Also ich fände Wolframgeschosse im Spiel dann wieder nicht so angebracht. Es ist ja vermutlich jedem bekannt, dass es sie nur in geringen Mengen gab, da es an Wolfram fehlte. Man könnte allerdings in Erwägung ziehen, um den damaligen Gegebenheiten wenigstens teilweise Rechnung zu tragen, einen oder zwei ausgewählte(n) Panzer der Deutschen mit diesen Geschossen zu versehen, sodass dann vielleicht SS-Truppen mit solch einem Gefährt auf Maps zu finden wären. Das gleiche gilt natürlich für die HVAP der Allies. Da könnte man auch ein / zwei Panzer mit diesen Werten "bestücken".
Müssen / sollten freilich jeweils nicht die besten sein.
Ansonsten finde ich diese Anregungen, vor allem was die Panzerungen betrifft durchaus erfrischend und angebracht, auch wenn es beizeiten so rüberkommt, als würden sich einige "Veteranen" hier auf derartie Diskussionen gar nicht mehr einlassen, weil sie sie schon zu oft geführt haben bzw. Kompetenz in diesen Dingen auf einzelne Mitglieder beschränkt sehen. Keines Falls aber diskutierte man damit "am Sinn vorbei".
Übrigens sieht man auch auf diesem Foto schön, dass Panzer damals nicht völlig zerstört werden mußten, um sie außer Gefecht zu setzen. Das könnte man durchaus mal bei den plakativen Animationen zersörter Fahrzeuge in Betracht ziehen und natürlich, ich wiederhole mich, für die Möglichkeit zumindest auch Panzer (auch durch PzGranatenbeschuss) erbeuten zu können, ob man davon im MP nun Gebrauch macht oder nicht.
Veränderungen und Bug-Fixes RWM 6.7 Final
-
-Barbarossa-
- * SSM - General * (Administrator)
- Beiträge: 1937
- Registriert: 11.10.2003, 13:19
Das Panzer teilweise auch die Besatzungen verlieren, ohne dass das Fahrzeug völlg zerstört wird...wäre nur mit einem Eingriff in die RWM Basis-Daten zu erreichen, der das gesamte jetzige Konzept auf den Kopf stellen würde...egal SP oder MP....
Die Idee ist sehr gut aber es lässt sich nur unzureichend mit der Engine darstellen.
Die Sache mit Wolfram- und HVAP-Geschossen ist auch interessant, aber könnte doch einige Verwirrung verursachen wenn bestimme, eigentlich recht harmlose Kanonen auf einmal mächtig einschlagen.
Nicht zu vergessen, dass diese weitere Einheiten-Slots wegnehmen und es wohl keinen deutschen Panzer gab, der nur Wolfram-Geschosse an Bord hatte.
Die Idee ist sehr gut aber es lässt sich nur unzureichend mit der Engine darstellen.
Die Sache mit Wolfram- und HVAP-Geschossen ist auch interessant, aber könnte doch einige Verwirrung verursachen wenn bestimme, eigentlich recht harmlose Kanonen auf einmal mächtig einschlagen.
Nicht zu vergessen, dass diese weitere Einheiten-Slots wegnehmen und es wohl keinen deutschen Panzer gab, der nur Wolfram-Geschosse an Bord hatte.
Das Leben ist kein Frankreichfeldzug.
RWM auf Twitter folgen! https://twitter.com/RWM_Barbarossa
RWM auf Twitter folgen! https://twitter.com/RWM_Barbarossa
-
For Real WW2 feeling
- Fähnrich
- Beiträge: 379
- Registriert: 12.10.2006, 13:21
- Kontaktdaten:
@Barbarossa
in my before last post, litle error, it was necessary to read
"...after it's your choice of moder..." instead of "...after it's your choice of mapper..."
@plastique
perhaps a problem of language and translation of your text but my text (below) was above all about special AP for allies and not only for german guns...
And for use by allies of special AP munition, perhaps that I am mistaken.
