Wartgamer

I posted data that shows the actual time fuse abilities for the 88mm. Getting an airburst near a tank, even a stationary one, would be a matter of pure luck. You were told a story? How nice. I posted data.

My point is that the present system, given the non-recrewing of guns, is an acceptable abstraction. Testing proves it out also. I have also said that IF CMx2 DOES have recrewing, then a better modeling of HE needs to be implemented. Including fusing of HE shells. If ANYTHING, modeling the realities of HE delay fuses, with the potential of skipping the rounds, INCREASES the size of the crew target AND also the possibility of striking the gun phsically. The gun was not targeted under most battlefield conditions and ranges. The crew was.

yeesh. I guess this caps this thread. Is Emry's the official civilian blitherer that nails coffins blandly?

so is Jason C sometimes

This photo shows a very bad emplacement for an ATG. It has to its back tall vertical surfaces that would catch HE rounds and kill/wound the crew. The low wall to the front being the only advantage.

Soviet 'Emcha' commander (M4 sherman)

I think that would be equally true of the effort needed to get it back out of the house once it was in. </font>

FlaK guns in buildings?

Worst case? Compare shield height and gun barrel height?

For those of you who are interested in the 88mm fuse setting... It appears settable from 0-350 degrees. In increments of 0.5 degrees. These 'degrees' apparently correspond to 0.05 seconds (1/20th sec). When firing nearly vertical, it maxes out at about 9900 m or so. When firing horizontal it maxes out at 10750 meters (350 setting). The gun can shoot a shell further than this horizontally but not vertically. 35 'degrees' is about 1350m and 45 degrees is about 1950 m. There could be 20 settings between these two so 600m/20= 30m 'granularity'. About 100 feet. Not enough to really target a tank directly but good enough to threaten unbuttoned crewmen and boots on the ground. Information from text and charts from Enemy Weapons The War Office 1943

Yes you are mistaken. Sorry you can't follow the thread. Perhaps you should keep your FlaK 'asides' to yourself? Both accounts are at unbelievably close range.

This is an example of a dug in 75mm ATG.

The G.A.R. are out in force. Most Bunkers/Pillboxes have very substantial roofs. The same can not be said of most buildings. Clearly the G.A.R. are grasping. On to other matters... Remi Schrijnen His account would seem impossible under present CM design. A lone ATG facing any number of AFV is borg spotted and blasted to pieces. The fact that his ATG was hit by a 122mm round, and he survived, is quite remarkable. Surely not a typical account but revealing none the less.

Many ETO buildings were quite thick walled. If a building offered an excellent field of fire, and had substantial walls to offer protection, I would venture a guess that it would be worthwhile to emplace a gun inside.

I did not say it was done often.

I have backed many military trailers into odd places. I guess ATG have special backing up rules that I have not heard about. Does anyone think that backing up an ATG up a short flight of steps would even be that hard? Over a mound of small rubble? Lets face it, Dorosh has made a big deal out of some moot point.

Nothing. Like I said. I needed a break from the Galactically Anally Retentive. But it is interesting as it does have something to do with the origional thought of this thread. Namely, HE vs. ATG.

Just because I need a break from the galactically anally retentive...

I never said it was common. I said it was easily done. There is a difference but it just goes to show that when Dorosh jumps in a thread, confusion ensues. An ATG is placed (or sited) to best accomplish its mission. I would agree that for armies on the move, it may be more trouble than what it is worth. For the Germans, it was definetly worthwhile.

Well, most Canadians are related to fairies.

I would use a winch. A Canadian might use a mule or a relative.

Yes buildings tend to create large piles when destroyed. Luckily, that is rubble and I am not saying ATGs are deployed into rubble easily. So strike that supposition.

I quite frankly do not give a damn what you think. Just wonder if you have a point.

Are we to guess what your point could be? That an ATG can never be brought into a partially destroyed house? European Barns, by the way, can be quite formidible.

Sorry for the words but I am sure a pic is coming.