Denwad Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 The people here seem to think it's too high. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenH Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 WW II online dweebery pretty much covers it. Funny, didnt see it mentioned for any of those awards there, but did see CMAK though..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denwad Posted February 29, 2004 Author Share Posted February 29, 2004 what? They think that 35 degrees at zero degrees at 100m is too high. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 Originally posted by Denwad: what? They think that 35 degrees at zero degrees at 100m is too high. WWII Online? Good lord, did they throw you off the Squad Assault forums or something? Talk about slumming. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denwad Posted February 29, 2004 Author Share Posted February 29, 2004 what? no I play the game 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 I've got a book that says 21mm at 300yds (~300m) but doesn't give angle Plenty of info here: http://www.britwar.co.uk/files/phatfile/WW2pen14May02.PDF Bear in mind that figures used in CMAK are possibly vs.homogenoues, not face-hardened armour. [ February 29, 2004, 07:34 AM: Message edited by: flamingknives ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabidbvr Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 Hello one and all... a little bit of info for you will try to post some bal/pen info http://www.wwiitech.net/main/britain/weapons/boys/index.html good site basic info happy hunting 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abteilung Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Hello Denwad! Try sending an email to rexford (the address is in his profile). He'd be the one to obtain the most accurate data for you. Also, do me a favor, both you and Disndale and the other CM + WWIIOnline players: Try your best to quell the extreme amounts of side-bias and offensive bickering which over-populates the playnet forums. This would begin with yourselves first and foremost (change begins with the individual). Nothing turns me (and others, I'm sure) off from WWIIOnline more than viewing the salacious side-biased bickering, the endless persecution complexes, discovering a few bugs (no real biggie by itself), then being verbally attacked ingame for a variety of rather assinine reasons. I would come back to playing the game sooner if it weren't for the way players are treated by the community. I recently had a look while contemplating signing back up again (will have internet access at my new home soon) and decided against it for the reasons mentioned above. Our crash pod here at work had the game installed for exactly 2 hours before myself and a coworker were rudely and repeatedly accused of "greifing" because we tried to multi-crew a B1 bis and were killed by what we guessed to be a 250Kg bomb before we could exit the town we spawned the tank from. =/ That was not a good sign and my coworker decided WWIIOnline wasn't for him (first time seeing it) based on the way we were treated. I felt bad and was slightly peeved. =[ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow 1st Hussars Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Too high? The thing can barely kill one of Harv's trucks as it is... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PS Posted March 13, 2004 Share Posted March 13, 2004 The early steel core bullet did around the lesser figure while the tungsten core bullet at a higher velocity did about 35mm. This also shows how difficult comparing penetration figures are. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denwad Posted March 13, 2004 Author Share Posted March 13, 2004 Abteilung, they probably were accusing you of 'greifing' because there was a Stuka above town, Stuka + tanks = dead tanks and that equals wasted armor. But since you were new you didn't know. Anyway, but thank you for the sources PS- The ammo used in CMAK is Tungsten, no? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted March 13, 2004 Share Posted March 13, 2004 Originally posted by PS: The early steel core bullet did around the lesser figure while the tungsten core bullet at a higher velocity did about 35mm. This also shows how difficult comparing penetration figures are. The tugsten-cored bullet was never issued, and approved for standardization purposes only in September 1945, according to my best source on the subject, "Technical Ammunition Guide Series 2 Pamphlet 8, British Anti-Tank Rifle ammunition 1917-1945", P Labbett and F A Brown, Labbett-Brown, 1988 (thanks to Tony Williams). Pen figures from this source are included in the file alluded to earlier by flamingknives. All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PS Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 Sorry I thought the tungsten round came out in 1940 to improve pen. This must have been the MkII bullet that I saw. The only full data I have is: AP.WMkII 2980fps IT70(Hardness 440-475) 743grs 15mm/30 100yds 12.5mm/30 500yds Also: 20mm/0 500m 3250fps 21mm/0 300m So is CMBB and CMAK using the tungsten bullet data? 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.