GreenAsJade Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 Originally posted by Mike: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GreenAsJade: Um, I read the italicised piece of the article CW quoted as saying exactly the opposite... ... it was _either_ hull down 37 _or_ use the 75, and be essentially exposed. That was what that article seemed to be saying. That part of the article is nonssense - it speaks of having to fully expose the whole tank to use the 75mm - have a look at the photos that accompany it - up to HALF the tank could be shielded by terrain while using the 75mm! Now what do you think they did - sit on the highest ridgeline with het whole tank showing, or some distance behin d it with just the minimum amount of the tank showing as required to use the 75? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 Originally posted by Berlichtingen: The early American optics were throwbacks to the Civil War I have this vision of TCs peering through opera glasses donated to the war effort by rich old ladies in Boston and Chicago. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Berlichtingen: The early American optics were throwbacks to the Civil War I have this vision of TCs peering through opera glasses donated to the war effort by rich old ladies in Boston and Chicago. Michael </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demoss Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 At this point in the war, the 37mm was still marginally useful against a lot of armor. If you thought it could handle what it was faced with, you might choose to leave as much of your tank concealed as possible. Of course, if the 37 can handle what it was faced with, chances are your hull armor can too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 Originally posted by demoss: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> At this point in the war, the 37mm was still marginally useful against a lot of armor. If you thought it could handle what it was faced with, you might choose to leave as much of your tank concealed as possible. Of course, if the 37 can handle what it was faced with, chances are your hull armor can too. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: Most often yes, but does anybody know what those squeezebore halftracks can do to a Lee? Michael They explode really nicely when hit by the 75 gun. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 One of the German ACs got hit by a Sherman and exploded quite spectacularly. I wouldn't have expected them to be carrying that much ammo. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 The explosions do seem a little more "Hollywood" than before. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 "Allied vehicles don't have telescopic sights (any significant magnification) until quite late in the war" Oh come on, that is not the issue. Everybody had magnification. German optics being better does not mean only they had telescopes for pete's sake. It just means theirs were the quality in fine cameras or scientific instruments, not the quality in a disposable or in opera glasses. You collect more light, you get a much crisper image, you can focus much more accurately. That is all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 This is from a conversation I had with Rexford.... Pages 84 and 85 in our book, WW II BALLISTICS: Armor and Gunnery, give gun sight magnification and field of sight figures for a variety of tanks and guns. Of interest are: M2 gun on early Grants and Lee (75mm L31) ========================================= 1.00x magnification, 11 degree field of view and uses roof top periscope that is vulnerable to linkage misalignment Not especially good on long shots due to no magnification, very limited field of view 37mm gun on early Grants and Lee uses periscope alongside gun with same characteristics as 75mm sight M3 gun on Early Lee and Shermans (75mm L40) =========================================== 1.44x magnification, 9 degree field of view is VERY limited, uses roof top periscope that is vulnerable to linkage mis-alignment. 37mm uses same sight type as M3 gun 2 pdr ===== 1.9x magnification, 21 degree field of view range marks limited to under 2000 yards 50mm Pak ========= 3.0x magnification with 8 degree field of view, it is said that when 50mm Pak reached the desert combat ranges suddenly increased by a significant amound. PzKpfw III and IV ================== 2.5x magnification amd 25 degree field of view 88mm Flak ========= 5.0x magnification with 8 degree field of view 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 A really big thing to remember about American tank technology is that it was developed mainly on the fly while building up for the war. The U.S. Army didn't even have a real Armored division till 1940 with the activation of the 1st and 2nd. American tanks still used slits in the armor to see through rather than periscopes. With flawed doctrine, and a need to develope a usable tank force quickly, it should come as little surprise that they lagged behind their contemporaries, especially in things such as optics. Most people think of tanks as guns, tracks, and armor, not as high mag scopes, and flamability. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted November 26, 2003 Share Posted November 26, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GreenAsJade: So you don't get this wierd "hull down, MG blocked", which you _do_ get for the M3. I'm thinkin' "MG blocked, geez, what about the 75".You are mistaken about the hull MGs being located above the 75mm. The hull MGs are in fixed positions just above the lower hull-glacis seam on the left side. You can see their ports in this screenshot posted by Andreas. . No barrels protrude so you have to look for them. Michael </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 26, 2003 Share Posted November 26, 2003 Originally posted by GreenAsJade: So... what are the other two "black cylinders" poking out from the tank higher up? One must be the coax MG... what is the other? I'm not sure what you mean, but the coax is right next to the 37mm and the commander's MG is protruding from his cupola. Why doesn't the bow MG barrel poke out of the port?You mean in the game graphic? Because they didn't in real life. Duh. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted November 27, 2003 Share Posted November 27, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GreenAsJade: So... what are the other two "black cylinders" poking out from the tank higher up? One must be the coax MG... what is the other? I'm not sure what you mean, but the coax is right next to the 37mm and the commander's MG is protruding from his cupola. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 27, 2003 Share Posted November 27, 2003 Originally posted by GreenAsJade: In the stats screen it lists two MGs, but you've established that there are three.No, actually there are four, the commander's, the coax, and a pair of fixed MGs in the hull. What's the deal with that?My guess is that they are rating the two hull MGs as only one because they are rigidly fixed in place and therefore less effective than a flexible mount would be. </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Why doesn't the bow MG barrel poke out of the port?You mean in the game graphic? Because they didn't in real life. Duh. </font> 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.