I am not a specialist and I dont have time to check if allies usually used these ammunitions (and information on it difficult to find )
And I spoke about the ammunition of tungsten and/or better ammunition too (shoe & hollow-charge) ("tungsten" above all for allies ?).
Allies which them was not to lack this metal ? contrary to German, but which them had “hollow-chargeâ€
in my before last post, litle error, it was necessary to read
"...after it's your choice of moder..." instead of "...after it's your choice of mapper..."
@plastique
??...Also ich fände Wolframgeschosse im Spiel dann wieder nicht so angebracht. Es ist ja vermutlich jedem bekannt, dass es sie nur in geringen Mengen gab, da es an Wolfram fehlte. Man könnte allerdings in Erwägung ziehen, um den damaligen Gegebenheiten wenigstens teilweise Rechnung zu tragen, einen oder zwei ausgewählte(n) Panzer der Deutschen mit diesen Geschossen zu versehen, sodass dann vielleicht SS-Truppen mit solch einem Gefährt auf Maps zu finden wären. Das gleiche gilt natürlich für die HVAP der Allies. Da könnte man auch ein / zwei Panzer mit diesen Werten "bestücken". Müssen / sollten freilich jeweils nicht die besten sein...
perhaps a problem of language and translation of your text but my text (below) was above all about special AP for allies and not only for german guns...I see much less big differences of penetration for german between special AP munition and standard AP munition than for allies....the "normal AP ammonition" are largely better for German than for allies.
And the better ammonitions allies & german (PZgr 40/43 DE, HVAP USA, APDS GB) +/- equivalent to compare between them...
..Allies were not useful of their best shells when they located a big tank ? they surely did not have of problems of supply for that...
It's an advantageous choice for the German guns, that I dont understand well...
...But (i think) than if RWM were based on best ammunition it would be easier for mappers to balance
the USA/GB vis-a-vis of many long ranges German ...
And for use by allies of special AP munition, perhaps that I am mistaken.
I am not a specialist and I dont have time to check if allies usually used these ammunitions (and information on it difficult to find )
And I spoke about the ammunition of tungsten and/or better ammunition too (shoe & hollow-charge) ("tungsten" above all for allies ?).
Allies which them was not to lack this metal ? contrary to German, but which them had “hollow-chargeâ€
Visit a very good RWM SITE (with RWM units tables & many infos & dl...)(UK)
@french surfer
My impetus was to respond to a comment from "|FrEaK|Safran".
I guess your suggestions as a whole are not realisable at this time because of the amount/range of their consequences. Indeed I think it is well-known that the Allies had some trouble with the german tanks. There is a popular statement that it was necessary to take 6 Shermans to destroy 1 Tiger. In this game/mod it is even not that realistic.
Nevertheless I agree regarding your references concerning the armor.
My impetus was to respond to a comment from "|FrEaK|Safran".
I guess your suggestions as a whole are not realisable at this time because of the amount/range of their consequences. Indeed I think it is well-known that the Allies had some trouble with the german tanks. There is a popular statement that it was necessary to take 6 Shermans to destroy 1 Tiger. In this game/mod it is even not that realistic.
Nevertheless I agree regarding your references concerning the armor.
-
For Real WW2 feeling
- Fähnrich
- Beiträge: 379
- Registriert: 12.10.2006, 13:21
- Kontaktdaten:
sorry for the first misunderstanding, if ther have, but...
(impossible in video game, we agree) and my suggestions are always realisable.
Examples :
About "range" (more long, i think you speak ?) but i dont have to speak about that in my last posts ?
But see HS2 ranges and you will see it's realisable of their consequences very better ... for me at least
About tanks (all nations) equiped with theires best AP ammunitions...
(so proportionnelley very better for 90 mm USA and 17 pdf GB, and surelly more realistic too ?
but about that i m not sure if allies used often theirs better ammunitions ?
and more than the germans, surelly more bloqued with the supplies and "raw material" ?)
