Mr. Tittles

It was probably used as a semi-auto most of the time. For its weight and 20 round magazine, it would not be that bad a semi-auto. But as a LMG or assault rifle, it was too light to fire full auto unless prone and using a bipod. A BAR could be used as an assault weapon and is actually a better weapon even though it weighs more.

The MG34 to MG42 transition saw a loss of weight and an increase in rate of fire also. This is not a formula for a stable weapons system that uses the same full powered round. In the case of the tripod mount, it probably did not make much difference. But in the bipod mode, with increasing use by younger and older shooters, it was a problem. They should have developed a burst mode where one pull of the trigger cycled about 6 rounds. Thats about a third of a second. This would allow controlled use of the ammo and bullets going where they were aimed. The MG34 did have (in many models) semi-auto capability. A better solution could have been a belt fed MP44 weapon. Heavier barrel, bipod, belt fed, lighter ammo.

http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891/pzpanther/pzpanther-Charakteristics.html I believe this data also shows that the mantlet is much stronger than the turret front. If you look at the ranges where the turret front and mantlet are vulnerable, there is quite a discrepency. That is, there must be a reason for its strength. The shatter gap theory may explain some instances but I suggest that the curved nature of teh cast mantlet actually increases its strength beyond what a normal flat piece of cast armor would have. As a AP shell enters the mantlet front, it starts penetrating normally. Once inside, it has to push through and displace material. As it enters into the mantlet, there is an increased 'side-effect' because of the shape of the material. Its the same effect that makes bridges or egg shells strong from attack against the curved area. I believe this effect offsets any degrading effect that cast armor usually has.

This implys they know the vulnerable spot. After field test shoots, these spots could be detected. But some spots are small enough that hitting them at 100 meters is not as easy as you think. The gunners sight is offset from the parallel barrel. Hitting something like a track (from the front), is entirely possible since the track width is large enough compared to the offset. Hitting a bow MG is not that easy. The Panther mantlet-deflection shot is a small region. If you inspect the Panther G upgrade to the mantlet, it only covers the lower part but not up to the apex. The Germans probably did tests and resolved the improvement area. Most shoots uncovered the fact that the upper hull area was almost invulnerable and tracks and turret hits were probably SOP (as well as using smoke and reverse). At 100m, the firing of the gun, flight of the shell and strike happen fairly quickly (about 1/8th of a second). Juddging where a strike is located would be difficult at best. Firing a coax could help under this circumstance. The continuous stream of tracers and sparks from the bullet strikes would correlate with the strike of the main gun round (differences in velocity would be negligible). I don't believe the mantlet was as vulnerable as games make it out to be. As I said before, The 'vertical' portion of the curved mantlet represents a very small area of '120mm' cast armor. The deflection area is small also and the 110mm 'turret-front' areas are also small. Other vulnerable areas are the commanders copula, the bow MG.

Just for the record, I like Ballistic lesbians exclusively.

</font>

Actually, its only OK if lesbians are lipstick lesbians. Ive known quite a few non-lipstick lesbians and it is in no way a turn on to think of them carrying on in any fashion. I am only pro-lipstick lesbian. I Wanted to make that clear. Seanachai can not only be gay, but can be gay as he needs to be. As long as he is a lipstick cross-dresser that is. Which is how I picture him. Wearing bunny slippers, curlers and a house dress and tapping at his keyboard.

Ops, you nearly fell of your high horse there mr (sir) Grog . //Salkin </font>

Seanachai, did the farm animals have flatulence? Thats what I want to know. And I am not out to get Seanachai's goat. Seems its already been 'gotten' (after Seanachai wined and dined it).

So we can assume that you have had intimate relations with either men and/or farm animals?

RECORD OF COMPARATIVE FIRING TEST Shoeburyness - 23 May 1944 Rolled Homo @ 30º ; Service Velocity Ammunition ROUND AMMUNITION*** RANGE ARMOUR THICKNESS BDF FUNCTIONING RESULTS** PHASE I 1 90mm Shell, APC M82 800 yds 120mm yes PP - Depth 3", Bulge 3/8" 2 17pdr APCBC 800 yds 120mm - PTP 3 & 4* 90mm Shell, APC M82 400 yds 120mm yes PP - Depth 4", Bulge 1½" 5 76mm Shell, APC M62 400 yds 120mm no PP - Depth 21/8", Bulge 1/8" 6 90mm Shell, APC M82 100 yds 120mm yes PP - Depth 4", Bulge ¾" 7 76mm Shell, APC M62 100 yds 120mm no PP - Depth 2¼", Bulge 1/8" This test shows PP (partial penetration) results. This is for 120mm sloped at 30 degrees from the certical.

Oh, sorry, that was BARMAN talking about 'Booze n Broads'.

Kitty: Please keep stories about 'Booze 'n Broads' in the Peng thread.

In CM, the distribution of hits is not representative of the differences in vehicle layouts. So the Panther 'turret-front' 110 mm near vertical section, while being a very small area, might get a disproportianate number of hits. In reality, the Germans had SOPs about engaging enemy vehicles. I believe they would stand off 600 meters in the case of the Panther. Battle in bocage did not allow such SOPs. German tanks should have let infantry lead in such conditions. The Panthers would have no business carrying on an attack once its infantry was stripped.

