Long 88mm lacking punch?

[Bastables]

John, now I understand why I've not recived that turn from you, you have your own upper class cesspool sucking you away from whats really important in CM, me kicking your arse in an operation

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables:

John, now I understand why I've not recived that turn from you, you have your own upper class cesspool sucking you away from whats really important in CM, me kicking your arse in an operation <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROFL I sent you the turn Tue, 05 Sep 2000 23:33:56 -0400. Have no idea why you never got it as its listed as sent. Bah tell that to your Stuart TC's family that my uber sniper took out .

Regards, John Waters

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

"Everyone is sick of the war, except those lunatics at Military HQ".

[Bastables]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

ROFL I sent you the turn Tue, 05 Sep 2000 23:33:56 -0400. Have no idea why you never got it as its listed as sent. Bah tell that to your Stuart TC's family that my uber sniper took out .

Regards, John Waters

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

"Everyone is sick of the war, except those lunatics at Military HQ".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hmmm dammit resend try donaldk@ihug.co.nz

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables:

hmmm dammit resend try donaldk@ihug.co.nz<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL I'm starting to think your trying Psy ops on me by constantly switching youe Email addy . Its bent sent again to both adresses you gave me LOL........

Regards, John Waters

-----------

"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world because they'd never expect it. " -Jack Handey

[Paul Lakowski]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

8.8cm KwK.39/43 1018m/s APCBC @ 0^

CM Data:

100m - 220mm

500m - 205mm

1000m - 188mm

2000m - 157mm

8.8cm KwK.39/43 1000m/s APCBC @ 0^

Spielberger:

100m - 220

500m - 205

1000m - 186

2000m - 154

8.8cm KwK.43 Pzgr.39/43 1018m/s APCBC @ 30^

CM Data:

100m - 177mm

500m - 165mm

1000m - 151mm

1500 - N/A

2000m - 121mm

8.8cm KwK.43 Pzgr.39/43 1000m/s APCBC @ 30^. Pzgr.40/43 1130m/s APCR in ( )'s Jentz:

100m - 202mm (237mm)

500m - 185mm (217mm

1000m - 165mm (197mm)

1500m - 148mm (170mm)

2000m - 132mm (152mm)

Now how can the 0^ data be so close in CM's formula @ 0^ & the 30^ data be so skewed in various examples, & sometimes by a wide margin, Especialy vs the actual test data that provided the 'accurate' 0^ results vs CM's 30^ disputed results.

Again all this has remained unanswered to date.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And this is the problem, in truth theres no such thing as a vertical impact on a tank its all about angles and if the model miss the mark by such a large amount on angled impact then its no good. At least if there was a way of editing the penetration values one could correct this, but given the complexity of the formula I don't know how that would be done.

[Vanir]

Hmm.. Let me stick my amature head in here for a sec and ask a question or 2.

John, I remember a little further back in this thread you mentioned one Robert Livingston who claimed to have found a flaw in the British reports' handling of angled penetration. Now that it seems that most of the discrepancy between CM (British report) and test data is in the area of angled penetrations, I can't help but wonder.

My questions would be: Has Livingston ever revealed in detail what this problem was? If so, is Charles aware of it and was it taken into consideration? What is his opinion on it?

I understand that you can probably only answer the first one, but maybe that will get a ball rolling in the right direction.

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

No, there will be no sequels. Charles and Steve have given up wargame design in disgust and have gone off to Jamaica to invest their new-found wealth in the drug trade. -Michael emrys

[Paul Lakowski]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir:

John, I remember a little further back in this thread you mentioned one Robert Livingston who claimed to have found a flaw in the British reports' handling of angled penetration. Now that it seems that most of the discrepancy between CM (British report) and test data is in the area of angled penetrations, I can't help but wonder.

My questions would be: Has Livingston ever revealed in detail what this problem was? If so, is Charles aware of it and was it taken into consideration? What is his opinion on it?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He has but he's not talking right now. Him and Lorrin Bird found a correlation between shape of the nose and slanted penetration that works for projectiles above 50mm. They are currently working on a website and a book to explain 'There model of penetration'.

[Paul Lakowski]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir:

John, I remember a little further back in this thread you mentioned one Robert Livingston who claimed to have found a flaw in the British reports' handling of angled penetration. Now that it seems that most of the discrepancy between CM (British report) and test data is in the area of angled penetrations, I can't help but wonder.

