roqf77

hmmm probaby true. still it would be funny to see the home guard v the ewoks. hey that would be cool. forget AvP Ewoks V Home guard would be a brilliant film.

true david but what i mean is in cmak there is an advance order to move through cover, i just mean cmbo there is not. so if you want to move through cover you have to personaly set the way points which is time consuming and boring. Also its about selecting exactly where they stopped aswell, instead of send them up the road when they get there they look for cover. Addmittedly the move command should stay as it is. Its just i find my self playing cmak alot more because i dont have to baby sit my infantry. it is generaly good in cmbo but on the point of realism the infantry should if there not moving look for cover in there immediate area. i mean they did in close combat brilliantly and does it pretty well in cmak. The move command should stay the same its just irritating to constantly check your move line in a big battle to check you didnt accidentaly send your troops outside of the woods. Plus im aware of the god effect its occasionly in fact playing a scernario in cmak it happend twice in two turns. my tank advance spotted enemy tank, enemy tank spots my tank then just before my tanks about to shoot despite have los and being orderd to (note tank had los at start of turn but ignored it) turns to shoot at a halftrack crew over 300 metres away despite not having any he shells. the next tank did the same thing. i lost two churchills to one mark 3. and the second one again decided to switch targets despite being in los and ordered to and just sat there and didnt even react.

plus if i could serve on any army it would have to be a tank crew. dunno which though probably choose us. pershing uk. comet/churchill (6 pounder and steal lots of tungsten) Ger. panther most likely russia. kv or js. or alternatlivly i could just join the warmly on sea home guard thet rock!!!!!!! Hey what about the home guard Versus the ewoks? that would be a good fight

true and my grandad was in the light infantry and i saw photos he had a belly(not huge mind) so he must of been fed okay.

General point. is it me or do infantry not movc through cover, i seem to remember that in close combat if you ordred a unit to move they chose cover over open ground rather than boringly having to set all the waypoints. also alot i often move infantry a little to far and threfore they move out in the open especialy in firefights, especialy on slopes when they could find cover and fire over not just walk over it and stop. Also tanks sometimes can be retarded as ive had tanks move out in front of my tanks shoot at my tank and my tanks just sat there despite being in los and occasioanly when my tank survives to the end of the turn i order it to target the tank but for some reason often chooses to just fire at an infantry squad 400metres away. doesnt happen very often but it does occasionaly.

anyone see that episode of dads army where they make an exsploding wheel? that would be cool otherwise id like to be able to deploy para hippies, so the enemy can waste there ammo on them

quite possibly i was at no point bringin into question your knowledge. you know more than me about equipment. it is entirely possible that is true, shame i just cant find any figures for it. anyway sorry fr the argument i also something about more propellant used but this could been done along with the he head being removed... my head still hurts

0º 131 117 101 80 APCBC 30º 100 90 78 63 uk figures for the l50 6 pounder plus uk penetration results recor the thickness of armour penetrated the us figures record from where a significant proportion of the shell penetrates to so although on the same gun it makes no difference in penetration the us figures would show a slightly higher penetration.

0º 123 110 95 75 APCBC shot 30º 94 84 74 59 uk figures on the l43 6 pounder

Angle 100m 500m 1000m 2000m 0º 118 106 92 73 APCBC (lg) 30º 91 82 71 58 us figures

fair points but all im saying is a cromwell tank crew said it was better v tanks than the sherman he was on previously. but to confuse things further i found out that american 75mm ammo had a high exsplosive head the british rounds removed this i guess made it back up to a apcbc shell. the us 57mm and the british 6 pounder had the same difference.www1.freeweb.hu/gva/index.html according to cmak the us 57mm had noticbly worse than the uk 6 pounder due to the round if cmak vigures are accurate. however that would be the same as the sherman he was in before. my head hurts.......

plus another manufacturer develeped a 75mm high velocity gun that was a shortened 17 pdr and produced a 77m for the comet i think, but vickers was chosen.

thats what im trying to find out, becuase the 75mm there refering does seem to have been fitted. hopefully should get some info from the reme or alvis-vickers.

yes but if you actualy read the two pages carefully you would of noticed it states that the 77m in the comet was developed after the high velocity 75mm which was designe for the cromwell. thats why i said translate it unless you can read spanish or whatever language its in in which case you just didnt read both pages.

never having played tacops but one thing strikes me if he has ordered them to be buttoned shouldnt they stay buttoned i mean they do pretty much in cmak

aince getting the concept of the barrel length wrong(flaming knives was right about that), i have been looking over the internet and after much looking i found a spanish site i think. it says the 75mm on the cromwell was a 17 pounder conversion with a cut barrel and it was a ultra velocity. im sure thats supposed to be high velocity . http://www.europa1939.com/tanques/tanques/comet.htm thats the link translate it in bablefish or something. members.tripod.com/~chrisshillito/a39/a39txt.htm this is a page on the toirtoise but does have info on the 75mm, it was a similar idea but a further down scalement of the 77mm on the comet. the 75mm did use us 75mm ammo but it seems it isnt the same gun as the na 75mm type gun was not put in the cromwell, still not entirely conlusive but im still looking. i have contacted the reme muesum and vickers about the gun nd am waiting further replies.

freespace.virgin.net/shermanic.firefly/home1.htm here is a website with information on the firefly in us service. not the first one i found but i cant find that one now. although it seems they were never used.

the firefly improved allied v german heavy tank relations, as far as i know the 17 pounder is of similar size to the american 90mm and similar power and ammo of similar size. This makes me think why did the us not produce 90mm armed shermans? it would of imroved the firepower of us tank divisions they certainly would of been able to produce enough to make a significant improvement. Was there any practical reason for this if not why did it not happen, i know attempts to factory produce fireflys in the us failed so they would of least of been made aware of the idea if they were not already.

apparntly after normandy most commanders started to request more us 76.2 mm so they made more. british 17 pdr numbers were more like 5,000 total about 2,100 5's were made and there was a similar numbers of 2,s made plus some from other marks but that was by jan 45- dec 44 not sure how many were done between june 44 and later.

us 76.2mm still a good at gun if not brilliant.

what about the 8 pounders he?

sorry to have caused such an argument but i ahve to say im in over my head i was just repeating what i was told by a tank crew. is all interesting though. it interesting to note by dec 44 i think anyway over half of the 75mm guns on the shermans were replaced by 76mm what was the he shell on this like?

especialy as in normandy the british did face the majority of german tanks deployed so it would of been a point. Especialy as the point of the cromwell was to close the gap between allied and german tanks, which it did there is no doubt in my mind the cromwell was superior to the sherman virtualy all the cromwell tanks said so.

no i understand, im just saying i spoke to an actual cromwell tank crew he nticed a difference. plus why replace it with the 6 pounder which was a superior at gun over the 75mm on the sherman. and it had an adequate if not good he shell by then? it would of been pointless bordering on the insane.

no need to get so upset i was just saying one of my grandads friend was in a cromwell and was in a sherman 75mm previously and noticed the cromwells gun was better by the fact he got some kills v tigers and panthers. plus if you look at the photo the barrel on the cromwell is clearly longer. i dont know what rsf means but that was what i was told. so in effect on target i dont think it was, if it was why change it from the 6 pounder when by this time they had a he shell for it. by the way the 75mm on the cromwell has a mussle break the 75mm on the sherman does not, it is a compatable gun but is not the same.