Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Early War British Equipment

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> SP:WaW Training Center >> Early War British Equipment Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Early War British Equipment - 4/2/2003 11:44:09 PM   
Griefbringer

 

Posts: 50
Joined: 3/29/2003
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline 		I am not a true newbie - I have played through two late war US campaigns, with relatively good results, and a number of individual battles with both US and soviets - and I can handle decently recon and combined arms, but now I am in a new situation.

I just started playing through the long WWII campaign, starting with Brits in 1940, and after the first two battles I found out that they are really different to the late war US that I got used to. Also when it comes to history, I am not as familiar with the British as I am with the historical Soviet, US and German equipment and tactics. There are some pieces of equipment that I haven't found good use for:

-Bren Carriers: how do use these well? I find them rather ineffective - small carry capacity, ineffective gun and poor cross-country mobility. I thought of using these to carry infantry to support tanks, but they could only carry a scout team, had difficulties keeping up with the tanks, and a MG burst or two made the passengers freak out.

-Boys AT-rifles: I was quite impressed with the Soviet AT-rifles (I saw them take out lots of HTs and light tanks - even one PzIII). However, the British ATR-teams haven't managed to even scratch an enemy vehicle yet - not even Panzer I. Being armed with pistol for anti-personnel weapon does not help the situation. Is there any future for these guys, or should I send them to learn to use other weapons?

My first use of LRDG was also a bit disappointing, but I realised that I expected a bit too much from them, and shouldn't have tried to use them for anything else than recon - and the battle was not a good one for deep penetration.

Griefbringer
Post #: 1
- 4/3/2003 12:01:34 AM   
Voriax

 

Posts: 1719
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline 		Hello

Well, a Bren carrier is IMO most useful when it tows an AT gun. Of course there are those specialist variants like the one armed with that great Boys rifle, or the mortar carrier. As an infantry carrier...well in rl that thing is so small you can almost step over it ;) You could carry a recon team with it though.

And yes, the Boys AT-rifle is the sorryest excuse of an AT-rifle used during WW2. I guess you could harass trucks with them....*light* trucks that is.

Voriax

_____________________________

Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!

(in reply to Griefbringer)
Post #: 2
- 4/3/2003 12:09:26 AM   
Griefbringer

 

Posts: 50
Joined: 3/29/2003
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline 		Can you tow an AT-gun with a Bren carrier? I thought that the carrier was two small even for a 2-pounder. I got to check this out!

Currently I am using just unarmoured cars for towing the AT-guns around the place - which is not really ideal, because they get so easily destroyed or immobilised by small arms fire.

Griefbringer

(in reply to Griefbringer)
Post #: 3
- 4/3/2003 12:24:24 AM   
Voriax

 

Posts: 1719
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline 		2-pounder weighs 105 and Bren carrier can carry 106, so should be okay. Haven't really used them..probably because I play/test mainly canned scenarios and if the scenario maker hasn't included them...

Voriax

_____________________________

Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!

(in reply to Griefbringer)
Post #: 4
- 4/3/2003 12:30:58 AM   
Griefbringer

 

Posts: 50
Joined: 3/29/2003
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline 		I thought that 2-pounder was 106 and Bren carrier 104 - my bad! But I haven't really needed the 2-pounder ATGs much yet, the Mk III cruisers have been quite able to take down enemy tanks so far.

And the ATR-teams are going to see some re-training soon, perhaps going to the Royal Sniper School or something (idea of LRDG trucks loaded with recon team and 2 snipers cruising around started to sound like a rather good idea lately).

Griefbringer

(in reply to Griefbringer)
Post #: 5
- 4/3/2003 12:36:09 AM   
challenge

 

Posts: 465
Joined: 10/10/2001
From: Austin, TX
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Griefbringer
[B]Currently I am using just unarmoured cars for towing the AT-guns around the place - which is not really ideal, because they get so easily destroyed or immobilised by small arms fire.

Griefbringer [/B][/QUOTE]

You may want to revise your gun towing tactics. If you're losing the towing vehicles to any kind of enemy fire, either the original positioning, or the place you are moving them to is too exposed. Or it might be you aren't moving them soon enough.

Generally I try to place AT guns in positions where I can move them out of LOS if I have to pull them back, or select places to move them where I don't have to cross an open LOS. Towing vehicles, by and large, are simply great targets for op fire. If you must run them through the open, use artillery to smoke some of the intervening hexes to reduce the possibility of drawing fire.