After it's only a job (which would be much easier) for the mappers of equitability between nations in maps
But you have rigth for sherman equiped with 75/76 mm gun but surely less for tanks equiped with 90 mm (Jackson...) and 17 pdf (Achille, archer...)
I speak always about "feeling réalism or history" and not "perfect realism or history"plastique hat geschrieben: ...I guess your suggestions as a whole are not realisable at this time because of the amount/range of their consequences. Indeed I think it is well-known that the Allies had some trouble with the german tanks... In this game/mod it is even not that realistic.
(impossible in video game, we agree) and my suggestions are always realisable.
Examples :
About "range" (more long, i think you speak ?) but i dont have to speak about that in my last posts ?
But see HS2 ranges and you will see it's realisable of their consequences very better
... for me at leastAbout tanks (all nations) equiped with theires best AP ammunitions...
(so proportionnelley very better for 90 mm USA and 17 pdf GB, and surelly more realistic too ?
but about that i m not sure if allies used often theirs better ammunitions ?
and more than the germans, surelly more bloqued with the supplies and "raw material" ?)
After it's only a job (which would be much easier) for the mappers of equitability between nations in maps
?? I never said the opposite about that and i dont have to speak about that in my last posts too (i think or i dont remenber ?).plastique hat geschrieben:...There is a popular statement that it was necessary to take 6 Shermans to destroy 1 Tiger...
But you have rigth for sherman equiped with 75/76 mm gun but surely less for tanks equiped with 90 mm (Jackson...) and 17 pdf (Achille, archer...)
Visit a very good RWM SITE (with RWM units tables & many infos & dl...)(UK)
I tried to say that your suggestions would cause too much effort - (at least) at this time. It sounds like that the development of 6.7 highly proceeded. Therefore I regard them as not "realisable".
Accordingly I was not ambitioned to speak about "ranges". Maybe "scope" is a better word for what I tried to express.
Take a look at the following sites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Firefly
http://www.armyvehicles.dk/m10achilles.htm
There you can see that the 17 pdr had a calibre of 76,2 mm, so not that much thicker...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_17_pounder
...and that APDS ammunition were used with this weapon (in tanks) only in 6% of cases.
But you would be right to mention that the Comet had HVAP ammunition (at least in the 2nd version):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_tank
Accordingly I was not ambitioned to speak about "ranges". Maybe "scope" is a better word for what I tried to express.
Take a look at the following sites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Firefly
http://www.armyvehicles.dk/m10achilles.htm
There you can see that the 17 pdr had a calibre of 76,2 mm, so not that much thicker...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_17_pounder
...and that APDS ammunition were used with this weapon (in tanks) only in 6% of cases.
But you would be right to mention that the Comet had HVAP ammunition (at least in the 2nd version):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_tank
-
For Real WW2 feeling
- Fähnrich
- Beiträge: 379
- Registriert: 12.10.2006, 13:21
- Kontaktdaten:
@plastique
but it's not grave, each one its point of view on it. And off course on except if it's an error or a lack of information of my part (as for the use of the APDS by the 17 pdf, indeed, 6% is not sufficient ) thx for having to find the answer to my question
I board not much of time for that but I would try to recut this information. although on the face of it, it is it
the performances of the guns (and the shells) have extremely to progress in 6 years. A 76 mm of the beginning of war does not have great any more a deal to see with a 76 mm working out 2/3 years later. And knowing that the German armour, rather had to him tendency conversely to this degrading. Even if the 17 pdf used only 6% of APDS, It is primarily necessary to look at the performances of the guns (often “power of penetration armourâ€
i dont understand why ? my suggestions are not revolutions (and often they already exist in others mods/add-ons of SS2 or SS:RW).>> ...I tried to say that your suggestions would cause too much effort - (at least) at this time. It sounds like that the development of 6.7 highly proceeded. Therefore I regard them as not "realisable". Accordingly I was not ambitioned to speak about "ranges". Maybe "scope" is a better word for what I tried to express...
but it's not grave, each one its point of view on it. And off course on except if it's an error or a lack of information of my part (as for the use of the APDS by the 17 pdf, indeed, 6% is not sufficient
) thx for having to find the answer to my question but to be sure I think that one only source of information is not sufficient, the infos should be recut (to compare, / to tie in) (and Wikipedia is free to be written share all, therefore not with 100% reliable, unless that is to change ?)...but about that i m not sure if allies used often theirs better ammunitions ? ...