The tables extracted from a WaPruef 1 report dated 5 October 1944 http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891/pzpanther/pzpanther-Charakteristics.html The tables here show that the panther mantlet could be penetrated by the US 76mm gun at short range (100 meters) and the turret front (small area not protected by the mantlet) at 700 meters. This assumes a side angle. The report claims that the US 76mm is more powerful than the Russian 85mm. Using the Panther offesively or defensively in Hedgerows is just plain stupid. The weakest part, the turret, would naturally be seen and targeted. [ January 05, 2004, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

web page Click on small pic for 4 view of Panther The front on image shows the Panther A from onwar.com. The lower hull between the tracks is not a large target. It is not only hard to hit because of its size, but also because of its proximity to the ground. Tests cite this as a factor when trying to score a hit. A chance to hit this area would be about the same as hitting one of the tracks. Also, at close range on even terrain, a firer would be firing downward at this area making teh angle steeper. behind this area is the transmission and final drive components. not ammo. In hedgerow terrain, a panther behind a hedgerow would have this area protected. The turret front (small triangular areas to the right and left side of turret) were only 110 mm and nearly vertical. This is more of a vulnerable area than the mantlet is. The Glacis protects roughly half the front of the tank. [ January 05, 2004, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

7) 3-inch Gun, M5, mounted on Motor Carriage, M10 a) APC M62, w/BDF M66A1 will not penetrate front glacis slope plate at 200 yards. Will penetrate gun mantlet at 200 yards and penetrate sides and rear of the 'Panther' Tank up to 1500 yards. http://www.geocities.com/mycenius/

A concievable effect about the Panther mantlet is its shape. When viewed from the side, its a semi-circular shape. This shape may actually give strength to the 'vertical' portion of the semi-circle. The effect is similar to the strength a bridge has. Its strength comes from the arch shape. So the panther mantlet armor, even at its least angle (near the MG and sight openings), is stronger than a plate of vertical armor of the same thickness. This effect would also depend on the AP penetrator diameter, smaller (APDS) being better for the penetrator. The lower part of the semi-circle led to the infamous downward deflections. Penetrations of this same lower area (shots going through), will actually bounce upwards into the roof of the turret. Likewise, penetrations through the top part of the mantlet would bounce downward into the turret basket area. All in all, the panther mantlet could have been better (and was improved) but was probably a compromise to mass production. [ January 05, 2004, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

I heard she was quite hirsuite and pleasant and burned fairly hot.

If you have ever seen a German FG42, you might think it is close to a BAR. But with its light weight (10#), I doubt it could fire full auto unless prone and with a bipod. It could fire single shot also though.

I have a question about the soviet guns. the F34 and ZIS5 guns were about the same in performance and fired the same rounds (they were basically technically different due to other mechanisms. But what about the SU76 gun? Is it a cut down ZIS3 regimental gun? Did it share ammo with the T34s and KV1s?

Was Joan of Arc a hot monarchistical lezbien? Here's hoping so. And where's that setup MadamePeng? Or should we say..MadameButterfly?

I read that the US APDS round developed for the 76mm (too late for war in Europe) was, like the US 76mm HVAP, very accurate. This leads me to believe that the British 17 lbr was not designed or manufactured well.

76mm Semi-Automatic Tank Gun (F-34) ------------------------41----42-----43-----44 Factory #92 - ~ ----1,600-12,729--12,229--2,621 - Factories #8 and #9 - 249--1,385---1,587 Factory #13 - - -------------225---3,345--971 - 76mm Semi-Automatic Tank Gun (ZIS-5) --------------------------41----42-----43 Factory #92 - ~ ---------220--1,361 Factories #8 and #9 - --------1,115----557 The F34 is the T34/76 gun. The ZIS-5 is the KV1 and KV1S gun. factories 92, 8 and 9 were making these guns in 1942. Notice that an additional factory, number 13 is added in late 1942 (for T34/76 F34 gun). Notice that ZIS-5 production continues in 1943 to produce the guns for KV1S(factories 8 and 9). Its rate of production goes down from 1942. But factories 8 and 9 increase F34 production. T34/76 production could not have met increased production goals for 1943 without an additional factory AND diverting KV1 gun production to T34 gun production. Someone threw out a weak argument about F34 guns being used in KV1S. Well, ZIS-5 guns could not be used in T34/76. Production of ZIS-5 guns in 1943 shoots this theory down. More than likely, new KV1S were produced with ZIS-5 guns. The quantity of guns produced closely correlates to number of tanks produced. Its very unlikely that these major sub-systems were produced as field installed parts. Factory 92 ceased KV1 gun production earlier and went on to be a center of T34/85mm guns! Factory 13 also switched to 85mm guns. Notice these are all tank guns and not SP guns, etc. [ January 03, 2004, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

I agree that CM's scale suits me best at reinforced-company actions with armor as a supporting arm. I find large scenarios annoying and busy-work, like handling halftrack-mounted infatry annoying. I would like a game that had minimum force size resolution around the platoon/section level. This means 2 vehicle tank sections, 3-5 tank platoons, etc. Basing this on radio and command limitations. A command structure/TACAI to handle chores like engaging the enemy without my need to eyeball everything. I would like the game to be military symbols at birds-eye topdown view and change to a more visually enhanced vehicle/figure representation at lower angled views. I think that Arnhem game that BTS had for awhile was on the right track but missed out on finer points. SOPs, formation orders would be nice.