Jump to content

Indirect fire Cannister and other goodies . . .


Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Tha_Field_Marshall:

I haven't seen the AI use tungeston rounds properly yet either. At long range when there are needed my Mk IV will hold on to them. Usually not getting a second chance to use them, I might add.

Doesn't the penetration of tungsten core rounds degrade much faster over distance than standard AP? At 1000m + standard AP might actually be more effective. I'll double check, but I'm pretty sure that's the case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My aplogies for con fusing Gelileo & da Vinci!!

As for using "T" rounds - the performance of APCR/HVAP rounds degrades VERY quickly because the round as a whole is lighter than a standard AP round, but has the same cross sectional area - so drag affects it much more.

Hence worse penetration at longer ranges.

Also they are very inaccurate at long ranges for the same reason - with less mass their flight path is more easily upset by any atmosphereic disturbances.

Early APDS rounds were also rather inaccurate, but in their case it was because the discarding sabots would affect the flight of each round unevenly - it wasn't until teh mid-late '50's that this problem was solved. And of course there aren't APDS any in CMBB anyway! smile.gif

So they're only used at short range wherer they have a decent chance to hit and penetrate.

Of course what constitutes "short range" varies with the gun!! smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but . . .

Don't cha think it's just SO cool to see a short 75mm doing indirect fire of Cannister, ON-board?

Boom! fwwwwwweeeeeEEEEEEEEEP (going up.)

EEEEEEeeeeeeeeeoooooooooooop (coming down.)

"AiieeeeeeEEEEEE!" (Shouts of suppressed infantry.)

Gpig

smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It asn't indirect fire - the tank could see the target!!

It was AREA fire - since the target was an area of ground in which it was suspected enemy were lurking, rather than located enemy units themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pffftt, details, details! ;)

It WAS indirect fire even though it was an area target. For the sole reason that he had elevated his gun upwards of 45 degrees. No targets (enemy infantry) were visible at the time.

If a mortar crew can see his target but still fires his mortar at it, is that considered direct fire?

tongue.gif

:D

Gpig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Gpig:

If a mortar crew can see his target but still fires his mortar at it, is that considered direct fire?

Yes. Mike is right.

It becomes indirect iff * the weapon firing (or its crew if you want to be pedantic, since inanimate objects like guns and tanks can't 'see') cannot see its intended target.

* 'iff' is not a spelling mistake!

[ October 15, 2002, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...