My questions would be: Has Livingston ever revealed in detail what this problem was? If so, is Charles aware of it and was it taken into consideration? What is his opinion on it?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He has but he's not talking right now. Him and Lorrin Bird found a correlation between shape of the nose and slanted penetration that works for projectiles above 50mm. They are currently working on a website and a book to explain 'There model of penetration'.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir:

Hmm.. Let me stick my amature head in here for a sec and ask a question or 2.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Join the club Vanir as again I'm no expert either , its my hobby but I get as lost as everyone else thankfully I have Paul & Simon

etc, to set me straight when I misunderstand what I read.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

John, I remember a little further back in this thread you mentioned one Robert Livingston who claimed to have found a flaw in the British reports' handling of angled penetration. Now that it seems that most of the discrepancy between CM (British report) and test data is in the area of angled penetrations, I can't help but wonder.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just wish we could find the answer on the KwK.43 as thats my interest, and to look for why you have to dig into CM's 0^ & 30^ results which compounds it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

My questions would be: Has Livingston ever revealed in detail what this problem was? If so, is Charles aware of it and was it taken into consideration? What is his opinion on it?

I understand that you can probably only answer the first one, but maybe that will get a ball rolling in the right direction.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Paul is who would know as he has stayed in contact with Robert while I have not, and I see from his post he has answered it . Hopefully he & Paul will figure something out when time permits.

Regards, John Waters

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

Make way evil, I'm armed to the teeth and packing a hamster!

[:USERNAME:]

Does anyone know how these tests got to the millimeter of penetration?

Did the tester put thicker and thicker slabs of armor varying by 1 mm down range till a certain percentage of AP would not go through and then declare that the penetration? I can imagine having 5 mm differing slabs and picking the first one depending on calculated penetration and then working from there.

Anyone?

Lewis

[Paul Lakowski]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME::

Does anyone know how these tests got to the millimeter of penetration?

Did the tester put thicker and thicker slabs of armor varying by 1 mm down range till a certain percentage of AP would not go through and then declare that the penetration? I can imagine having 5 mm differing slabs and picking the first one depending on calculated penetration and then working from there.

Anyone?

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If they follow normal proceedure they will either test fire into a slightly thicker plate and measure the depth of penetration . or calculate based on how much charge weight was needed to achieve a penetration in relation to a fixed range/ thickness penetration. Inaddition the'll be several shots to confirm a penetration calculation figure.

Normally these may only involve 3-6 shots at each range /angle test case.Given the large variation that shows up in indepth statistical analysis of penetration, a big difference between various test conditions could just be that the projectiles selected of armor selected under performed or over performed. This can easly explain a difference of a few mm. Larger differences are usually calculating errors.

[Paul Lakowski]

Simon if you Email me your address, I'll set up a little group discussion with Robert on this topic along with John and Lewis [if hes interested?].

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME::

Does anyone know how these tests got to the millimeter of penetration?

Did the tester put thicker and thicker slabs of armor varying by 1 mm down range till a certain percentage of AP would not go through and then declare that the penetration? I can imagine having 5 mm differing slabs and picking the first one depending on calculated penetration and then working from there.

Anyone?

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Krupp practice for 30 - 50mm thickness FH plates was to randomly select 1 30mm, & 1 50mm plate from the production batches of 50. Then the 30mm plate would be attacked useing 20mm AP @ Normal. While the 50mm plate was attacked by 3.7cm AP @ Normal, after the test the plates would be fractured & depth hardness detemined.

Hanover practice with 30 - 50mm thickness IEH plate was the same with 30mm plate attacked by 20mm AP 860/870m/s @ 15^. 50mm plate was attacked by 3.7cm AP shot (no AOI or m/s given). Overmatching tests were done with the same weapons and acceptable back damage was limited to 45 - 50mm.

Of course the above is general as their is little data on German test proceses for their main guns as the German AT - Arty proveing grounds where all German tank ammunition testing took place & were documented was captured by the Soviets, in 1945. Their is somewhat more info in Jentz's Germany's Tiger Tanks as he states that the German test plate was 81 - 120mm & 121 - 150mm thickness. I wonder if this was where the Dortmund, Kriegsmarine surplus stock of IEH 100 - 150mm plate was used?.

Regards, John Waters

----------

"Gunner: SABOT, Tank, Fire!!."

