Mr. Tittles

The game does this with tanks already. If they believe they cant fight, they back away. It would be cool if ATG would self-hide if they felt they were asked the impossible. They could perhaps set a covered arc they feel comfortable with.

I reported this bug to BTS. They thought it had something to do with splitting squads. In any case, they said they will look into it after CMAK is released. I saw the same as you. Small force hiding virtually the whole game, attacker slogging through snow. I win 87-13 with no casualties. I had lots of wire, trenches, mines.

AaaarghhhgHHH!!!! His bleeding bums-tworts ripped me calipers a new excavation. Seems it has teeths and then some. Never in my life! Is there no decency here? Ok, right, back to the heaving....

Oh yeah, 4.2 inch mortar/arty was unique and not allowed to be discussed here.

Dueling 'Michaels', how .. amusing.. (queue Deliverance Music). I would say that ASSAULT GUNS, for nations that could not afford turreted vehicles (but if they could, would know what to do with them), were a great aspect added to the WWII nature of warfare. The Germans, pioneers in the item, differentiated them by giving them to the artillery branch initially. The expertise in direct fire HE benefitting but the easier task of AP fire following naturally. The Soviets, followed, as warfare evolved on the biggest warfront for effective arms. In other words, They knew a good thing when they saw it. The fact that a 75mm gun was put in a chassis (while it was and could be put in a tank), showed that these skillful, low profile vehicles had a true alter purpose. It was stealthy. It was meant to shoot things on to the target. It was not one to roar through barbed wire while blasting defenses to its sides.. The realitys of enemys tank productions let this weapon system's dvelopment keep pace with the demands of the battlefield. While effective HE placement gave way to armor destruction, the occasional assault was still shot on to succeed because of assault gun contributions! A very good success story. Low on fuel demands, low on personnell demands, low in profile, low in weight and most of all.. (what was I saying?) Oh yeah, they were good. [ November 16, 2003, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

The QuEEn? You mean? I dunno. belgians took 'er.

I took calipers proper and measured this here knaves own 'fugly'. It was besmuckered, halfed-folded inwards, right-out unsniffable (in any sense of the word), devilishly 'winky' and it bore a remarkable resemblance to a certain (nasal voice) 'Bryant'. It was (hide the child's eyes) hideous and 'Peng-ish'... and in a ghastly unlovable way I might add!!!!! . 'Nuff said. I must go puke myself stupid. [ November 17, 2003, 12:19 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

So, the point is that blithely quoting the highest possible MV for any given how, then thinking it applies in any and all cases is incorrect. Muzzle velocity: 540 meters per second Muzzle velocity: 469 meters per second These are MV listed for a couple of German 105mm howitzers. http://users.belgacom.net/artillery/artillerie/1810.html I believe that the FO was quite clear that it was a high velocity shot. The target victims did not have time to duck. He was blithely explicit. Not that I would ever accuse you of not reading this very page of this thread (Mr. Dorosh referenced it). Would a round, fired at you, being barely supersonic or even subsonic give you any chance to take protective action? My point is that it was similar to direct fire high velocity weapons. even though it was called in by a FO and 'indirect'. [ November 16, 2003, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

These units, were they crewed by StuG guys? Artillerymen? They seem to have given a good account for themselves, even in Kursk. From the way it sounds, company sized units were distributed to other units. Using any non-turreted vehicle in a 'first-wave' fashion is just asking for trouble. Anyone have Brummbar kursk information?