It is also a good idea to have your AT positions supported by inf or mg positions to keep the opposition at a better distance. Alone, AT guns do not have great survivability since they have virtually zero weapons to shoot at anything except armor.

Tow capacity is listed as Carry and is a three didget number. The first (usually a 1 or 2) tells the size of the gun it can tow, while the next two shows the max number of people it can carry. If the AT gun is size 1 and the crew is 4 or less (I think) a Bren Carrier can haul it. (You probably knew that already, but I have a habit of stating the obvious.)

_____________________________

Challenge

War is unhealthy for die-stamped cardboard and other paper products.

(in reply to Griefbringer)
Post #: 6
- 4/3/2003 12:40:13 AM   
Goblin


Posts: 5547
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Erie,Pa. USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by challenge
[B](I have a habit of stating the obvious.) [/B][/QUOTE]

You didn't have to tell us that... :p

Goblin:p

_____________________________

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/index.php

(in reply to Griefbringer)
Post #: 7
- 4/3/2003 12:49:28 AM   
challenge

 

Posts: 465
Joined: 10/10/2001
From: Austin, TX
Status: offline 		Obviously.

I like your new avatar.

_____________________________

Challenge

War is unhealthy for die-stamped cardboard and other paper products.

(in reply to Griefbringer)
Post #: 8
Re: Early War British Equipment - 4/4/2003 12:13:59 PM   
Buzzard45


Posts: 364
Joined: 1/11/2003
From: Regina, Canada
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Griefbringer
[B]
-Bren Carriers: how do use these well? I find them rather ineffective - small carry capacity, ineffective gun and poor cross-country mobility. I thought of using these to carry infantry to support tanks, but they could only carry a scout team, had difficulties keeping up with the tanks, and a MG burst or two made the passengers freak out. [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree with you. IRL they were a marvel. Reliable quick and could carry a lot. Although small. Something seems to be wrong with the OOB. They have a speed of 30 but act like a speed of half that. They should travel over rough terrain faster than a WA but they don't. Armour in the specs is reasonable but armour in the actual game is paper thin. i.e. the 251 HT and the M3 HT have the same armour and survive a lot the Bren carrier dies quickly. The gun was poor but the vehicle was better than portrayed. Its best bought as a mortar carrier for mobile smoke screen generator or as a wasp for urban battles.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Griefbringer
[B]-Boys AT-rifles: I was quite impressed with the Soviet AT-rifles (I saw them take out lots of HTs and light tanks - even one PzIII). However, the British ATR-teams haven't managed to even scratch an enemy vehicle yet - not even Panzer I. Being armed with pistol for anti-personnel weapon does not help the situation. Is there any future for these guys, or should I send them to learn to use other weapons? [/B][/QUOTE]

These guys are another victim of something wrong. They should penetrate an armour rating of 26 but... Often it has to do with accuracy. If they are moving fast they ahve no accuracy. This is especially true when transported by the LRDG jeeps. They go fast and then can't hit anything. Just not like "Rat Patrol" at all.;)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Griefbringer
[B]My first use of LRDG was also a bit disappointing, but I realised that I expected a bit too much from them, and shouldn't have tried to use them for anything else than recon - and the battle was not a good one for deep penetration. [/B][/QUOTE]

Speed means poor accuracy.....ibid. Try moving them to a point in hiding and then moving a short distance the next turn for better accuracy. BTW the WA carries the same as the Bren Carrier. It'll take a 2pdr and a sniper for snooping. If ypu take the early 2pdr or 6pdr., marry them up with a couple vickersMG. The vickers will fire at the soft targets the AT's only at hard targets. You can suck in a Human player into bringing up an AFV to take care of a couple of pesky MGs and the OP fire with the AT. Watch the accuracy range in the encyclopedia and match your range to that. It represents the range at which you have a 50-50 chance of hitting on the 1st shot. Much better than the 20% that ypou might have otherwise.:cool:

BTW welcome to the forum.

_____________________________

" Look alive!! Here comes a Buzzard"
POGO

(in reply to Griefbringer)
Post #: 9
- 4/4/2003 1:08:32 PM   
Voriax

 

Posts: 1719
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline 		I guess the Boys feels so bad in the game is that ATR penetration is not handled same way as ATG's pen. I mean, when you hit with an ATR there is always some sort of check first whether it has a possibility to make damage. And only if that check is passed then the armour penetration figure comes to play.

