bruhntasaur

Too bad no one seemed to notice your link! Guys, I urge you to see the vid behind that link, the whole turret is presented in exquisite detail over there.

Once again, when you're talking about whether a tank is influential or not, it's the design that matters, not the actual battlefield usage. The exact combination of protection, mobility and firepower was unheard of in 1940 and it's successful overall design, despite its weaknesses, showed the way in which all the subsequent tank designs had to go.

Oh yeah, T-44 anyone? There were 700-800 produced by the end of the war already. I'd love to see that thing.

Jaaa, Sowjetische Untermensch! Keine gutte guns arbeiten!!1! On a more serious note, the things people say 70 years after... Please, stop making a fool of yourself. Have a nice and a very productive german superior muzzle velocity day.

wow, just wow. re-read please.

Oh hi Steve. Actually gravity affects all objects equally. It doesn't really matter whether an object is heavier or lighter, it will start accelerating downwards at a constant acceleration of 9.81 m/s^2. So any two rounds in the world are equal when it comes to that. What does matter actually is shell speed, weight, width-to-length ratio and general frontal surface of the shell. Obviously, more speed=more energy. But in the respect I was discussing right now, it also means shorter time required to hit a certain target. If a shell's V0=~500 m/s it would've dropped much more than a shell travelling at 800m/s would've while trying to hit the same target simply because the gravity would've had more time to accelerate it downwards on its way to the target. Therefore misjudging distance with a slower shell would cost you more dearly than with a faster one. But in this regard, both shells are pretty much equal, so it would basically come down to who's got a better gunner. 2)The heavier the shell, the more energy it has and, subsequently, the more air has to "work" at slowing it down. So heavier shells retain their energy (or speed) better, all else being equal (which gives a clear advantage to the 122mm shells, it being some ~3.6 times heavier). But that same shell has larger external dimensions, meaning air friction would be higher. Now, I'm not gonna go into aerodynamic properties here; let's just consider them both equal, scaled-up versions of one another, for the sake of the argument. I'll just use basic frontal area in here, for the sake of simplicity. So, quick calculations give 8.121x10^6 J of muzzle energy for the 122, and only 2.122x10^6 J for the 75 (which is around 4x less). Well, let's just see how much power each shell has compared to its frontal area (and, therefore, in this simplified overview - the air resistance). It sums up to around 695 J per square mm for the 122 and 480 J per square mm for the 75. Since air friction per square milimeter of frontal area should be similar, this would indicate that air resistance affects the 75 more than the 122. That's a valid argument, John. What i actually meant is that, when directly compared, the A-19 could have an advantage in the ballistic accuracy, disregarding the 'soft' factors, e.g. crew training and the optics.

Considering 122mm APC rounds have a V0=805 m/s, while KwK 40 has a comparable (if slightly lower) V0=790 m/s, why would the A-19 be more prone to missing the first shot? For the sake of the argument, lets consider the crew training to be the same. 122mm shell would better retain it's KE over long distances due to its higher weight, therefore meaning having less drop over longer distances.

If we're talking about armor piercing rounds, it's APCBC PzGr 39's almost exclusively; Tungsten shortages forced the Germans to stop production of all the PzGr 40 types already during '43, while keeping any meaningful supplies only for Pak 36 and Pak 40 guns. By 1944, all the APCR round stocks would've been expended already.

All right lads, I've done a quick calculation of line of sight thickness of the said 60mm upper hull plate set at 80 degrees from vertical - 60mm/cos80deg = 345,526 mm. Now, this is only line of sight thickness, but still considering the angle of impact of most projectiles I don't think that any wartime AP projectile would 'bite' the armor inclined to that degree, thus leading to imminent ricochet. At least not counting rounds of extreme caliber who just *might* overwhelm the 60 mm plate and dive in a bit without ricocheting. By the way, hi all!

Ahh, my first post! Hi all! Been a really long time lurker (since 2006 at least)! Own all the CM games (except the expansion modules for SF) an yaddaly yaddaly what not... Anyway: I don't think that's possible. The whole point of CMx2 is getting rid of the abstractions. If units were to change sizes, that would automatically mean they would also, for example, become larger targets for the game mechanics at the same time. That's because units are no longer just abstracted points on maps with 3D models being only their representation (UI) to the player, but actual models are used in calculations. So, basically, what you see is what you get. It's the same thing with trees, as mentioned before. Regards