Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Amizaur

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 10/21/1976

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
    GdaƄsk, Poland


  • Location
  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. And this is the reason they should give us those spotting options we talk about, that YOU think are not needed ;P.
  2. What is conceived as "sillines" or "unplayable" by one man, may be seen as a good solution or an interesting game for others...
  3. So they could give us an option - "realistic spotting" vs "normal spotting" to choose.... :-/. I guess "realistic spotting" parameters would have to be developed and fine tuned first (hundreds of hours of testing) to be available even as an option....
  4. Of course I can and probably will do, when I find some time to spare.
  5. But this is example of how it should be. Moving ww2 tabnk should be blind almost like a bat. Only stationary tank can use any kind of magnifing optics and spot effectively on longer distances. Also a stationary observer can easily spot any kind of movement. So moving tank should be spotted almost immediately by stationary tank. And a moving tank should not spot stationary tank unless at close range. Or at least rarely spot it first. In my games I had situations where stationary tank with narrow cover arc (I know narrow cover arc doesn't help in spotting - and it should!) was i
  6. I'm amazed by lack of comments after your experiment, too :). I would say it's definitely not right that WW2 tanks detect so easily (and quickly!) troops hiding in bushes and woods.
  7. OK I though this was data from some kind of test shooting
  8. My experience is that unit that was shot (hit) gets instant, "free" info about shooter localisation, without need to wait for it's "7s" cycle. Of course not always, but in some conditions (like close-medium range and clear LOS). Maybe just an instant detection check is performed. I may be wrong but this is what I remember from my tests (was testing another matter but it involved some units being hit and I observed their reaction) and games. Would have to test it to be sure.
  9. Could you fix the link please ? It's "not clickable" for me.
  10. "he was responding to some WW II data saying it took a 76 mm gun Sherman 13 rounds to hit a fully exposed tank at 1500 meters 50% of the time." 76mm gun had quite decent muzzle velocity, so it seems for me it was really poor gunner if it didn't hit the exposed tank at 1500m with 3rd or 4th shot at worst. Could you describe conditions of this shooting in more details ? Why did he need 13 shots and what "50% of the time" mean in this context ?
  11. I would like to point that: 1). the tank was unaware about that sniper before the sniper opened fire, so the sniper was not spotted 2). when the sniper opened fire (one shot) the tank IMMEDIATELY knew the position of the sniper and returned fire. This is unrealistic IMO. Even if the sniper was not hidden well enough, finding the direction of enemy fire (a SINGLE rifle shot), scanning that area, finding the sniper (which under various conditions and backgrounds possible could be not trivial even using thermals) should take some time. Especially immediately knowing the direction
  12. IIRC one of the complains about the Panther D performance during first days of Kursk battle was that unusually high number of gunsights were damaged and workshops were quickly out of spare gunsight parts. This could be because of two factors: 1). Panther mantlet was unusually big in comparison to whole front turret profile, 2). it COULD take a 76mm blow on mantlet and keep going, only with optics damaged - instead of whole tank being destroyed like would be in case of PzIII or PzIV catching same 76mm hit:).
  13. That "warhead like object" mentioned is just a reflection on camera lens... Which is obvious when the video is wached at normal FPS rate. Reading above text further thatn that is just waste of time.
  14. Usually ammo explosion is caused by accelerating rapid burning of propellant charges in confined space and is indeed much slower. But sometimes the explosion is instant and powerfull - like here (I've seen some similar ones before). I guess such quick and powerfull explosion is caused by _detonation_ of 120mm HE or HEAT warhead which causes further _detonations_ of other warheads and/or propellant charges (which can detonate too in specific conditions). Detonation is very different process than rapid burning, happens almost instantly and causes astronomical overpressue values, even in u
  15. Well hardened AP rounds often penetrated RHA armor undamaged and undeformed. They were designed to penetrate intact, so were made to be harder (in front part) than armor they were supposed to penetrate. Chances of shell breaking up or it's deformation were higher If the hit velocity was very high and armor thick, or the armor was hit at an angle. Probably not much German Pzgr 39s survived penetration of T-34 frontal slope in bursting condition. They either penetrated in damaged condition and did only kinetical damage - still enough to knock-out the crew, but in many cases only left big
  • Create New...