I board not much of time for that but I would try to recut this information. although on the face of it, it is it
it's a 76,2 mm, but the size (mm) of the gun is often secondary in the WW2 and according to the production date (especially from the 75 mm),>> There you can see that the 17 pdr had a calibre of 76,2 mm, so not that much thicker...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_17_pounder
the performances of the guns (and the shells) have extremely to progress in 6 years. A 76 mm of the beginning of war does not have great any more a deal to see with a 76 mm working out 2/3 years later. And knowing that the German armour, rather had to him tendency conversely to this degrading. Even if the 17 pdf used only 6% of APDS, It is primarily necessary to look at the performances of the guns (often “power of penetration armourâ€
Visit a very good RWM SITE (with RWM units tables & many infos & dl...)(UK)
I guess there are further misunderstandings concerning your suggestions. I did not want to say that your remarks are not realisable at all but that it sounds like (for me) that the progression of the mod has to far proceeded for the scope of their consequences - the effort that they imply...
Actually - nearly ALL information in the internet should be handled like wikipedia. There is allways someone who decides to write something down and to load it up. However, I found widespread evidence that APDS was not used very often. In fact it was established not until the middle of 1944. See for example:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stor ... 7506.shtml
http://www.nasenoviny.com/17pdrGunEN.html
.. you are right!
http://www.sudden-strike-2-maps.de/phpB ... 61afce719c
Unfortunately I was not able to find comparable values for the 88er and 17 pdr.
88 mm KwK 36 L/56: PzG39 (APCBC) at 30°: 110mm (500m), 99mm (1.000m)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.8_cm_KwK_36
88 mm KwK 43 L/71: PzG39/43 (APCBC-HE) at 30°: 185mm (500m), 165mm (1.000m)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.8_cm_KwK_43
17 Pounder: APC at 30°: 118mm (1.000m); APCBC at 0°: 175mm (457m), 162mm (914m)
http://www.btinternet.com/~ian.a.paters ... illery.htm
http://www.junobeach.org/e/4/can-tac-art-atg-e.htm
http://www.waffenhq.de/panzer/A-34Comet.htm
It looks like that the 17 pdr is at least slightly better than the 88 mm KwK 36 L/56. But if it is correct that armor is easier to penetrate at 0° rather 30° than 17 pdr and 88 mm KwK 43 L/71 should not be equated.
Are you sure there were used "hollow-charges" beyond bazookas?
The canon of the Comet was named 77mm HV (High Velocity), but after stearing at the penetration capability I quite wonder for what. (see link to "waffenhq")
In respect of the question if the 90mm could use HVAP, APDS, hollow-charge or something:
90mm M3 L / 52: M82 (APHECBC (I assume definitely comparable to APCBC)) at 30°: 121/115mm (500m), 108/106mm (1.000m); M304 (APCR/HV): 219mm (500m), 192mm (1.000m)
http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/al ... iclesX=182
Quite different values out of this forum:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=11584
But you have eventually had find some remarks in the first cited article. The APCR ammunition was not available until March 1945. So the US 90mm was "only" slightly better than the 88 mm KwK 36 L/56. I do not know exactly to which extent it is accounted for in the game/mod, but I made the experience that it is possible to penetrate a royal tiger with a pershing.
Hope this can help you.
regards
Actually - nearly ALL information in the internet should be handled like wikipedia. There is allways someone who decides to write something down and to load it up.
