Very Good Mid 60s M60 & M60A1 Documentary

[chuckdyke]

Service pistol in Australia started as a match between the services. Target UIT rapid fire target. Pity it was biased towards the revolver in view of the tactical reload and the bullet just had to be able to punch through the paper. The civilian version of the match permitted a customized .38 model 14K .38 special. Auto pistols just were not in the running. My load a 148 grain wadcutter going just below 800 ft/sec shot terrific groups at 50 meters. The tactical advantages of a semi auto were undermined by the rules of the match. Yes people who own private firearms are always at an advantage. 

[LukeFF]

On 12/9/2021 at 3:39 PM, Ultradave said:

I did, early on. Heavy (compared to an M16), but accurate. Compared to an M1, 20 rd mag > 6 rd clip. Add a scope to the base rifle and it's decent sniper rifle. A little hard to clean the bolt with it's funky notches and angles, but that's a minor nit, and I've never cleaned an M1 so I can't compare, and the bolt on a M16 is no prize in the easy to clean sweepstakes either.

The bolt on the M1 is pretty much the same as the M14 so yes, it's not the easiest to clean. But yes, I really do like the accuracy on the M14 - when zeroed in properly, it'll group very well.

[Centurian52]

On 12/9/2021 at 3:26 PM, John Kettler said:

Blast! Could NOT be flipped. Objekt 279 was the Soviet concept of designing a tank heavy enough and tough enough to survive a close nuclear detonation without being flipped over and left useless. The design was specifically done in such a way as to make the tank as aerodynamially clean as possible, thus reducing  the surface area on which the blast wave could act and the duration of that force being applied to the tank.



https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/strange-object-279-the-soviet-heavy-tank-designed-to-survive-a-nuclear-explosion.602672/

Regards,

John Kdttler

That thing has a lot of track! I bet it had outstanding ground pressure! I expect turning may have been a bit slow though.

[John Kettler]

On 12/5/2021 at 8:32 PM, Codreanu said:

Look at your picture a little closer, those are the values of the D-48 anti-tank gun, an entirely different gun from the one used in the T-34-85. The shells in the D-48 would not even fit in the breech of a T-34-85, it would be far too long, 708mm vs 629mm. If you can find evidence of some post-war super shell for the ZiS-S-53 gun I'd love to see it, but, well, if nobody can find any references to it how could it be added to the game? Nobody would know the stats for it.

Here is the D-48 gun, clearly very different from the T-34-85's cannon.

Data I've seen on Russian Battlefield (Battlefield.ru run by Valeriy Potapov, who provided info to BFC on Russian armor-antiarmor weaponry & performance for CMBB) and other shows that the 85 mm on the T-34/85 wasn't all that fantastic, being slightly edged out by the US 76 mm, whose performance thoroughly disappointed Eisenhower. The T-34/85 main weapon wasn't even on par with the 88 on a Tiger 1, let alone a Tiger II.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Codreanu]

15 minutes ago, John Kettler said:

Data I've seen on Russian Battlefield (Battlefield.ru run by Valeriy Potapov, who provided info to BFC on Russian armor-antiarmor weaponry & performance for CMBB) and other shows that the 85 mm on the T-34/85 wasn't all that fantastic, being slightly edged out by the US 76 mm, whose performance thoroughly disappointed Eisenhower. The T-34/85 main weapon wasn't even on par with the 88 on a Tiger 1, let alone a Tiger II.

Regards,

John Kettler

How satisfactory they were would depend on what you're shooting at, I guess. I'm curious if the criticism of them was about their penetration or about their HE shell's effectiveness versus infantry and how many shells they could stow on board. If you're spending most of your time shooting at infantry I can see why individual tankers might have missed their old 75 Shermans or 76 T-34s, playing CM has really made me cherish tanks with a large amount of powerful HE on board.

[chuckdyke]

3 minutes ago, Codreanu said:

playing CM has really made me cherish tanks with a large amount of powerful HE on board.