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 09-09-2000).]

[:USERNAME:]

88mm Pak 43/41: 1152 (1944) 251 (1945)

88mm Pak 434: 6 (1943) 1766 (1944) 326 (1945)

These production stats makes this a somewhat rare gun (even if you add it up with all the tiger II's, Nashorne, etc). The germans built close to 20000 Pak40's alone. If I were Speer , I would have sent all the 88s to russia and fought the western powers with the 75mms.

Lewis

[Guest Big Time Software]

Vanir wrote,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My questions would be: Has Livingston ever revealed in detail what this problem was? If so, is Charles aware of it and was it taken into consideration? What is his opinion on it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't speak to what Livingston may or may not have done, but Charles was aware of the flawed "angle" part of the equation so it was not used (or at least not "as is", I don't know the specifics).

Steve

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Vanir wrote,

Charles was aware of the flawed "angle" part of the equation so it was not used (or at least not "as is", I don't know the specifics).

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting, I was told when I asked for proof that the KwK.43 LF data was flawed as BTS asserted, to get the British 1950 report, as the answers were their. The 1950 Reports angle equasions were flawed, and were of no help in proveing that the KwK.43 LF data @ 30^ is flawed or that CMs KwK.43 @ 30^ values are correct.

One of Steve's 10 questions to anyone who doubted CM's penetration formula results for the KwK.43 @ 30^ was:

"If our equations are outdated and inaccurate, can you please explain how it is that our results match those of test data from three different nations for dozens of guns? Put another way, how can a flawed set of equations come up with the correct results and still be flawed? "

And this was true for one aspect of CMs penetration values, as CMs formula results @ 0^ are very close if not exact at some ranges to 0^ refrence pen data. Even almost matching perfectly the KwK.43 test data for 0^.

However CMs modeling of penetration at 30^ with guns above 75mm all have or had errors concerning results at 30^. APCR (especialy), & APCBC, values had deviations compared to refrence material 30^. Deviations in the results are most evident the 100m through 1000ms range.

Can we be told what was used then to generate the 30^ results?, so we can figure out what proves the KwK.43, @ 30^ LF data for the KwK.43 is or isn't 'flawed' and we can end the 'conjecture' etc.

Regards, John Waters.

-----------

"die verdammte Jabos".

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 09-10-2000).]

[PzKpfw 1]

BTT

Regards, John Waters

[aka_tom_w]

Go John Waters!

Still my favourite thread.

While we are at it, lets not forget about those German Zeiss gunnery optics for long range improved accuracy and a higher "chance to hit" percentage than is currently modeled for long distances in the game.

-tom w

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

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Following are opinions (very abridged because of the size of this post) of members of the 66th and 67th Armored Regiments and 2nd Armored Division:

The consensus of opinion of all personnel in the 66th Armored Regiment is that the German tank and anti-tank weapons are far superior to the American in the following categories.

Superior Flotation.

Greater mobility. This is directly contrary to the popular opinion that the heavy tank is slow and cumbersome.

The German guns have a much higher muzzle velocity and no telltale flash. The resulting flat trajectory gives great penetration and is very accurate.

The 90-mm, although an improvement, is not as good as either the 75 or 88. If HVAP ammunition becomes available, it will improve the performance of both the 76-mm and 90-mm guns.

German tank sights are definitely superior to American sights. These, combined with the flat trajectory of the guns, give great accuracy.

German tanks have better sloped armor and a better silhouette than the American tanks.

The M24 tank has not been available long, but has created a very favorable impression.

The M4 has been proven inferior to the German Mark VI in Africa before the invasion of Sicily, 10 July 1943. "

-Brigadier General J. H. Collier, Commanding Combat Command "A"