However, I found widespread evidence that APDS was not used very often. In fact it was established not until the middle of 1944. See for example:http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stor ... 7506.shtml
http://www.nasenoviny.com/17pdrGunEN.html
Yes ..For Real Warfare WW2 feel hat geschrieben:but the size (mm) of the gun is often secondary in the WW2
.. you are right!
I found this already mentioned in 2004, so it should be known by the most important actors concerning this issue:For Real Warfare WW2 feel hat geschrieben:the 17 pdf is + as powerful than the 88 mm L/71. Off course, by comparing the 2 nations with their best ammunitions AT (AP) tungsten or hollow-charge.
http://www.sudden-strike-2-maps.de/phpB ... 61afce719c
Unfortunately I was not able to find comparable values for the 88er and 17 pdr.
88 mm KwK 36 L/56: PzG39 (APCBC) at 30°: 110mm (500m), 99mm (1.000m)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.8_cm_KwK_36
88 mm KwK 43 L/71: PzG39/43 (APCBC-HE) at 30°: 185mm (500m), 165mm (1.000m)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.8_cm_KwK_43
17 Pounder: APC at 30°: 118mm (1.000m); APCBC at 0°: 175mm (457m), 162mm (914m)
http://www.btinternet.com/~ian.a.paters ... illery.htm
http://www.junobeach.org/e/4/can-tac-art-atg-e.htm
http://www.waffenhq.de/panzer/A-34Comet.htm
It looks like that the 17 pdr is at least slightly better than the 88 mm KwK 36 L/56. But if it is correct that armor is easier to penetrate at 0° rather 30° than 17 pdr and 88 mm KwK 43 L/71 should not be equated.
Are you sure there were used "hollow-charges" beyond bazookas?
The canon of the Comet was named 77mm HV (High Velocity), but after stearing at the penetration capability I quite wonder for what. (see link to "waffenhq")
In respect of the question if the 90mm could use HVAP, APDS, hollow-charge or something:
90mm M3 L / 52: M82 (APHECBC (I assume definitely comparable to APCBC)) at 30°: 121/115mm (500m), 108/106mm (1.000m); M304 (APCR/HV): 219mm (500m), 192mm (1.000m)
http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/al ... iclesX=182
Quite different values out of this forum:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=11584
But you have eventually had find some remarks in the first cited article. The APCR ammunition was not available until March 1945. So the US 90mm was "only" slightly better than the 88 mm KwK 36 L/56. I do not know exactly to which extent it is accounted for in the game/mod, but I made the experience that it is possible to penetrate a royal tiger with a pershing.
Hope this can help you.
regards
-
For Real WW2 feeling
- Fähnrich
- Beiträge: 379
- Registriert: 12.10.2006, 13:21
- Kontaktdaten:
@plastique
>
the 17 pdf and 90 mm alliers guns are +/- equivalent in penetration that the 88 mm L/71 (all with their best ammunitions)
(German penetration table) http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/guns.asp
(GB penetration table) http://www.wwiivehicles.com/unitedkingd ... tables.asp
(USA penetration table) http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/guns.asp
> And about our discussion, i specified well that I spoke about best ammunition and not about the APCBC amunitions
(I knew already that german gun was quite higher in penetration with APCBC)
And i dont will read all text of links, too long... so about the infos in the links I trusts you
> But About 17 pdf and "sabot" shell (Core shell)
(extract article) "...It became still more formidable in 1944, with the introduction of the discardable sabot cartridges..."
http://www.lemaire.happyhost.org/armes/ ... e/789.html
to meet by GB on the European ground of 1944/45 ?
Knowing than the German heavy tanks were divided on 2 fronts and that they had already undergoes heavy losses ...
and that there was not as much as that
Quantities for heaviest (especially those interesting us and being most resistant to the GB/US in RWM)
("Sturmtigers" 18 ex, "Jagdtiger" 85 ex, "Elefant/Ferdinand" 90 ex, "Tiger II" (KT) 509 ex, "Tiger I" 1434 ex... and for info "Jagdpanther" 392 exe)
Perhaps this would explain that, than the GB (and US too ?) is used their best ammunition only when they met tanks quite heavy ?
