StuGs and bazookas and AI trigger happiness

[Guest L Tankersley]

[Just so folks don't think I didn't do my "Search" homework...]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2. Calculate "armor basis" at that point. This involves a bazillion things, like armor thickness, quality, brinnell hardness, face-hardened (depending on incoming shell type), slope, side angle, skirts, and a whole lot more.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[above from a post Charles made back in May, about the process of determining whether a round penetrates or not]

This makes it look like the presence of skirts modifies the effective armor thickness. I assume this is an either-or kind of deal, where sometimes the round hits the skirt and the shot gets the modifier, and other times it doesn't, hence no modifier for skirts. Otherwise, it seems like skirts could make a vehicle invulnerable to bazooka fire from certain angles when in fact they were vulnerable if the skirts were missed.

Anyway, my original question stands: how is this determination made, is it a % chance for different target facings? And were schuerzen pretty much proof against bazooka attack when hit?

Leland J. Tankersley

[dumbo]

I beleive the zook problem is fixed if Fion says it is.

Hehe this reminds me of the bug in one of the FIFA games where they had the range vs accuracy algorithm reversed Was rather amusing as shots from the halfway line would always go in but right next to goal they would fly in the opposite direction away from goal

_dumbo

[Guest L Tankersley]

Right; I'm not claiming any problem with the bazookas, I'm just wondering how skirts affect them - basically, is it possible for a bazooka to kill a vehicle if it hits a skirt, and how is it determined whether a shot hits the skirt or not.

Leland J. Tankersley

[Fionn]

Well if a shaped-charge round detonates far from the actual hull armour and there is air in between its point of detonation and the hull armour a lot of the stream of molten material ( basically the molten elements of the lining of the shaped charge cone) will dissipate ("bleed off") as it passes through the air.

End result the jet isn't as finely focused as before and not only does it burn a wide diameter hole (with consequent reduced penetration) but it loses quite a bit of its molten elements as it passes through the air.

End effect a lot of the molten metal doesn't hit the hull and the bits which do hit it over a wider area with reduced penetration.

That's a really basic representation and it's not quite 100% accurate but it gets the gist across and I'm not going to write an entire 2 page article about off-axis bleed etc etc and completely lose everyone .

Basic point is schuertzen DO reduce penetration if the shaped-charge warhead detonates when it hits the schuertzen.

hope that clarifies it somewhat.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest Big Time Software]

Leland,

I am pretty sure that the skirts are hit first, then a further calculation is done afterwards to see if there is any damage. In other words, it isn't a generic modifier. I do know the size and direction of the skirts is taken into account for sure. So if you fire at the StuG from directly in front/behind with a Bazooka, you won't hit the skirts for sure.

Steve

[M Hofbauer]

...and now for something not completely but a little bit diofferent.

There was another thread on bazookas way down but I came there too late, it's already closed up.

So I will add what little I can in *this* thread as it's also related to this matter.

1.) as regards Bazooka range: the zook's sights were creviced (words?) up to 300 yards (M9), but 200 yards are usually given as maximum practical range (M1 and M9 incl. subvariants).

2.) as regards the AK / StGw-44 (MP43, MP44) issue: common perception by now has it that although Kalashnikov was influenced by the general format / proportions / layout of the StGw, and agreeably look strikingly similar in outward appearance, but the two wepons differ internally (breech mechanism). Timofeyevitch personally always denied any influence the StGw might have on his invention. Btw he *did* benefit considerably from his invention.

3.) as regards the CETME / Heckler&Koch G3 +subvariant's relationship to the StGw-44: the CETME/G-3 weapon family's, by that meaning especially the roll-delayed receiver/breech mechanism (wording?), is associated and can be traced back to the essentially (meaning as regards that famous receiver/breech mechanism) identical Mauser Gerät 06 H, that became known late in the war as StGw-45 M, and *not* the considerably *different* StGw-44.

not meaning to smartass, just wanted to contribute / clear this up.

yours sincerely,

M.Hofbauer