Tea Time. Beta AAR discussion threat. Not for Bill or Elvis ;-)

[c3k]

Gauntlet grogs...

[JTorgersson]

Re:Gauntlets and challenges.....

Que: Monty Python, The Fish Slapping Dance

[Michael Emrys]

Hence my specification of a plate gauntlet. I own or have owned 4 or 5 other types of gauntlet, so I'm fully aware of the variety available.

I am willing to accept that and my comment wasn't directed specifically at you, although rereading it I suppose that wasn't obvious. I suspect that by the time challenges were delivered in the classic Hollywood style, cavaliers had long since left plate gauntlets behind and wore the leather kind. BTW, weren't leather gauntlets still issued to tankers and others in the British army at the start of WW II. I seem to have a vague recollection of seeing something along those lines in early war photos.

Michael

[YankeeDog]

You also don't just wear plate or even chain mail gauntlets around all day. They're uncomfortable and impractical for activities such as eating, dressing, etc. They're specialized battle gear, not daywear.

It varies depending on time period and social setting, but in most cases a challenge to a duel of honor would be delivered sometime prior to the actual duel. A date and location would be set, seconds nominated, etc. So at the time of challenge, leather or cloth gauntlets would more likely be worn.

Challenges on the actual field of war generally did not involve the throwing down of a gauntlet. For obvious reasons, removing part of your armor on the battlefield is a bad idea. In fact, during the middle ages, removing the gauntlet of your sword hand during a battle was taken as a sign of surrender, not challenge.

Also note that a challenge at an organized contest such as a tourney was different than a challenge to a duel of honor. One generally did not throw down a gauntlet as part of a tourney challenge; this was a matter of sport, not honor, and so followed different rules. Tourney challenges were generally quite cordial and usually involved complementing your opponent, not insulting him.

[womble]

Also note that a challenge at an organized contest such as a tourney was different than a challenge to a duel of honor.

Yeah. About the only time you'd be wanting to issue a challenge with only a plate gauntlet to hand would be if someone dissed yo' mama at a tournament...

[Cymru]

Re:Gauntlets and challenges.....

Que: Monty Python, The Fish Slapping Dance

Ah, Monty Python. Always apposite.

[Holien]

Back on topic, he can see the hammer coming (Infantry force), he has wasted scouts lives for intel and it will now be interesting to see how he orientates his defence lines.

Not looking good for him. Lets see where he sets his arty to hit, now he knows....

[permanent666]

I am really wondering why he sent his tanks forward despite the fact that the russian isus are waiting for him

[sburke]

I am really wondering why he sent his tanks forward despite the fact that the russian isus are waiting for him

So they can finish this battle before the game is released.

[MikeyD]

ISU has a good chance of missing first shot, then its liable to find itself victim of a real pummeling while slowly reloading. The alternative to attacking it is waiting for it to come to you and probably putting a big 122mm HE shell into the middle of your defenses.

[bruhntasaur]

ISU has a good chance of missing first shot, then its liable to find itself victim of a real pummeling while slowly reloading. The alternative to attacking it is waiting for it to come to you and probably putting a big 122mm HE shell into the middle of your defenses.

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.

[Battlefront.com]

Hmmm... it's been a while since I got into the math of this stuff, but IIRC air resistance and gravity have more of a drop effect on a heavier round than a lighter one.

Regardless, I don't know that the KwK40 is more accurate at that range with all other factors being equal. And if you look at the two misses, they were actually quite close. It's a lot harder to hit a horizontal surface accurately than a vertical one. If Elvis' soldier was instead a tank I think Bil would have hit it.

The real drawback is the long reload time.

Steve

[John Kettler]

vukashin88,

Why would the ISU-122 be more prone to missing its first shot than the Hetzer? The ISU-122 is firing at a tiny target in both height and width, whereas the Hetzer is firing at a huge target. The ISU-122 is in an unforgiving situation when it comes to range estimation. A small miscalculation will either short the round or put it well over. Same thing in terms of traverse. The Hetzer is so low and so narrow that aiming at it has to be precise. By contrast, the Hetzer has a lot more wiggle room, in that it can fire over a broader range of elevation and traverse, than the ISU-122 can, and still get a hit.

BFC et al.,

Here are the firing tables for BR-471 APHE, HE OF-471 and HE OF-471H and CT-18 sight data for the A-19C gun on the ISU-122. In addition to the ballistic tables, please note the significant differences in the terms and definitions used by the Russians, as opposed to ours.

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1164&context=usarmyresearch

Judging from what I understood of the CT-18 sight description, I suspect the German sight, with its strich markings, would be much quicker at ranging and do so more accurately. Way back in my PE days, I got to use the virtual equivalent of this sight system and found it highly effective. In any event, I have every confidence all needed data for the German end are on hand and highly understood.

Regards,

John Kettler

[bruhntasaur]

Hmmm... it's been a while since I got into the math of this stuff, but IIRC air resistance and gravity have more of a drop effect on a heavier round than a lighter one.

