John Kettler Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Found this on Wiki while tracking down the far more obscure story of the 85mm M-1945 (D-44). A really well done piece, IMO. URL has been shortened by leaving (ZiS-3) out at the end. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/76_mm_divisional_gun_M1942_ Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jBrereton Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 This has now been shortened to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZiS-3, for those still interested. Hope this helps! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted July 24, 2007 Author Share Posted July 24, 2007 jBrereton, Am somewhat surprised yours is the only response to date on my post. Why not repost the truncated, friendlier link via an edit? Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 JK - since it happens nearly without fail in 99 out of 100 posts of this type that you make, your continued "surprise" at it seems a bit naive. I'll explain. While having links to neat WW II content is fun and occasionally useful, easily half of what you post are links I know well, and maybe another third are ones I'd find myself with a little google-fu if I actually became interested in the subject of each. Having just used google about it is frankly not interesting. Sorry. If you want to spark actual discussion, talk about the subject matter behind the link, don't just post the link. React to it. Make a claim, or a point, relating it to CM or to some previous discussion, or to some well known point of view about the war, or whatever. "Here is a disembodied link to some WW II content" isn't typically going to get a response, because anybody can do one query and get 1000 hits, and nobody has time or interest to talk about 1000 random things about WW II. To underline that something is a real find or explain why it is a better hit than the other 999, you have to refer to its actual content, in some substantial way, at some length. Trying to be helpful, not critical. Take or leave it as you like... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted July 25, 2007 Author Share Posted July 25, 2007 JasonC (et al.), Understood. That said, you exist in a rarefied informational realm most here do not, especially the recent arrivals. I thought those who don't have whole OOBs committed to memory might benefit from what I thought was a nicely done technical-historical article. Since you wanted better context, though, I post the new link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZiS-3 which, inter alia, describes the importance of close range engagements vs. the Tiger and Panther. I then supplement it with an account from a ZiS-3 artilleryman, who not only confirms the basic information, but goes on to specifically mention canister ammunition's being provided for the gun. The period painting of the camouflaged ZiS-3 battery speaks volumes as to how serious a matter hiding the guns was. http://www.iremember.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=187&Itemid=21&limit=1&limitstart=1 The article continues from there in great and groggy insider depth (effective APCR range vs. a Tiger, for example), with not just a detailed account of the man's experience in the Sandomiercz fight, but also several Q&A segments on various pertinent and not so pertinent topics. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broompatrol Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Originally posted by John Kettler: jBrereton, Am somewhat surprised yours is the only response to date on my post. Why not repost the truncated, friendlier link via an edit? Regards, John Kettler JK, if I may? I enjoy some of controverisal topics and lively discussions that ensue from some of your posts, I also like hearing AARs from some of your games, but some of the links are little dry for my non-grog tastebuds. I have a basic knowledge of WWII from school libraries, history channel, James Jones, sources like that. So my interest here in the CM forums is more on learning about the "flavor" of WWII combat so I can even recognize what a good simulation looks like, to have a better understanding regarding the equipment match ups (such as the Sherman isn't not the thinnest armored tanks of all time and it has a bad rep) and to collect information to make me a better player so I can derive more satisfaction from play and be a better opponent. When I see the random links that are posted (not just by you) Sometimes I check them out, but frequently the content is so specific or hidden within tomes of uncollated information I don't really have time to go though it to find anything useful. Information I find useful is stuff like: If I was making a fictional scenario what would a typical match-up look like? How often do ya come across an 88mmFLAK? How many Shermans would you use to support an Infantry company? What is the best method for me to reposition a Vickers, or should I leave it be?" The philosophy behind the use of different vehicles (Matilda's=basically good for killing tanks, Stuarts=great for hosing inf.) Basically trying to get a feel for the overall history of the war and experience some good gaming. This is where I'm coming from, and why I don't respond to a lot of the links. Hope this helps. and I'm always up for PBEM And don;t stop being yourself, there's only one you, reach for your dreams and all that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted July 26, 2007 Author Share Posted July 26, 2007 Broompatrol, Roger and thanks! Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Originally posted by JasonC: While having links to neat WW II content is fun and occasionally useful, easily half of what you post are links I know well, and maybe another third are ones I'd find myself with a little google-fu if I actually became interested in the subject of each. contrary to your own belief you are not the only person who reads JK's links. and if you dont' liek them then here's an idea.....don't open them! thanks for the links John......much more interesting than some of your other regular fare!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted July 27, 2007 Author Share Posted July 27, 2007 Stalin's Organist, You're welcome (with and without your tongue in cheek)! Now, if I can only remember where I read the Russian field regs for positioning AT guns. ISTR it was forbidden to set up next to a tree, at the top of a terrain feature, next to a house, and so forth. Regards, John Kettler [ July 28, 2007, 01:03 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broompatrol Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Originally posted by John Kettler: Stalin's Organist, ISTR it was forbidden to set up next to a tree, at the top of a terrain feature, next to a house, and so forth. Was that because trees and houses made good landmarks for zeroing in mortars and arty? Or, was there a less obvious reason? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted July 28, 2007 Author Share Posted July 28, 2007 Broompatrol, Easy target reference and, I believe, the vulnerability to treebursts, secondary frag damage, and the like. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Enigma Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 How often do ya come across an 88mmFLAK?That one has puzzeled me too. If you believe the Allied Tankers accounts, very gun was an 88. Which quite fairly everyone says is nonescence. However when you read some German accounts, look at some OOB you find they had zillions of these things all over the place! Although that again raises the question of there was zillions of them there must have been gzillions of other types! Off the top of my head i can use on example, that being at some ridge in the western desert during the 2nd Alamien. There was something like 20 88mm Flak guns, although they were supported by a crap load of Pak 36 and 38s as well as Italian AT guns. That was just one small area, which happened to be where they decided to smash through with an Armoured Brigade (it actaully inflicted quite a good deal of dammage to this gun but was practically wiped out, but it did turn the tide of the battle). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.