roqf77

oh cool i agree. you left out inbred an stupid. fat lazy ignorant. and i could go on.

" (Reminds me of the troubles that the colonials gave their thick headed podgy British (almost always English) controllers." propoganda.

"The Brits deliberately wrecked all of this because they thought it would produce a world war, which they expected to be as expensive in lives and treasure as WW I." Actualy it was chamberlain who delibaeratly wrecked all of this. British public opinion wavoured, and political opinion was very split. It was not only churchill who was against the sudetanland agreement.

well from frank mcdonough's hitler chamberlain and appeasement(not to be confused with r.a.c parker's chamberlain and appeasement.), check's had 34 fully equiped army divisions, to the germans 81(does not say what fully equped means). chech had 600 aircraft and germany 1,800. poland incidentay had 40 divisions and 500 aircraft.

"Don't forget the HESH-like effect of a mucking great round hitting armor, not penetrating, but the shock is bad enough to do something nasty. This is the old Soviet angle saying that if you hit a TigerII with 122mm or greater on the same plate 3 or more times, even with HE, somehow you are going to bust it. That would be tres cool." here here! i agree!

for a while maybe. before you rot away completely that is.

also if you want a good example of assualting defences in difficult terrain. try assualt on longstop. its not easy though.

good question. but im noway near qualified to answer it. actualy going back to the plate cracking thread. if there was to be hesh type rounds wouldnt plate cracking be importaqnt. or a similar effect as hesh rips plate more than penetrates doesnt it? (aimed at flamingknives)

true but by this time the germans were low on ammunition and other supplies.

" Originally posted by JasonC: After the Czech crisis, though, the Russians entertained offers from both the Germans and the BritishThe Germans could cynically bid higher because they were giving away other people's countries." not to jump on to an anti jasonc bandwagon, but this is not true. the russians signed a deal with the germans becasue the british delegates that were sent to make a deal so to speak, were not given the authority to do so. This was taken as an insult by stalin. The deal with germany was probably more out of anger.

"Duh, different people have different opinions on that. JasonC, Dandelion and Dorosh are not the Borg. Try to direct your question at someone. The argument here, anyway, is not about why Poland lost, but if Poland ever could have had any chances to hold out at least a tiny bit longer if her strategy hadn't been so poor against attacks coming from all directions." IF YOU DONT MIND TO MUCH I WONT ACTUALY.

i know. hence my question. plus dorosh said he thinks the campaign was a close run thing to qoute him. i asked if this was true i.e it was a close run thing, why did poland performe so badly.

no im following it all, you seem confused at what i said. i mean what is jasonc dandelion etc basicly arguing? think about it.

im in over my head. but one thing if it were such a close run thing? why did poland surrender and last for such a short time?

just a minor point. if germany didnt spend money on the luftwaffe and tanks they would be able to have equiped more infantry. so in jason c's own context of ww1 tactics then the german force infantry wise would of been larger than it was. not strictly agreeing with him but just pointing that out. One question though do you realy think in the long run poland could have won?

nothing wrong with the pounder system lol.

140mm cannon. there are ones currently in development by most nations. but i dont realy know the details.

sorry my mistake. the charm 3 round with the larger and longer dart is currently in service in the uk.

wait for flaming knives to give a better answer. but for now. the l30 is the cannon on the challenger 2. it is 120mm(they all are), it has a rifled barrel with cromium lining to reduce wear and increase velocity and therefore penetration as fn pointed out it barrel length is over 50 calibres. the confusion arises because the british dont use standard designation for barrel length. the l44 and 55 are both rheinmetal guns(120mm too). L44 and 55 refers to the length in calibre of the gun. so the l55 has a longer barrel the muzzle vewlocity and energy is higher therefore giving higher penetration. all guns fire apdsfs rounds. the british gun has the secondary round of high exsplosive squashed heads and the others high exsplosive anti tank. From my understanding the hesh round is somewhat better than the heat.(both dual purpose but primarily anti infantry/building weapon etc)

true but what about the round? ive double checked. the project to produce a sabot round with a larger and longer du dart is still happening. So i take it this round s for the new smoothbore gun.

and i agree with jon it is also my understanding that hesh is better than heat.

kip this is true. this is why i ask, i just put it badly. The new round being developed by the mod is for the new 120mm gun not the current one. is it the same round as all the others or is it our own one so to speak.

i am aware of that. i was just wondering about the ammo. as the uk is developing a du round with a larger round and longer. still 120mm but as its sabot the dart is being increased. i was just wondering if they were related in any way.

kip, what about the l30 charm un. its the l44 rheinmetal gun isnt it? but it has cromium lining that reduces friction and increases the muzzle velocity. are these rounds backwardly compatible? and i believe that some one mentioned the l55 gun being fitted to the challenger 2 as well. this is true but it is going to be given to vickers(alvis or bae or whoever it is now) to modify, possibly with the rifling and the cromium etc. [ September 05, 2005, 05:55 AM: Message edited by: roqf77 ]

Realy? (to undead reindeer cavalry).