Regardless, I don't know that the KwK40 is more accurate at that range with all other factors being equal. And if you look at the two misses, they were actually quite close. It's a lot harder to hit a horizontal surface accurately than a vertical one. If Elvis' soldier was instead a tank I think Bil would have hit it.

The real drawback is the long reload time.

Steve

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.

vukashin88,

Why would the ISU-122 be more prone to missing its first shot than the Hetzer? The ISU-122 is firing at a tiny target in both height and width, whereas the Hetzer is firing at a huge target. The ISU-122 is in an unforgiving situation when it comes to range estimation. A small miscalculation will either short the round or put it well over. Same thing in terms of traverse. The Hetzer is so low and so narrow that aiming at it has to be precise. By contrast, the Hetzer has a lot more wiggle room, in that it can fire over a broader range of elevation and traverse, than the ISU-122 can, and still get a hit.

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1164&context=usarmyresearch

Judging from what I understood of the CT-18 sight description, I suspect the German sight, with its strich markings, would be much quicker at ranging and do so more accurately. Way back in my PE days, I got to use the virtual equivalent of this sight system and found it highly effective. In any event, I have every confidence all needed data for the German end are on hand and highly understood.

Regards,

John Kettler

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.

[Vark]

You also don't just wear plate or even chain mail gauntlets

You don't wear chain mail gauntlets at all, only mail ones (archaic armour pedant, sorry).

As for the ISU-122's effectiveness, surely it depends on the pre-battle/engagement preparation? A platoon in turret (superstructure?) down positions, fully utilising the ability to attach delays to all waypoints and sequentially moving to hull down positions, before dropping back to reload, will be far more effective than the same vehicles caught in an ambush. I used to use the SU-152's to hunt in pairs, with the first often area firing to shock a target, and it's partner moving up to fire direct, shortly afterwards. Again, being able to issue fire commands, via waypoints, will increase the effectiveness of these tag-teaming tactics, especially with variable spotting, so an entire platoon of Panthers does not fire on you within the first three seconds, because a hidden sharpshooter unit has eyes-on, on your position!

[John Kettler]

vukashin88,

You appear to be something of an ordnance grog (details on background and professional ordnance training, if any, training, please), so I took the time to find a rigorous explanation of what is formally termed in gunnery, the Danger Spaces. Source: Text-book of Ordnance and Gunnery, p462 et seq. Lt. Col. Tschappat, Ordnance Department, U.S.A. 1917

https://archive.org/stream/textbookordnanc00tschgoog#page/n478/mode/2up/search/260

From this, it'll be instantly evident, and mathematically provable, that being tall on the battlefield is bad for survival. To which, I'd further add that the AFV gunnery environment is nowhere nearly as gunnery friendly as is the naval one. AFV gunnery isn't based on such niceties as magazine temperature, known velocity (as opposed to book value) for that specific gun, coupled with bore erosion data, accurate met data, crosswind data and more. Therefore, the numbers from the firing tables must be considered best case, using a fully tweaked setup, as opposed to the thoroughly bashed about weapon and sights in the field.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

vukashin88,

The A-19C Firing Tables are based on firing at a 2m tall target at 1km. Here are the key dimensions for a Hetzer (from the Hetzer Wiki).

Width 2.63 m (8 ft 8 in)

Height 2.17 m (7 ft 1 in)

By contrast, here are the same stats for the ISU-122

Width 3.07 m (10 ft 1 in)

Height 2.48 m (8 ft 2 in)

So, the ISU-122 is .31 meters taller and will thus be hit in that zone by shots which would outright miss the Hetzer. Similarly, the ISU-122 is .45 meters wider than the Hetzer, making it a more forgiving target in traverse. While there is a slight delta in velocity favoring the A-19C, the gunnery problem, as seen from the German 7.5cm KwK 40 end, seems far more tractable.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

vukashin88,

Here's a very good thread on the ballistic dispersion issues from the German end. See particularly what Rexford says in his #26 about how to calculate hit probabilities vs rectangular targets.

http://ww.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=43692

Should further note that the fighting compartment taper of the Hetzer considerably reduces it's effective size by removing much of the danger space which would otherwise be present. Effectively, the Hetzer is a narrow at the top trapezoid when viewed from the front, whereas the ISU-122 is practically a regular rectangle by comparison. Here's a relevant snippet re Hetzer effectiveness from the Hetzer piece on Achtung Panzer. Notice why the Hetzer found such favor with its crews.