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have always been told German plate was consistantly more resistant then US & UK plate with BHN examples & the above etc, to back it up.(John)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It is quite possible that German plate was superior to a certain extent and under certain circumstances but that might have nothing to do with FH or even BHN but just the quality of production. The degree of superiority is difficult to quantitate since it varied throughout the war. Furthermore the performance of projectiles seem to vary much more against FHA and are therefore less predictable. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The US & British reduced hardness in their armor & increased thickness to get a good resistance vs impacts of larger projectiles as ballistic tests had shown,(John)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are absolutely right it was a deliberate design decision since the Germans used capped AP projectiles and RHA is generally better against those than FH armour. Also it is much easier to work with and produce and therefore makes tank production more efficient. The dilemma for the germans was that by far the majority of their tank warfare was against the russians and FH armour was superior than RHA for russian projectiles. So they accepted a disadvantage vs the western allies for a great advantage against the russians. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have no degree in this(John)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well neither do I but those Material Science units are coming in handy for once. My point about the gradient is that you don't just have a thin super hard layer on top of a more ductile plate. The hardness gradient is also a brittleness gradient so when the plate fails it tends to break up into 'plugs' which fly around in the vehicle. Penetrating or partially penetrating hits on face hardened armour are likely to cause more internal damage to the vehicle because of the plugging failure of the armour. Furthermore it is possible for the projectile to fail to actually penetrate FH armour but still cause catastrophic damage inside the vehicle because of the plug. What is so confusing is that the difference between FH and RHA armour varies so much for different ammunition types

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The British test data sugests that UK 17lb APCBC ammunition due to the superior performance of British APCBC vs FH treated plate should have had no problem defeating the Tiger & Panther's armor frontaly which wasn't the case in the feild,(John)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well the data I gave don't actually show that. The Tiger yes and the field information (not just trials but actual combat performance) showed that the 17pdr was a reasonable antidote to this tank of course not every shot was head on so obliquity starts to come into it. Even the 6pdr could defeat parts of the Tiger armour as shown by trials and combat especially the side hull and turret as long as the angle of incidence was low. Even so with the 17pdr it wasn't certain, hence the need for a high velocity round (APDS).

Against the Panther it is a different story. The British had intelligence data from Russia on the Panther and they knew that they would have problems against the frontal armour even with the 17pdr APC and APBC because of the angle. Of course it was easy meat to side shots from a whole host of guns as combat experience showed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From Report M6816A/4 No 1 30 October 1943 on Fireing Trial in Tunisia against Pz.Kpfw.VI "Tiger" from the Department of Tank design, armor branch. Their was also an earlier LF test on June 5th 1943 useing 75mm APCBC, 6lb AP, & 2lb AP all fired at 100yrds.(John)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That doesn't sound like a British report? Were they using 6pdr AP or APC or APBC? Which 6pdr were they using, the MkIII(the most common in 1943) or the high velocity MkIV(just introduced). They sound like MkIII since that matches the data I have, the MKIV was better (substantially) against the Tiger. Did they use the 2pdr Longjohn at all? That actually had a chance against the Tiger going by the penetration data hehe.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm not even sure the Tiger armor was hardened as the BIOS report states(John)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't know either but the nature of the failures you report (ie plugging) does suggest FH.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Your data appears to be from the British March 1945 D.T.D<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. The report was dated 1943

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I also question why you believe APDS was superior to APCR.....

17lb APDS also had severe problems vs the Panthers glacis, because of the 55^ slope.(John)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Lol, generally APDS IS superior to APBC (is that what you mean) especially the superior British variety. Just about everything has a problem with the highly sloped Panther front.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now how can the 0^ data be so close in CM's formula @ 0^ & the 30^ data be so skewed in in the 76 - 90mm guns & sometimes by a wide margin,(Ie, 90mm T-33). Especialy vs the actual test data that provided the 'accurate' 0^ results vs CM's @30^ disputed results.(John)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Easy. Normal angles of incidence are much easier to model. Obliquity is much more difficult. Some British documents actually refer to their knowledge of inaccurate angle modelling so I don't doubt that Charles was aware of the possibilities as Steve says. Also you are getting a bit carried away with the "so skewed" attitude. Some stuff is skewed most of it is not. In some instances you are citing data which is 5-10mm different from CMs and quite frankly that is peanuts and well within the substantial intra and inter-test variations we have seen cited here on this thread. As someone more expert than myself has perspicaciously said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>armour penetration is far from being a deterministic phenomenon, and giving penetrative performance in millimetres suggests a degree of precision that does not really exist. Performance in the field, of course, is subject to very much greater variation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>and <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>All simplified tables showing the performance of anti-tank guns are misleading<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Simon if you Email me your address, I'll set up a little group discussion with Robert on this topic along with John and Lewis (Paul)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This sounds like a good idea though I think we are doing our bit to keep the cesspoolites in their place and if we leave the filthy little creatures might take over the board.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>While we are at it, lets not forget about those German Zeiss gunnery optics for long range improved accuracy and a higher "chance to hit" percentage than is currently modeled for long distances in the game.(Tom)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Now tom I have already chastised you for bringing up that optics crap on this thread. If you want to discuss it go and trawl up that 'gunnery range' thread. While you're about it go and do a bit of technical research on the subject (no first hand accounts please) since we are doing all you're dirty work here. All sides used a number of different sights during the war and while the original US sight was pretty poor not all allied vehicles had it you know. Dates of introduction on the US M10 and T122 sights? The Barr and Stroud x3 and x6 sights?

