NCrawler Posted July 18, 2000 Share Posted July 18, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: [bOh, and his name was different in the German version of the Sesame Street... If that is what Vanna refers to. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> , he was referring to an American game show "Wheel of Fortune" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Babra Posted July 18, 2000 Share Posted July 18, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IntelWeenie: IIRC, the Soviets made some special AT hand grenades (I can't for sure remember if they made it into WWII), including a couple models with a cute litte parachute to make sure the shaped charge was pointing the right way... Can anyone confirm WWII usage of these? If so, will they be included in CM2?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Here's an extract from the Panzerfaust website on the Panzerwurfmine, which fits the description of the item you're talking about. I don't know if the Russians had anything comparable. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Because of the problems to stabilize the dedicated anti-tank grenades for flight - the shaped charge needed to be pointed straight at the armor to work efficiently - the Panzerwurfmine ("tank throw mine") or PWM (L) (L for "lang" = "long") was developed by the Luftwaffe weapon's bureau (the Luftwaffe also contained ground forces in the form of it's field units and the paratroopers). The weapon weighed 1.36kg, had a length of 53.3cm and used a stabilizing assembly of four fins made of canvas at it's rear. It was introduced into service in May of 1943 but proved rather impractical. Still, 203,800 were produced in 1943. It's successor model was the Panzerwurfmine Kz (Kz = kurz ("short")) that weighed only 1 kg. Flight stabilization now was achieved by a long canvas strip that rolled out when the weapon was thrown and extended from it's rear. The warhead had a diameter of 11.4 cm and carried a shaped charge of 500g that had an armor penetration of 150mm.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ------------------ It's a mother-beautiful bridge and it's gonna be THERE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted July 18, 2000 Share Posted July 18, 2000 I read this thread and decided to experiment. Here is a link to a tiny scenario which models this exact situation: 1 x Wehrmacht rifle platoon -vs.- 1 x M-36 Jackson Try it it's kinda fun... http://www.users.uswest.net/~stopping2/cm/tiny.zip Note the grenade under the m36's barrel...in mid arc! apologees to those who aren't running 1024x768 Chris "Zamo" Sehmel [This message has been edited by Zamo (edited 07-18-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L.Tankersley Posted July 18, 2000 Share Posted July 18, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: What I really like are these posts where someone has something unexpected happen once, ... A suggestion when something like this happens: a) take a deep breath try to recreate the scene in another scen c) go to your bookshelf/local library/chapters and check up on (insert problem area here) tactics/history d) do a search e) in 99.5% of cases (please note this number is purely arbitrary and not scientifically arrived at) be satisfied with the way the game handles it or with how Charles has already stated he will change the code f) sit back, have a drink (if you are of the right age) and fire up another scenario in the knowledge that the problem is either being addressed or is actually not a problem at all. Sorry for the rant. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Heh, Andreas -- coming from you that's harsh enough to peel paint! But you've got some practicing to do if you want to rant with the best of them. What _I_ really like are those posts where you try to keep discussions on-target when they start spiralling down out of control. Often a lost cause, but it's appreciated! ------------------ Leland J. Tankersley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted July 19, 2000 Share Posted July 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by L.Tankersley: Heh, Andreas -- coming from you that's harsh enough to peel paint! But you've got some practicing to do if you want to rant with the best of them. What _I_ really like are those posts where you try to keep discussions on-target when they start spiralling down out of control. Often a lost cause, but it's appreciated! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks Leland. I'd rather not practise though. You know the one about Common Sense unfortunately not being that common? I never believed that... Keep on trying. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvin Posted July 19, 2000 Share Posted July 19, 2000 Hmmm... Man you get some (mostly) good discussion on these boards! I'm impressed with the breadth of knowledge and real interest in history. Also, it's nice to see so little of the "re-fighting World War II" mentality. You know what I mean, those tiresome Waffen SS groupies or Montgomery apologists and/or demonizers. It seems everyone has an idea of the following basic concepts: 1) War is a F****ing awful 2) History is important and it's important to get the facts straight 3) Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that he or she is a Mr. Poopeypants. Thanks for the lively discussion all! Calvin PS>>> Germanboy, your English is excellent. It's something of a national disgrace that we Yanks rarely master a foreign language as well as many Europeans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts