2=0 substituting in these values yields: A. r1^2=x^2+y^2 B. (r1+686)^2=(x-1372)^2+y^2 expanding and subtracting one equation from the other yields: C. 1372*r1+686^2=-2744*x+1372^2 Here we have the heart of the iterative technique: 1. Guess an R 2. Calculate a X that fits this R from the equation above C. to get a Y value 3. Use that X and Y to solve both of the equations A. and B. 4. Compare the R’s obtained. They will not be the same and a midpoint value chosen between them, Use that as a second guess and go back to step 1. Congrats, you are iterating. 5. If the R converges to a single value, you have a solution. If the R diverges, then the equations cannot be solved via this method. This is a very powerful technique in real world applications. Experience also could have told you that since X and Y are squared, there are a range of solutions. I knew this but wanted to see what discussion/proof would come up. Anyone with any education beyond a high school level should have done this way back when Thomm posted the high school solutions. Anyone beyond a BS degree makes me wonder about the education institutions nowadays. Someone asked “why are you so persistent when “everyone” thinks you are wrong?” The only thing I concentrated on (besides throwing people off) was the math and the post by Slapdragon about what the US guys were actually doing. I have been in enough technical situations to know that you should listen to the techs, the engineers and then the science eggheads. No one here bothered answering my question about how long would the math take for a 3-mike solution. They clearly didn’t want to do it or address it. But that’s typical of the threads around here. The UK-Euro/Mapleleaf/Aussie/NZ Mafia continue to be rabble-rousing barflys. This same Einstein that said this also made a clueless remark about the very interesting momentum thread (with the tank engine being knocked out the back). I take back anything positive I may have said about this person. He clearly did not understand what I was doing in that thread either. Evidently, thinking irritates certain people around here. I will try to avoid making them think in threads but these same people are in every thread. Says something about them I guess. What do you think of the Uber-Canadians Finn-like use of WWI CB techniques? Please. That’s like saying that the first guy who mounted a MG in a WWI airplane and went up and shot down a dozen planes is an ace. Any new introduction of technology can catch an enemy unaware and wreak havoc (unless you are the Brits misapplying tanks in WWI and throwing that advantage away). I bet the German guns were a lot closer and not as well dug in as WWII arty. They didn’t move as much because they usually did not have to and were shot up like ducks in a barrel. The Canadians took their time and located them all and devastated them. Good for the Canadians. Its what I would have done.

What is this? A Newbiewerfer thread? I cant see your pic by the way. I am typing up a long text explanation now and will cut and paste it in later today. Its a holiday (pres day?) So I am off. See you in the other thread.

http://iva.uni-ulm.de/physik/repetitorium/MATHEMATIK/7/07_05.html y=a/x I am not surprised that people havent responded to my simple question. Its clear that the greatness of Newton, Hamilton, Taylor and Leibniz has been washed out over the generations. Newton was a nasty individual on a personal level, so maybe that has been handed down. I am quite prepared to respond to all these new findings but I fear that people here would rather bask in the fuzzy contentment of believing they are right. It will be a very harsh reflection on the people who have committed themselves here so maybe you should all be like mice and stay quiet? I will use my well recieved Q&A style.

The US forces (someone MUST have been getting a kickback), used non-smokeless powder in their small arms in WWII. This continued into the Korean War (mostly because they had stocks of it). I dont know if there is a game that uses this info (maybe panzer elite). The US MGs in korea were limited in tactics because of this. They would develop a cloud after awhile and the enemy could mortar the position out of existance. You could follow the tracers back to teh cloud of smoke. BARs took on a new role as mobile MG substitute so that the real MGs could lay in wait.

If you are 680 meters from A and 340 meters from B, and they are seperated by 340 meters, you are all in line? yes or no? I am not answering anymore questions, till we can at LEAST agree on this.

http://www.tno.nl/instit/fel/museum/en/earlyeq.html I gotta get me to the Museum Waalsdorp.. Seems they are finding elevation here from two mikes (read the paragraph thouroughly please and dont be misled because theres four mics, two are used for elevation, two are used for angle). How'd they do it?

http://www.carleton.ca/Capital_News/05021999/f2.htm I dont care about what EVERYBODY says about Canadians, Some of them are pretty smart. They are actually the Finns of the Americas... Anyone tell me "watt" sound principle they are working on?

ANY POINT 340 METERS FURTHER FROM POINT A THAN FROM POINT B WILL GIVE A ONE SECOND DELAY!!! Answer these questions given the speed of sound at 340M/S and the 2 listening posts are 340 meters apart. 1) 1 foot from mike B 2) 680 meters from A and 340 Meters from B 3) 1020m from A and 680m from B . . . .[/QB]</font>