(FAIR USE)

Panzer Units Bulletin from October of 1944 – "…Light tank destroyer Jagdpanzer 38 proved itself in combat. Crews are proud of them (Hetzers) and they as well as the infantry have confidence in them. The most praised is the option of all-around fire from the machine gun. Great firepower, low profile and overall shape proved suitability to fulfill two main tasks: fighting enemy tanks and direct support of the infantry in defence and offense. It occurred that single company in short time destroyed 20 enemy tanks without any losses. One unit destroyed 57 enemy tanks (including 2 Stalins at 800m (Soviet IS-2)) without any losses. This same unit arrived in the combat area after traveling during the day the distance of 160km without any breakdowns…Front armor can withstand Soviet 76.2mm gun fire. Current losses are results of side and rear plates being hit…"

"…During one of fire duels of 4 self-propelled guns (Hetzers) from our company (3rd company of H.Pz.Jg.Abt 731) with single IS 122 (Soviet IS-2) at the distance of 1200m it was revealed that 10 rounds fired by the enemy tank at the company commander’s vehicle fell 100m short of their target. Company commander right away ordered one of the guns (Hetzers) to move to the right and use the depression attacking from the side. Six rounds fired from that gun (Hetzer) hit the side armor and set IS 122 (IS-2) on fire…".

Notice that 10 successive shots, from 1200 meter range, fell 100 meters short!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Dadekster]

Dadekster,

I fear you've got your metaphors mixed up. You slap someone's face with a glove, but you throw down the gauntlet. I will admit, though, that your approach is certainly hard to ignore and is highly provoking.

Regards,

John Kettler

I don't know about this. I found an expert witness on dueling and I think my statement is pretty much in line with how it is done. It does jive with your last sentence though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJrNO-1gZCc

[Dadekster]

I'd have left my Hetzer in a good over watch position to provide support for the town and hoped it'd get off a couple shots off before effective fire is returned or target is rendered ineffective. Try and reposition and repeat. Nothing wrong with what Elvis is doing of course as it has its own advantages but imo Hetzers are meant to be used from a good concealed position and to get the drop on stuff. The darn thing can fit in a shoebox after all. Or was he moving the panther up?

[Battlefront.com]

Actually gravity affects all objects equally.

Even a physics dummy like me knows that However, I thought that gravity has an interplay with other variables, such as spin and air resistance, that acts as a sort of multiplier. Which is why a balled up piece of paper falls faster than a flat one. Or is that simply down to other physical properties and not at all affected by gravity?

But in this regard, both shells are pretty much equal, so it would basically come down to who's got a better gunner.

Not exactly, though that plays a huge role. It also comes down to which gunner has the better firing opportunity. A poor gunner firing at something in the open at short range might have a better chance of a first round hit than a great gunner trying to hit something at a long distance that is partially obscured. Further, the properties of the firing platform also play a role. For example, the same exact gun in the same exact vehicle, but one has optics and the other "iron sights", will produce different results even if all the other variables are the same GIVEN a range where such a difference matters.

CM takes all of this stuff into account and a lot more.

We also don't now that the KwK 40 would have fared any better in this situation so the whole premise of your point has no verifiable validity to speculate upon (i.e. it's not been shown that there is a difference between the two guns).

2)The heavier the shell, the more energy it has and, subsequently, the more air has to "work" at slowing it down.

An object in motion tends to stay in motion. Having watched my fair share of Olympics this week, I can see that law of physics applies in Sochi just as much as it does anywhere else

However, an object in motion doesn't necessarily stay in motion along the intended vector. Again, a Sochi proves this!

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).

This gives a clear advantage for chucking a round a particular distance and getting it reasonably close to where it was aimed. It does not, however, dictate accuracy. There are far too many factors going into that for mere shell weight and speed to be given exceptional importance.

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.

From a practical standpoint this is not necessarily true. A KwK 40 is probably just as likely to hit the same target at 500m as the A-19 is with all other factors being equal. At 5000m I'm sure there is a huge difference.

Again, the two points I'm making are:

1. There is no reason to suspect that the A-19 is less accurate than a KwK 40 in the same givens situation, even without soft factors being accounted for.

2. There are a ton of factors, soft and hard, that go into determining accuracy. Using a simple calculation of shell weight and muzzle velocity isn't sufficient to base game result conclusions on.

In short, I don't know why we're talking about this as it doesn't seem applicably relevant

Steve

[A Canadian Cat]

Even a physics dummy like me knows that

Even the Pope gets this now

However, I thought that gravity has an interplay with other variables, such as spin and air resistance, that acts as a sort of multiplier. Which is why a balled up piece of paper falls faster than a flat one. Or is that simply down to other physical properties and not at all affected by gravity?

Naw, that is just down to wind resistance.

[womble]

Well. It looks like we're going to get to see how the monster assault guns fare in a duel with Elvis's armour... Bil's thorough reconnaisance once again pays off, though we haven't seen if Elvis thinks/knows he's spottable at that location, have we?

[BLSTK]

Well. It looks like we're going to get to see how the monster assault guns fare in a duel with Elvis's armour...

Give the People what they want!

[Dadekster]

Well. It looks like we're going to get to see how the monster assault guns fare in a duel with Elvis's armour... Bil's thorough reconnaisance once again pays off, though we haven't seen if Elvis thinks/knows he's spottable at that location, have we?

Elvis can't afford to lose this exchange because if he does his infantry is going to have some tough sledding to do.