>
About Shaped charge ("hollow-charges") and Core shell (named "sabot" too)
http://www.lemaire.happyhost.org/armes/ ... tml#116213
About AT guns (more gereraly)
http://www.lemairesoft.happyhost.org/ar ... html#18153
> For Comet i have
APDS - 178mm/30° max (less good than 17 pdf and 90 mm with theirs better amunitions)
(GB penetration table) http://www.wwiivehicles.com/unitedkingd ... tables.asp
>
Pershing (and jackson, same gun) (and 17 pdr) only effective (of face) from ST (SturmTiger)
>
In these tables below (which has me the to look serious and that I checked with others infos)...It looks like that the 17 pdr is at least slightly better than the 88 mm KwK 36 L/56.
But if it is correct that armor is easier to penetrate at 0° rather 30° than 17 pdr and 88 mm KwK 43 L/71 should not be equated... (I assume definitely comparable to APCBC)...
the 17 pdf and 90 mm alliers guns are +/- equivalent in penetration that the 88 mm L/71 (all with their best ammunitions)
(German penetration table) http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/guns.asp
(GB penetration table) http://www.wwiivehicles.com/unitedkingd ... tables.asp
(USA penetration table) http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/guns.asp
> And about our discussion, i specified well that I spoke about best ammunition and not about the APCBC amunitions
(I knew already that german gun was quite higher in penetration with APCBC)
and there have a error, not read "+" but "+/-"(me) ...the 17 pdf is + as powerful than the 88 mm L/71. Off course, by comparing the 2 nations with their best ammunitions AT (AP) tungsten or hollow-charge...
And i dont will read all text of links, too long... so about the infos in the links I trusts you
> But About 17 pdf and "sabot" shell (Core shell)
(extract article) "...It became still more formidable in 1944, with the introduction of the discardable sabot cartridges..."
http://www.lemaire.happyhost.org/armes/ ... e/789.html
about 6% of 17 pdf, this number (%) was not +/- equivalent to the number of heavy tanks German (from T1)...and that APDS ammunition were used with this weapon (in tanks) only in 6% of cases...
to meet by GB on the European ground of 1944/45 ?
Knowing than the German heavy tanks were divided on 2 fronts and that they had already undergoes heavy losses ...
and that there was not as much as that
Quantities for heaviest (especially those interesting us and being most resistant to the GB/US in RWM)
("Sturmtigers" 18 ex, "Jagdtiger" 85 ex, "Elefant/Ferdinand" 90 ex, "Tiger II" (KT) 509 ex, "Tiger I" 1434 ex... and for info "Jagdpanther" 392 exe)
Perhaps this would explain that, than the GB (and US too ?) is used their best ammunition only when they met tanks quite heavy ?
>
it's not sure but you have surelly rigth in part, but the infos i have on are not very clearAre you sure there were used "hollow-charges" beyond bazookas?
About Shaped charge ("hollow-charges") and Core shell (named "sabot" too)
http://www.lemaire.happyhost.org/armes/ ... tml#116213
About AT guns (more gereraly)
http://www.lemairesoft.happyhost.org/ar ... html#18153
> For Comet i have
APDS - 178mm/30° max (less good than 17 pdf and 90 mm with theirs better amunitions)
(GB penetration table) http://www.wwiivehicles.com/unitedkingd ... tables.asp
>
In reality i dont know but in RWM yes but not of face (and ditto for "JT" and "Eleph" too),but I made the experience that it is possible to penetrate a royal tiger with a pershing.
Pershing (and jackson, same gun) (and 17 pdr) only effective (of face) from ST (SturmTiger)
Visit a very good RWM SITE (with RWM units tables & many infos & dl...)(UK)
Ich finde die Diskussion ziemlich sinnlos. Von allen Seiten wurde während des Krieges nur spärlich Wolframmunition eingesetzt, bei den britischen APDS Geschossen gab es auch noch Probleme mit der Genauigkeit.
