Jump to content

jrrich0000

Members
  • Posts

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

jrrich0000's Achievements

Member

Member (2/3)

0

Reputation

  1. Unless I'm mistaken, the pistol in the illustration in your post is a Walther, not a Mauser.
  2. http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/sh16-e.htm
  3. http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/sh16-e.htm
  4. Are you seriously suggesting that gunner error is responsible for environmental effects? Sorry, I find your argument unconvincing.
  5. I must differ here. Higher velocity means flatter trajectory, which translates into less vertical rise/fall for a given distance. This cannot help but improve accuracy. As a former tanker, I can tell you there is a world of difference in accuracy between a low-velocity HE round and a high velocity APDS (Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot) round. Lob vs. aim at target. Additionally, higher velocity rounds will tend to be less suceptible to windage, and will have greater stabilization from faster spin.
  6. I was thinking the same thing. However, it has been correctly pointed out that for this to work, you need to restrict the battlefield, which would be somewhat difficult in Russia.
  7. Does anyone have a source for the Panther or Tiger Fibels in English? These seem like they would be very interesting to read...
  8. I have been told this is to keep the aircraft in trim. (I am talking about wing loaded bombs, not centerline here) If you drop one bomb off one wing, the other wing becomes (relatively) heavier and causes the aircraft to want to roll to that side. This may render the aircraft uncontrollable.
  9. Agreed. I find this thread interesting. If you do not, please feel free to skip it without imposing your wishes on others
  10. In the case of the US, it was a doctrinal mistake. US tanks were meant for infantry support. They were not intended to fight other tanks. That job was supposed to be taken on by the Tank Destroyers, which were supposed to use speed and maneuverability to destroy enemy armor. Hence, proper tanks did not need high armor protection-- they were not supposed to fight anything but infantry. Nor did they need high velocity main guns since they were -again- not supposed to target enemy armor. Heavy armor was not desirable for tank destroyers, which were not supposed to engage in toe to toe slugging with enemy armor, but were supposed to be able to use their superior mobility to get in positions on the enemy armors flanks or rear. Think mobile AT gun. Obviously this doctrine was seriously flawed. A large part of our time in Armor Officer Basic was spent on examining the doctrinal mistakes of the US Armor Branch in WWII.
  11. Not my experience at all. And I don't play DOOM 3-- I'm waiting stubbornly for Half-Life 2. I have owned both and found ATI image quality far superior and their support equal to Nvidia's.
  12. Don't know what the Tiger Fibel says-- But US Army Battlesight training circa early 80s says: First set the range. (1600m for M60A1) THEN lay gun at base of target. If you do it the other way, the ballistic computer will apply a correction and you will lose your sight picture and have to resight. As an aside, we also were taught the method of correction that was discussed here under the name 'Burst on Target'. It's worth mentioning that the Ballistic computers on the A1 were mechanical not electonic; Battlesight/BOT Conduct of Fire was considered the primary method on the battlefield.
  13. Until the late 70s, Tank Gunnery in the US Army taught gunners to shoot from a 'short halt' for best accuracy. Maybe this doctrine is modeled in transparently?
×
×
  • Create New...