At least that is how I remember it goes..this explains why you usually get 'no effect' from ATR's. I assume the pen value is also taken in account when performing this check...and as Boys has about the lowest pen value it just chips paint most of the time.

Btw, the real Boys rouns isn't that impressive..I have a clip of 5..no gun though ;)

Voriax

_____________________________

Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!

(in reply to Griefbringer)
Post #: 10
- 4/4/2003 8:17:38 PM   
Griefbringer

 

Posts: 50
Joined: 3/29/2003
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline 		I tried the LRDG again, in a purely recon role, and they performed pretty well. And in need those twin MGs are not too bad either - especially as I realised that the WA's were my only vehicles with AAMGs, and the opponent had 6 planes (which managed to only kill one tank with .50 cal shot on top, and scare 4-5 others with ineffective bombing runs).

Even though I am long way from actually getting them, how are the PIATs in this game? From what I have understood, they were not the perfect weapons in real life.

Griefbringer

(in reply to Griefbringer)
Post #: 11
- 4/5/2003 5:08:35 AM   
rbrunsman


Posts: 1837
Joined: 1/31/2002
From: Phoenix, AZ
Status: offline 		Several months ago, someone posted a website that went into detail about how PIATs worked. It was interesting reading and worth the search I think. There was a story there about the lowly PIAT having changed the course of WWII due to a brave soldier that took out a Tiger (?) with one during the Normandy invasion, thus stopping a counter attack by the Germans.

In the game, I think they are not very accurate, so using them on offense if not too good, but for defense they are great because any poor AFV that bumps into an anti-tank armed squad is in for a hurting.

_____________________________

Everyone is a potential [PBEM] enemy, every place a potential [PBEM] battlefield. --Zensunni Wisdom

(in reply to Griefbringer)
Post #: 12
- 4/5/2003 6:36:48 AM   
Buzzard45


Posts: 364
Joined: 1/11/2003
From: Regina, Canada
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Griefbringer
[B]Even though I am long way from actually getting them, how are the PIATs in this game? From what I have understood, they were not the perfect weapons in real life.

Griefbringer [/B][/QUOTE]
Not so far away. They show up in October of '42 AFAIK. They work best with the "C" key on offence, rather than assaulting with them.

_____________________________

" Look alive!! Here comes a Buzzard"
POGO

(in reply to Griefbringer)
Post #: 13
- 4/5/2003 7:11:13 AM   
Belisarius


Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline 		...and to elaborate - no they weren't the best of weapons in real life, either. ;)

_____________________________


Got StuG?

(in reply to Griefbringer)
Post #: 14
- 4/5/2003 7:31:34 AM   
Buzzard45


Posts: 364
Joined: 1/11/2003
From: Regina, Canada
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Belisarius
[B]...and to elaborate - no they weren't the best of weapons in real life, either. ;) [/B][/QUOTE]

What do you expect from a spring loaded rocket launcher? It still hurts when you get hit with 6 of them.:eek: :eek:

_____________________________

" Look alive!! Here comes a Buzzard"
POGO

(in reply to Griefbringer)
Post #: 15
piat - 4/5/2003 11:38:35 AM   
MOTHER

 

Posts: 172
Joined: 10/26/2002
From: Melbourne ,Australia
Status: offline 		The manufacturers theory about the Piat was that it being a smokeless [spring loaded]projectile,it would be harder to detect from where the projectile hard come from.how that is portrayed in the game with the variables for searching/hiding i dont know but thats the reason for its creation.:)

_____________________________

Dirty deeds done dirt cheap

(in reply to Griefbringer)
Post #: 16
- 4/5/2003 4:56:01 PM   
Griefbringer

 

Posts: 50
Joined: 3/29/2003
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline 		One advantage for the spring-loaded mechanism I could think of is the lack of back-blast characteristic to rockets - thus making it safer to use for everyone close by (especially indoors).

What about the angle of hitting? Considering that the PIAT projectile is likely to have lower velocity than a rocket, the shot should have larger curvature, which could be advantageous if you could drop the bomb on the top armour of the tank, but disadvantegeous in other conditions - AFAIK a HEAT charge should hit the target at relatively direct angle for the best performance.