Übrigens, ihr könnt ja dann auch gleich noch die Standardmunition anpassen. Denn im Gegensatz zu deutscher und sowjetische Munition fehlte den britischen und amerikanischen Geschossen (mit ausnahme der 75mm APC M61) eine interene Sprengladung welche nach Durschschlagen der Panzerung im inneren detonierte...
Übrigens, ihr könnt ja dann auch gleich noch die Standardmunition anpassen. Denn im Gegensatz zu deutscher und sowjetische Munition fehlte den britischen und amerikanischen Geschossen (mit ausnahme der 75mm APC M61) eine interene Sprengladung welche nach Durschschlagen der Panzerung im inneren detonierte...
Moinsen,
habe mir mal aus Langeweile RWM gezogen und mir ist gleich im SP (Offizier - Map Operation Morgentau) aufgefallen, dass ein KT einen JT 2 nicht mit einem Schuss von der Seite knacken kann - er braucht dafür mind 2-3 Treffer.
Soll das so sein?
habe mir mal aus Langeweile RWM gezogen und mir ist gleich im SP (Offizier - Map Operation Morgentau) aufgefallen, dass ein KT einen JT 2 nicht mit einem Schuss von der Seite knacken kann - er braucht dafür mind 2-3 Treffer.
Soll das so sein?
Zuletzt geändert von Tosch am 26.05.2007, 13:13, insgesamt 1-mal geändert.
"Krieg, Winterschlaf der Kulturen"
Friedrich Nietzsche, (1844 - 1900)
***************************************
„Toleranz und Apathie sind die letzten Tugenden einer sterbenden Gesellschaft.”
(Aristoteles).
Friedrich Nietzsche, (1844 - 1900)
***************************************
„Toleranz und Apathie sind die letzten Tugenden einer sterbenden Gesellschaft.”
(Aristoteles).
Ich nehme mal an, damit die englischsprachigen "folks" "ihre" Seiten finden, was wiederum nicht heissen mag, dass hier nicht englisch "gepostet" werden darf. Aber dieses Verständnis ist sicher aushandelbar.marde hat geschrieben:@ Generalisimus Lammerse : Wofür hast du eigendlich die Englischen Unterforums gemacht, wenn die doch immer hier posten ???????
Darauf läuft es doch überhaupt nicht hinaus.Kamui hat geschrieben:Ich finde die Diskussion ziemlich sinnlos. .. Übrigens, ihr könnt ja dann auch gleich noch die Standardmunition anpassen.
@ For Real Warfare WW2 feel
Firstly let me annotate that it is quite unfruitful to see you refusing to read the cited links. It was you who asked for widespread evidence .. did not you?
I was only ambitioned to ensure that we are talking about the same (correct) values.For Real Warfare WW2 feel hat geschrieben:i specified well that I spoke about best ammunition
Alright, 127-140mm (500m and 30°) for the 17 pdr, so 17 pdr and 88 mm KwK 43 L/71 should not be equated (as I said before).In these tables below...
If you had read the article in Wikipedia concerning the 6% of APDS-usage with the 17pdr carefully, it would not come to your mind to compare the canon with german heavy tanks. It was the ammunition APDS which was used in only 6 % of cases. Mainly because there was even from the middle of 1944 only a small number of pieces available.about 6% of 17 pdf, this number (%) was not +/- equivalent to the number of heavy tanks German (from T1)
But you know that APDS means "Armor Piercing Discardable Sabot"? It should be crystal clear now that the APDS ammunition and the german and american counterpieces were not sufficiently available. So it would lead to exactly that direction you rejected so often passionately -> "prototype".But About 17 pdf and "sabot" shell (Core shell) (extract article) "...It became still more formidable in 1944, with the introduction of the discardable sabot cartridges..."
-
Lamafarmer