Stools_for_fools

Note also that the width dispersion would mean a narrow target, such as an antitank gun, would also mean width misses in addition to height misses. Some might argue that the data for this hollow charge shell is not really applicable. In reality, I am shocked at how accurate it is. But this is with a predetermined known range of course.

I have never carried a antitank gun shield. They must be heavy. I think that they would be left on the gun and just towed around in that way by the prime mover? Another important function of the shield is to protect the crew from non-lethal effects like heat/blast/ejecta/etc which can hamper the crew. It also gives morale support. In any case. Here is some data that is so revealing that it figures to address many points brought up in this discussion. http://img339.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hollow2oz.png The data is usefull for many reasoons. It is for a velocity of shell that closely matches many WWII HE shells used in direct fire. Note the very interesting 'beaten-zone'. It clearly is a 'zone' that shows a range of distance values that a 2 meter tall target can be hit. This is with perfect estimation of the range of course. Notice the narrowing of this zone as the range increases. If nothing else, a correlation between accuracy and range is evident against a vertical target. If nothing else, a 1 meter tall target like an antitank gun would have even narrower 'zones' and the basic premise that an antitank gun is an easy target at medium and long ranges is pure poppycock. Note the small amount of superelevation needed in most cases. The adjustment resolution on higher velocity guns must have been very sensitive indeed. [ July 12, 2005, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: Stools_for_fools ]