The pretzel experiment. Here's an experiment so you can get an idea of whats going on. Buy a bag of pretzels (get some beer too). Get the long rod type pretzels. The ones about 8-10 inches long and about a 1/2 inch thick. Take 21 of them. Bite off the ends. Its the best part and isnt needed for the experiment. Rub off the large salt pieces from the outside. Drink a beer. The pretzel rods, at this point, represent a HE shell that has 'minimally' fragmented. Cylindrical shells that break open during detonation will first split along the case so that every 15-18 degrees or so, there will be a saber (long fragment). A bursting type shell (smoke or WP) will take this shape. So if we took all 21 and arranged them around a cardboard tube such that they all touched, then you should get an idea of where we are. Now, take one rod and break off 1/3 of it. Make sure you break the rods so that all the little pieces fall on the clean paper (you are working on a big piece of clean paper). The 2/3 piece represents an outlier of the largest fragment. Take two more and break into halves. Take four rods and break them into 1/3 pieces each. Take 7 rods and break into 1/3 pieces. From each of these, take one piece and break into into a half (so its a 1/6). The piece should be held within two hands and snapped. You are about 2/3 of the way through. Notice the amount of fine splinters and micro-fragments being created. Try to take the remaining 7 rods and break each one into 1/6 pieces. Try to break 7 of these 1/6 pieces generated into halves. Notice the increasing amount of effort to break the smaller pieces. Use two plier devices if you have to. Drink a beer. Now put down the beer cause the president of the pretzel fragmentation research clinic has decided that 1/6 pieces are optimal. He demands that a HE be used so that more 1/6 pieces are to be generated. He is a scientifical man and his formulas show 1/6 are the best of the best! Theres seventeen 1/3 pieces and obviously, that where the 1/6 pieces are going to come from. Maybe from the one big piece or the four halves also. But heres the rub, if we start breaking those pieces again, we have to break our existing 1/6 pieces and also the smaller pieces too. The real small flakes and crumbs are basically swarf. They lose their velocity so quickly. The big guys don't get all the velocity of the smaller guys but they are useful. Better than dust particles anyway.. So what do you do? Drink more beer? [ November 16, 2003, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

Ferdinands were assigned to schwere Heeres Panzerjager Abteilung 653 and 654 (each was to be equipped with 45 Ferdinands), in preparation for the Kursk offensive (Unternehmen "Zitadelle") in July of 1943. Both units were formed in April of 1943 at Bruck. sPzJagAbt 653 was formed from personnel from 197th Sturmgeschuetz Abteilung. sPzJagAbt 653 was commanded by Major Steinwachs, while sPzJagAbt 654 by Major Karl-Heinz Noak, both (along with Sturmpanzerabteilung 216 - equipped with Brummbars) formed the 656 sPanzerjager Regiment commanded by Lieutenant-Colonel Jungenfled.In fact, sPzJagAbt 653 had 45 Ferdinands, while sPzJagAbt 654 had 44 Ferdinands as a single one was still being tested at Kummersdorf. In order to provide Ferdinands with ammunition, six Panzer IIIs were converted into Munition Schleppers attached to the Ferdinand units. 656 sPanzerjager Regiment was part of 41st Panzer Corps (under command of General Harpe) of Army Group Center for the upcoming operation. On the first days of action, Ferdinands were disaster due to the technical problems (few were lost because of the fuel line fires), the lack of adequate support and the most important the lack of a self-defense weapon. Many Ferdinands were destroyed either by their crews after being immobilized (by combat damage or mechanical problem) or by Soviet infantry and artillery as well as by SU-152 "Zwieroboj" heavy mechanised guns. It was recorded that some Ferdinand's crews (ex. Major Noak's crew) used to fire their 7.92mm MG34 machine guns through the barrel of main 88mm gun while others mounted their 7.92mm MG34 underneath the gun, in order to fire at the enemy infantry units. Temporary field-made solution was the rear mounted platform for Panzergrenadiers, but it only resulted in heavy casualties among them. During the Kursk offensive until November of 1943, Ferdinands from sPzJagAbt 653 destroyed some 320 Soviet tanks and lost 13 Ferdinands, while entire 656 sPanzerjager Regiment destroyed some 502 Soviet tanks and 100 other vehicles. Ferdinands proved to be very effective when employed behind the lines. "On the first day of action, we successfully engaged bunkers, infantry, field and anti-tank artillery positions. For three hours our guns (Ferdinands) fought in the cavalcade of enemy fire and proved to be immune to enemy fire !. In the evening of the first day, first enemy tanks were destroyed, while others retreated. Crews of field and anti-tank guns run away after firing few uneffective shots against our guns (Ferdinands). In first engagements our regiment (656 sPanzerjager Regiment) destroyed numerous artillery positions, bunkers as well as 120 enemy tanks..." - Report from July 19th of 1943 by Platoon commander Boehm. After the Kursk offensive, commanders reported their problems encountered while using the Ferdinands. The main problem was the lack of machine gun in the hull for self defense made, making the Ferdinands vulnerable to attacks of enemy infantry and anti-tank units. Other features such as: the gun mount (lack of traversing turret), drive system (Porsche's Tiger - VK4501(P)) and lack of power (weight/engine power ratio) were also giving trouble to their crews. In October of 1943, 50 survivors were sent back to the factory for badly needed repairs and pre-planned modernization. Modernization consisted of the installation of a MG34 in the hull, improvement of armor protection, installation of wider tracks and installation of commander's cupola (developed from that of Stug III Ausf G), which provided improved visibility. Most of the Elephants were partially covered with Zimmerite, an anti-magnetic paste. Modernization was made in February and March of 1944 by Nibelungenwerke in Austria and modified Ferdinands were renamed Elephants. Officially Ferdinands were renamed Elephants in general order dated May 1st of 1944. After modernization, 48 Elephants were grouped into schwere Heeres Panzerjager Abteilung 653 and part of it was transferred to Italy in late February of 1944. They arrived in Rome by train via Salzburg, Innsbruck, the Brenner Pass , Trento and Florence on February 24th of 1944. They saw combat at Nettuno, Anzio and Cisterna as early as March 1st of 1944. sPzJagAbt 654 was moved to France in late 1943 and rearmed with Jagdpanthers. In April of 1944, part of sPzJagAbt 653 was transferred back to the Eastern Front. In Autumn of 1944, all existing Elephants were grouped into newly created unit - schwere Heeres Panzerjager Kompanie 614, sPzJagAbt 653 was re-equipped with Jagdtigers. sPzJagAbt 614 with some 13-14 vehicles saw service on the Eastern Front as late as early 1945 and eventually all remaining (4?) Elephants saw final service with Kampfgruppe "Ritter" in area of Zossen (south of Berlin) in mid April of 1945. When employed defensively in Italy and Russia, Elephants proved to be formidable opponents. As of January 1st of 1945, there were still 4 Elephants in service of which some took part in the defence of Berlin as part of Kampfgruppe Ritter. Elephant proved to be very effective weapon when operating at long range, for example one Elephant knocked out Soviet T-34 at the range of 4.5 kilometers. Overall, Elephant was a very advanced design, which proved to be a superb defensive weapon with an enormous firepower. Today, there is only two existing Ferdinand/Elephants, one in Kubinka, Russia (captured at Kursk) and second in Aberdeen, USA (captured at Anzio). http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz6.htm

