Jump to content

PS

Members
  • Posts

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About PS

  • Birthday 02/08/1970

PS's Achievements

Member

Member (2/3)

0

Reputation

  1. To cut a long story short, had to get a new hard drive so lost my original download of the map converter. All the links I've found are long dead so any chance of a new download link please?
  2. Sorry was in a hurry and didn't check it, corrected the APCR and APCNR. Thanks.
  3. It is often stated that the PIAT was used as a short range mortar. Was this with the HEAT round or could it fire 3" mortar rounds? The fuse on the PIAT was very sensitive as foliage could set it of when it was used to flush snipers out of the trees in Normandy.
  4. No, in the collectable section and sorry its only the shell. I don't think it was for the SG113 as this was a recoiless gun and could not have squeezed this down. It does look like the photos and diagrams of APCNR I have seen. The front holes are to let the air out as it went through the cones. Does anyone knows if the resulting round had its accuracy affected by being squeezed. I mean as the front edge will have rifled grooves cut into it will this affect the flight characteristics and it would have to be squeezed dead central or the round would arc (a problem with sabot rounds). A normal shell's shoulder sits on the rifling lands and the driving band cuts into it. Possibly difficult to tell as these guns could only fire APCNR but is there any accuracy data on this. What about the 2-pdr littlejohn. Was the APCNR less accurate than AP shot, some crews removed it and fired the APCNR as APCR. [ May 03, 2004, 07:22 AM: Message edited by: PS ]
  5. If it is of any interest a 77mm round is being sold on eBay: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=585&item=2240912099&rd=1
  6. I think the following file contains some PIAT accuracy tests. If not I will try to find the site that does. http://www.britwar.co.uk/files/phatfile/WW2pen14May02.PDF By the way Maj. Cain won his VC for using a 2" mortar under his arm to repel a german counter attack. The 5, or was it 7, tanks he knocked out with the PIAT didn't count.
  7. Other games have good eds (SPWAW) or tool-sets (Close Combat)to allow mods without abuse. If you lot want to cheat thats your problem. Isn't bad data (2-pdr HE rounds in N.Africa) cheating anyway, as it gives an advantage when there wasn't one. Make it only work in single player mode then. No I don't expect BFC to get everything right but as they don't then an ed is needed. Sorry for repeating tank ramming but there are too many ideas to keep looking at everytime. A few more ideas: 5) Gun emplacements like the trenches to give a higher cover valve than a quick foxhole. Tanks could drive into these for hull-down as well. 6)Picking up weapons when your men run out of ammo. Yes this is from Close Combat. 7)There is more but I should make a list before I start. 8)A better campaign mode of serveral interlinking scenarios. This one has prob been posted.
  8. Do you mean the Mk VI? They carried AP for the Vickers .50 to deal with light armour and .303 Ball rounds for soft targets in the early campaign. The 15mm Besa on the Mk VIC and Humber AC had AP rounds. This excellent heavy MG is sadly not modelled in CMAK. Jentz states that the BEF in N.France found Ball rounds to be ineffective against german AT gun-shields, 8 months later no AP rounds had been issued.
  9. A few more ideas: 1)An unit editor so WE can correct all those little mistakes rather than wait for that patch that never comes. 2)Tank ramming. It would have made CMBB ace. The first time the British encounted the King Tiger it was rammed by a sherman and this was then burnt out to burn the Tiger! 3)Crews returning to abandoned tanks or a member left inside to fire back after a couple of turns. This would keep you on your toes and make sure you either kill all the crew or set the tank on fire. 4)No LOS behind vehicles so the PBI can hide behind them. They have no cover value. [ April 19, 2004, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: PS ]
  10. Have got another quote apart from the Armour in Conflict about the 2-pdr "HE" being for soft vehicles and bunkers but can't find it yet. My earlier remark about no British AP MG rounds in the desert comes from Tank Combat in North Africa by Jentz so only deals with the early battles. The HMSO manuals for the Churchill and Cromwell lists AP rounds for the 7.92 Besa but they also list c.22 6-pdr rounds and a large no. for the 75mm, ie listed but not carried in combat. Were MG AP rounds issued later in the desert campaign to the Army as the RAF did have .303 AP rounds.
  11. The Vickers manual listed ALL the mechanical faults that could happen when firing. So if one happened you knew how to fix it.
  12. The pre-war British 3-pdr(47mm) had a APHE so it made sense for the 2-pdr to have one. Because the 2-pdr was a much higher velocity weapon a solid shot would be less likely to shatter and hence better penetration. From the GJS forum: http://www.geocities.com/mycenius/armour05.htm http://www.geocities.com/mycenius/armour01.htm Would appear the British only listed solid AP rounds for afv ammo storage in 1944. I've seen the churchill accounts as well and I think they were at close range. The 88mm Flak did have large openings in the gunshield and some crews removed the shield, poss to reduce the size of the gun.
  13. The 2 pdr had a APHE shell but was never issued in the desert or ever? It was to be used against soft vehicles and bunkers and the MG against AT guns. Most pre-war AT-guns had the same type of round. As has been said, this would have been fine but the Germans used 88s so the MG become ineffective. The APHE round would prob not had worked as the round had a delay base fuse so unless the target stopped the round dead it would have travelled a short distance before it exploded. The thing with the MG role against AT guns was that the British only supplied ball rounds for it. The 2 pdr AT gun shield was proof against ball rounds so why it was thought no other country did the same was strange. German tanks had the SMK round for their MGs so British 2 pdr AT gun crews were vulnerable at ranges up to c.600m. Going back to the original question I think Rommel asked the same question.
  14. Do explain because some of us do "give a ****" and I don't think "get out of this forum" is going all out? The relatives you lost were to the Germans, using the term Nazis just lets them off. Someone put them in power. I am not a great fan of war films and find them either hammy Second World War propaganda or modern gung-ho. Suppose we can't and won't show the real horrors of war. Good luck with the scenario.
×
×
  • Create New...