[Guest Big Time Software]

Guys - two things I want to point out:

1. The 1950 Brit report on armor penetration indeed does not deal with slope. That data came from Robert Livingston. It could very well be imperfect, but is the best algorithm available that I know of, because the interaction between impact and slope is a very tricky one and test data is (unfortunately) woefully incomplete. There is probably room for improvement here, but I think it will have to wait for Robert to finish his book.

2. The penetration figures in CM are not measured against 'test plate' of friendly manufacture (like they are in real-life test firing data). They're measured against 'typical' enemy armor plate. This makes the CM numbers harder to compare directly to test-firing data, but gives a better sense of capability on the battlefield, so that's why we did it that way.

Charles

[Vanir]

Some food for thought there.

Thanks for the post Charles

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

No, there will be no sequels. Charles and Steve have given up wargame design in disgust and have gone off to Jamaica to invest their new-found wealth in the drug trade. -Michael emrys

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

That doesn't sound like a British report? Were they using 6pdr AP or APC or APBC? Which 6pdr were they using, the MkIII(the most common in 1943) or the high velocity MkIV(just introduced). They sound like MkIII since that matches the data I have, the MKIV was better (substantially) against the Tiger. Did they use the 2pdr Long john at all? That actually had a chance against the Tiger going by the penetrationdata hehe.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Their were 3 British live fire tests vs the Tiger E conducted the 1st was done on May 19 1943 was the Beja to Sidi N'sir road the report wa filed on 5 June 1943 as Appendix B to a Special Report on the German Pz.Kw,VI Tiger. The tests were vs the Tiger;s side armor useing 75mm APC 2020 ft/s (Sherman), 6lb AP 2500 - 2600 ft/sec (MK.III), & 2lb AP 2600 - 2750 ft/sec (Churchill MK.X) @ 100ms.

The 2nd LF test was done at Bon Ficha Tunisia from July 30 - August 13 1943. And filed on October 30 1943 as M.6816A/4 Fireing Trial in Tunisia against Pz.Kpw.VI Tiger Department of Tank Design,Armor Branch.

The Tests were vs a turretless Tiger E, useing 6lb AP & APC from the MK.II AT gun & 17lb AP from the MK.1 AT gun.

The third Live fire test was conducted from March 16 - 22nd 1945 with an Tiger E captured intact in Normandy. And filed as Experimental Report A.T.No.252 Part II.

Useing 6lb APCBC & APDS, 17lb APCBC, & APDS, 75mm APC, & 25lb HE. And the MK V AT mine.

It's also interesting to note that the British didin't use an HE filler in their APC & APCBC ammunition, only a tracer & even removed the HE from the US supplied 75mm M61 APC ammunition replaceing it with an plug.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I don't know either but the nature of the failures you report (ie plugging) does suggest FH.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Lol, generally APDS IS superior to APBC (is that what you mean) especially the superior British variety. Just about everything has a

problem with the highly sloped Panther front.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In this case the 17ln APDS failed vs the DFP above 800yrds & the 17lb APCBC performed better that was my point.

Regards, John Waters

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

Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 09-12-2000).]

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Guys - two things I want to point out:

Charles<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank's Charles, again this is interesting as CMs results are very close to US & UK results vs their 240 - 245BHN test plate, & German test data vs theirs. I would have expected less penetration vs German plate & more German penetration vs US, UK plate. Will contact Robert on the angle stuff.

Regards, John Waters

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

Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 09-12-2000).]

[Banshee]

Still the best active thread in this forum IMHO!

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Banshee:

Still the best active thread in this forum IMHO!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it is!

Even if some of us here do get chastised for mentioning "rumours" allegations or first Hand accounts of the effectiveness and long range accuracy (not currently modeled as I understand it) of German Zeiss gunnery optics.

Still, it is my favourite thread.

-tom w