Of course, the lower velocity means also reduced range, and together with the high curvature and recoil from the spring, should make the weapon pretty inaccurate. Not to mention that reloading the darn thing takes a load of muscles and time.

I guess it just has to be one of those British "stiff upper lip" inventions that make sure that life is not too easy. But hey, isn't that just the reason why playing with the Brits is interesting?

Griefbringer

Edit: with a little search, I found an interesting page about the subject of PIATs and a lot of other interesting material at http://www.6th-airborne.org/index.html - check it out!

(in reply to Griefbringer)
Post #: 17
- 4/6/2003 5:01:51 AM   
Capt. Pixel

 

Posts: 1219
Joined: 10/15/2001
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Griefbringer
[B]... What about the angle of hitting? Considering that the PIAT projectile is likely to have lower velocity than a rocket, the shot should have larger curvature, which could be advantageous if you could drop the bomb on the top armour of the tank, but disadvantegeous in other conditions - AFAIK a HEAT charge should hit the target at relatively direct angle for the best performance.
...[/B][/QUOTE]

I'd think that it would help to overcome some of the armor 'slope' by hitting from a higher trajectory. It seems that it'd be hitting nearer to perpendicular to the armor than a 'direct' rocket-propelled warhead.

_____________________________

"Always mystify, mislead, and surprise the enemy, if possible. "
- Stonewall Jackson

(in reply to Griefbringer)
Post #: 18
- 4/6/2003 9:32:33 AM   
john g

 

Posts: 984
Joined: 10/6/2000
From: college station, tx usa
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Buzzard45
[B]What do you expect from a spring loaded rocket launcher? It still hurts when you get hit with 6 of them.:eek: :eek: [/B][/QUOTE]

Its not a rocket launcher, it is a spigot mortar. The same technology as the 290mm spigot mortar on the AVRE. It just uses the force of the rod driving forward to set off the round instead of having a fixed rod where it would need a seperate firing mechanism.
thanks, John.

(in reply to Griefbringer)
Post #: 19
- 4/7/2003 8:53:52 PM   
Griefbringer

 

Posts: 50
Joined: 3/29/2003
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline 		Hmmm, what is the exact meaning of the English word spigot - I don't have any technical dictionary around right now?

And does this mean that the AVRE has a freaking big spring inside to launch a 290mm round - explains the short range, hopefully they don't need to reload it manually!

Griefbringer

(in reply to Griefbringer)
Post #: 20
- 4/7/2003 9:31:53 PM   
Goblin


Posts: 5547
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Erie,Pa. USA
Status: offline 		A spigot usually is refering to a water hose hook up, I believe.

Goblin

_____________________________

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/index.php

(in reply to Griefbringer)
Post #: 21
Spigot? - 4/7/2003 9:43:48 PM   
Buzzard45


Posts: 364
Joined: 1/11/2003
From: Regina, Canada
Status: offline 		The rod driving forward sets off an explosive charge that propels the main charge forward. Much like a Mortar round works. Instead of dropping the charge down a tube, the rod moves. The back pressure from the explosion is supposed to reset the spring loaded rod. But, It didn't always work and has a helluva kick.

I don't know where the Spigot comes in. Likely a name derived from a water pipe.

Is this right John?

_____________________________

" Look alive!! Here comes a Buzzard"
POGO

(in reply to Griefbringer)
Post #: 22
- 4/7/2003 9:48:33 PM   
Belisarius


Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Goblin
[B]A spigot usually is refering to a water hose hook up, I believe.

Goblin [/B][/QUOTE]

A quick check on dictionary.com:

Spigot;

1. A faucet.
2. A wooden faucet placed in the bunghole of a cask.
3. The vent plug of a cask.

So yep, a spigot is a water hose hook up, but I guess in the case of mortars that it refers to the spike used to plug the bunghole (uhh-huhuh-heheheh) in casks? :p

_____________________________


Got StuG?

(in reply to Griefbringer)
Post #: 23
Uh-oh - 4/7/2003 9:52:59 PM   
Belisarius


Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline 		Also;

A spigot mortar is NOT a spring-loaded PIAT type weapon.

The spigot mortar is a tube with a spike in the bottom that sets off the primer of the round when dropped down the tube. In essence, all mortars are spigot type, although they're quite refined. The spigots were old in WWI, even. :p

_____________________________


Got StuG?

