Lumbergh

John, A question. Does a HEAT/HC round produce its lethality through a mechanism that would not be evident in your above table? Or does the mass of metal flying about after a penetrating hit pretty much sum up the round lethality? cheers, Dave

Some of us would say that it contributed to many KO'd Arab tanks...

Sure, but for the price of your Dell monitor you'd end up with a crappy tft that would not look as good. Shell out for a nice LCD and you'll love it. Plus it is much easier on the eyes for reading text on the screen, a big bonus for anyone who spends large amounts of time hacking stuff into your pc, which I suspect most people do.

1. 15th Rifle Division? Just guessing.

Right...rifled barrel, definitely. info looks like it had a barrel-launched missile on the T-55M though: "ATGM Launcher Name D-10T2S gun Launch Method Gun-launched Guidance SACLOS, Infrared laser-beam rider Command Link Encoded laser-beam Launcher Dismountable No " [ July 14, 2003, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: Lumbergh ]

I wouldn't be so sure. What about when it rains and you get uranium leeching into the groundwater? Then you have heavy metal contamination of someone's drinking water.

This is my thought too, although like you I don't have any reference to hand. Did the T-55 ever have a smoothbore gun? I simply can't recall. Michael </font>

"Sturmmörser Tiger" in the Medium class? Shouldn't this thing just get excluded? Or put into the "superheavy" since it has the ahistoric superman reload time?

Old people hobbies are great fun as a teen, especially if you get dad involved. Nothing was better than doing R/C planes with my dad, and I assume that nothing will be better than whooping your dad at CMBB.

So why don't they pay you and incorporate your magic into CMAK?? Sounds like a good idea to me.....

Yeah, it's perfect for working on your tophat-lowski or whatever it's called. The TAC AI, as smart as it is, never seems to catch on to that one!

Would not a penetrating hit of DU SABOT be catastrophic? Doesn't the uranium dust ignite inside the tank or something really nasty (not to mention breathing uranium dust or contaminating the inside of a vehicle with uranium dust)? I'd give more weight to the "it explodes" and the "it's cheap" explanations...

He must have been particularly angry at the facists that day...

Were not certain Henschels equipped with downward-firing anti-tank weaponry? A MAD detector hooked up to a cannon or somefink?

"519" tank kills?? Sure, I believe that....

I would venture to say that the difference between walking uphill and downhill in terms of tiring you out is small enough it can be left out. As for skiing, I guess it depends on the equipment. If they used telemark skis then going downhill is pretty tiring as well. Old skis are big and heavy and tiring in general!

Everyone needs to be sure to go the main menu of the page hosting that article. Make sure to turn your speakers up before you go.

Assault Boat Grogs.

I think it's 60% luck and 40% skill in CMBB, no matter what side you play. If you pick your own units, maybe then the side matters, but otherwise, no difference. Each side has its pluses and weaknesses depending on date, terrain and muddiness.

Downloaded. Looks cool...nice website, very well done.

You know, I don't necessarially buy the "put ourselves out of business" argument. Steve and Charles could make just CMBO every 2 years with updated graphics and do just fine. I do buy the "insanely too much work to do" argument though.

I recently read "Ajax, the Dutch, the War" by Simon "Times and FT footy writer" Kuper. I thought I was getting a football book, but it was actually all about how the Dutch managed to kill off a whopping 75% of their Jewish population in WWII. You have to try really hard to do that--even Germany could not achieve such a high "success" rate!

Hello, Willie Mays???????

Sorry, that would be Denmark . You must have confused the Danes with the country that managed to exterminate the highest percentage of its Jewish population in Western Europe...

Stepping in here at a late point... Let's summarize...Logically, we all agree that the stug44 is superior to the K-98. If it were not, then why does every infantry rifle now look like the stug44 rather than the K-98? Assuming that the current direction of infantry weaponry is correct, then the stug44 represents an improvement in armorment. Given that it is an improvement, there remains 2 questions. 1, what are the downsides, and do they outweigh the benefits, and 2, would the aforementioned benefits prove to be significant. For 1, the downsides I see mentioned seem to boil down to two. First, carrying more ammo for the semi-auto rifle would reduce the available carrying capacity for the LMG by a significant amount. However, it appears the rate of fire of a bolt-action, as quoted in this thread, is closer to that of an assault rifle than would immediately be apparent. Second, the additional ammo consumption could stretch the German logistical system even further. Obviously, it would add an additional strain, but a significant one? I would venture that many, many other war materials were much more logistically challenging than rifle bullets. With regards towards 2, would the new weapon prolong the war? The only positive argument for this is that the assault rifle adds additional suppresive power and flexibility to the standard squad. This is significant, but, as is pointed out above, depends on the fighting situation. Given the (many times cited) situation at the front, with massive allied reliance on artillery and (in the East) direct-fire HE, how much extra would the stug44 really add to the squad? Something, but not much. In short, it seems rather pedantic to argue that a better weapon would somehow have no effect on the battlefield at all. On the other hand, it also appears that any extension of the war from the change in weaponry would be very minor. We could give the Germans M-16s with grenade launchers and it would still not do much good against a tank army's worth of T-34s.