Churchill 75mm HE more than 60 shells vs JS2 with 28 shells which is better against infantry? I take the Churchill. 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I take the JS-2.....Then laugh maniacally as your puny rounds flatten themselves on my armour, blast a hole in through one side of your Churchill and out of the other with a 122mm AP round, then crush your infantry beneath my tracks, while giggling insanely at the sproinging noises made by their silly PIATs! 

[Codreanu]

6 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Churchill 75mm HE more than 60 shells vs JS2 with 28 shells which is better against infantry? I take the Churchill. 

I'd almost always take the Churchill too, maybe if you were trying to clear/knock down some sort of big stone structure that was really infested with enemies the 122mm would be worth it but that's about it. I remember playing the Berlin mini-campaign in F&R and getting a couple ISU-152s, they were fun and really put a lot of hurt on the enemy but ran out of ammo very fast and had no machine guns so they  were just big hulking wastes of space. Also not fun when one hits a tree or little hill in front of it and frags an entire squad of your own men 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

8 minutes ago, Codreanu said:

I remember playing the Berlin mini-campaign in F&R and getting a couple ISU-152s, they were fun and really put a lot of hurt on the enemy but ran out of ammo very fast and had no machine guns so they  were just big hulking wastes of space. Also not fun when one hits a tree or little hill in front of it and frags an entire squad of your own men 

I'm not sure that all of that is down to the design of the ISU-152 (which often does have a DShK MG BTW, it's the SU-152 which did not).

Edited December 14, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Erwin]

13 minutes ago, Codreanu said:

Also not fun when one hits a tree or little hill in front of it and frags an entire squad of your own men 

Too true.  One thing I have noticed is that they can demolish trees after a couple of hits.  Trees in CM2 tend to be indestructible in many cases, so this was fun.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

4 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Trees in CM2 tend to be indestructible in many cases, so this was fun.

Really? 

Care to explain this:

That entire area was heavy forest just over an hour earlier.....You clearly haven't been trying hard enough! 

Edited December 14, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead

[chuckdyke]

17 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I take the JS-2.....Then laugh maniacally as your puny rounds flatten themselves on my armour, blast a hole in through one side of your Churchill and out of the other with a 122mm AP round, then crush your infantry beneath my tracks, while giggling insanely at the sproinging noises made by their silly PIATs! 

We talked about the HE what is better 28X overkill against 60+Xsufficient. I agree against buildings and pillboxes the JS2 is better. The 6 pounder HE from the Valentines were doing all right in Mountains of the Moon. More accurate than the 152 mm of the ISU 152 mm . I think it is something they should look into. The game would have been more enjoyable with T34/76's. 

[Codreanu]

10 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I'm not sure that all of that is down to the design of the ISU-152 (which often does have a DShK MG BTW, it's the SU-152 which did not).

You're right, it was an SU-152, either way I feel like the 152s are pretty situational. Good for when you really need to drop a building but against trenchworks they're not as consistent as I like, they might kill a few guys or might wipe out the better part of a platoon. Reminds me of another scenario I had where I was assaulting a trench section and despite missing the trench the explosion must have killed 15 guys and caused the whole enemy platoon to instantly shatter. I like the consistency of the smaller calibers and even if they miss, a follow up shot comes soon after, plus loads of coax and hull MG ammo.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

48 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

We talked about the HE what is better 28X overkill against 60+Xsufficient. I agree against buildings and pillboxes the JS2 is better.

It's all the other things the JS-2 is better at that form my choice.....If you meet a Panther or a JgPz.IV I know which I'd rather have. 

[chuckdyke]

6 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Panther or a JgPz.IV I know which I'd rather have. 

The German made something like less than 10000 Pz 4 and Panthers but over 20000 Pak75. We all know that the allies had less than stellar tanks suited for anti tank work. You need also  2 or more JS2 to match the firing rate of a Panther. 

[John Kettler]

Correction. Valera Potapov. Sorry about that!

Regards,

John Kettler