Here is a pic of a british tank that has been struck what is most certainly either a 75mm or 88mm HE round (direct fire). Its a fascinating picture. Notice the damage area , how it stops in a circle. This round, like a sherman 76mm HE round, is certainly a high velocity (500-700 M/s) strike. The fragments are 'blown forward'. The energy of the event is telling by the bowed in armor and snapped off bolt. This is definetly not a HEAT round or an AP round hit. The hole at the center of the hit probably was formed by the HE round penetrating the armor. As it detonated, it blew its sides out and forward, thereby stopping the penetration. Imagine a brick wall getting clobbered by such an event. The round would probably make it in further before detonating. [ November 15, 2003, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Battlefield/3784/Survivors.html

Whats funny is that the Elephant/Ferdinand DID have a problem with its ammor stowage getting too hot in one of the bins. Hot ammo flys quicker.

Two battalions plus a battalion of Brummbars. From readings it appears they did. It seems a one shot production run. But after Kursk (where they did some damage), they must have had a low total write-off rate. Its 6 man crew means that at least one guy can throw grenades.. The driver/bow mger are totally separate from the gun crew.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/4635/tanks/elefant/elefant.htm Nibelungenwerke Chassis nos.: 150001-150100 April-May 1943: 90 First saw action at Kursk. They were part of the Jagdpanzer Regiment 656 ( Panzerjägerabteilungen 653 and 654). It saw service with the XXXXXI Panzer Corps on the north side of the battle. 502 Russian tanks, 20 antitank guns, 100 other guns were destroyed by July 27, 1943. However, a big weakness was the lack of a MG. When they were separated from accompanying infantry they fell victim to close combat. They continued to fight until the end of 1943 at the Nikopol bridgehead and the Dniepr where they destroyed more than 200 Russian tanks. During the winter of 1943-44 the remaining 50 (48 from another source) were recalled to Nibelungenwerke. At that time a MG34 bow MG was installed in the hull as well as a commander's cupola. Were issued to the 653rd Panzerjäger and the 614th Panzerjägerkompanie. Used mostly in Italy after that. Suffered from shortage of spare parts. Usually put out of action by mechanical failures more than by battle. http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/germany/elefant.html [ November 15, 2003, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

Even ammo temp variations leads to variance. So ammo stored in a very hot part of the vehicle would fly different than ammo stored in a cooler part.

Since the game does not model shot distribution as it was for each vehicle, why are you debating penetration all the time? The truth is, the stug (without the pigs head cast armor) has a vulnerable spot on its gun shield. The stug actually has a collection of well armored/sloped spots. Stugs would have been well advised to not let AP firing weapons get within 500-600 meters. The turret front 'over-kills' in the game are just annoying. The panzer IVs 50mm turret front weakness is rather small if you dont count the gunshield. The turret is actually pretty small to begin with. The same with T34 turrets.

Mave = 2 B^2 (to/di )^2(to + di)^3 (1+0.5 M/C) = average fragment mass This is the Mott equation. Lets take a brief overview of the mathematical implications. The first term, B, is actually a numerator and a denominator. The numerator is a function of the metal of the shell. In simple terms, increase the strength of the metal, and you will increase the AVERAGE fragment size (all other terms staying the same). The denominator is a function of the explosive. Its the detonation pressure. Increase this, and you will decrease the AVERAGE fragment size. The detonation pressure is also a formula. DP=2.5*d*DV^2/100000 where: d=density of HE (1.57 g/cm^3 for TNT) DV=detonation velocity Its 187 kbar for TNT. Notice the relationship between to and di. For a given diametre shell SD, di =SD-2to Mave = 2 B^2 (to/[sD-2to] )^2(SD-to)^3 (1+0.5 M/C) So increasing to, case thickness in inches, for a given fixed SD, shell diameter, will increase average fragment size for the second squared term. Notice the third cubed term, (SD-to)^3, it will react opposite with increasing to. The last term, (1+0.5 M/C), is really a function of to. M will increase with to and C will decrease. So whats the story here? Basically, for a given fixed B, 'to' case thickness is the major player. The relationship between the second and third terms needs to be analyzed. Lets just plug and play before we start to do derivatives and integrals. Lets take 75mm shells an example. One has a wall thickness of 15mm, the other 30mm. Please check my work but I get about a 15 times increase from just using the second and third terms. The last term would add to this also. So, roughly speaking, doubling the wall thickness has led to something like 16+ times increase in AVERAGE fragment size. edit: Since the density of steel (7.89 g/cm^3) is so much greater than the density of HE (1.57 g/cm^3), the last term (1+0.5 M/C) would also be significant. It would push the average fragment size up also! In reality, a shell wall size of 30mm is too great for a HE shell. I just want to demonstrate how the equations parameters influence average fragment size. But what does AVERAGE fragment size mean? Does it mean there is a bell curve about this size? That is, most of the metal is fragmented into masses that are very close to this value and the rest of the larger pieces and much smaller pieces are outliers? [ November 15, 2003, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

Actually was hoping JonS would come in and accuse me of being a propagandistical ogre. But lets not let the thread 'bogg' down.

The thread is meant to challenge misconceptions, mental pitfalls and sometimes psuedo-science and other fun stuff. Its meant to make people respond and reveal what they think is going on. Perhaps its not for Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Milktoast. I think the way the thread has developed has actually made me think and investigate new ideas/information. I am sure that many people have read the links and feel the same way. I think you are saying that I think I am right about everything or am in some silly pissing match. I may certainly be wrong for all I or you know. You may have a problem with people that actually try to back up what they say. I don't know. It probably doesn't really matter.

Its in response to this mostly.

KE=0.5M*V^2 Thats the KE of the unexploded HE round. It does not disappear or become negligible. Its 0.5*5.86*800^2=1,875,200 kg M/s^2. Its stupendous. Its like a bowling ball hitting the wall at supersonic speeds. It does not matter that it may be breaking apart against the wall. A similar effect is comets/asteroids zooming towards the earth. If you break them up, they will continue onwards as a collection of very fast smaller projectiles. Energy does not disappear.

http://www.bravecannons.org/the_gun/munitions.html Heres some good fuze info. Even though its Vietnam, its very topical.

I believe most naval shells are like AP rounds with strong noses and rear fuzes. I could be wrong. I think the use of Kevlar, body armor, IFV has driven the size of modern useful fragment size upwards. In WWII, the average ground pounder was pretty much 'naked' to fragments of most size. Fragments that are very small can still be deadly but they 'scrub' their velocity quickly. These micro-frags make small entry holes and then go on erratic paths through tissue in the body.