(in reply to Griefbringer)
Post #: 24
- 4/8/2003 12:17:25 AM   
Griefbringer

 

Posts: 50
Joined: 3/29/2003
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline 		I guess I will need to go and study a bit more how mortars work - just realized that I don't know the details. I know that you drop them into the tube, and when they hit the bottom something makes the propelling charge detonate (instead of rifles, cannons, howitzers etc. where the shot is stationary and an external moving rod hits the detonator).

So what makes the mortar round propelling charge detonate when it hits the bottom of the tube - I presumed that it is somehow armed before being dropped, so that after that any strong impact can make it go boom. But based on what Belisarius said, there is a spike on the bottom of the tube - this is sensible in that thus higher impact can be required to set off the charge, but isn't such spike rather vulnerable to wear and tear - getting it misaligned would make the tube incapable of detonating the rounds, and this would be hard to notice.

And if the AVRE has a spigot mortar - does that mean that someone has to go and lift that 290mm round (must be pretty heavy) up to the tube, and drop it down so that it can be launched - doesn't sound like the most effective design to me (but then, we are talking of (WWII) heavy weaponry that is not known for user-friendliness).

And then again, I am reminded of that scene on Saving Private Ryan, where they arm the mortar shells by hitting them hard (on the mortar bottom plate I think), and then throw them like grenades. How would that have been possible in reality?

Griefbringer

(in reply to Griefbringer)
Post #: 25
Re: Uh-oh - 4/8/2003 1:52:27 AM   
john g

 

Posts: 984
Joined: 10/6/2000
From: college station, tx usa
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Belisarius
[B]Also;

A spigot mortar is NOT a spring-loaded PIAT type weapon.

The spigot mortar is a tube with a spike in the bottom that sets off the primer of the round when dropped down the tube. In essence, all mortars are spigot type, although they're quite refined. The spigots were old in WWI, even. :p [/B][/QUOTE]

Incorrect, the tube for a spigot mortar round is built into the ammunition. A spigot mortar in its pure form is just a steel rod, the round is set on the rod and then launched off of it. A tube mortar is the reverse where the round is put inside the launcher instead of outside the launcher.

If you have ever seen the rifle grenade attachment for the m1 rifle which is a hollow rod that fits on the end of the rifle barrel that is what a spigot mortar is like. US WWII rifle grenades were loaded on the outside of the laucher and then fired off of it.

The UK cup launcher for firing mills grenades is more like a tube mortar, the round is put inside and then lauched.

A spigot mortar especially those with a fixed firing pattern is the ultimate cheap weapon, a steel rod set into a cement base that could sit out exposed to the weather with nothing happening to it. When needed you just fixed a round to it and launched it off, a tube mortar used cheaper ammo but it was much more expensive and required maintenance.
thanks, John.

(in reply to Griefbringer)
Post #: 26
- 4/8/2003 2:03:47 AM   
john g

 

Posts: 984
Joined: 10/6/2000
From: college station, tx usa
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Griefbringer
[B]
And if the AVRE has a spigot mortar - does that mean that someone has to go and lift that 290mm round (must be pretty heavy) up to the tube, and drop it down so that it can be launched - doesn't sound like the most effective design to me (but then, we are talking of (WWII) heavy weaponry that is not known for user-friendliness).

And then again, I am reminded of that scene on Saving Private Ryan, where they ar, the mortar shells by hitting them hard (on the mortar bottom plate I think), and then throw them like grenades. How would that have been possible in reality?

Griefbringer [/B][/QUOTE]

The avre petard was loaded by the loader standing up thru a hatch next to the driver loading the weapon from the outside of the vehicle. The front of the turret was a block with the rod that the round was mounted on totally exernal to the vehicle.

In Saving private Ryan the reason they were smacking the mortar rounds on the ground was to arm the fuse supposedly. In real life it takes more force than that to arm a mortar round, otherwise there would be a lot more accidents with rounds going off after they were subjected to shock.

The Japanese did use time fuses in one model of their knee mortar, those could be used this same way using the shock to start the time fuse.
thanks, John.

(in reply to Griefbringer)
Post #: 27
- 4/8/2003 3:11:22 AM   
Griefbringer

 

Posts: 50
Joined: 3/29/2003
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline 		This starts to sound interesting - I need to go and find some pictures on those things to figure out how they actually work.

As an unrelated issue, I recently noticed that the Japanese have a weapon called Molotov Projector - I had the misfortune of having one of my Crusaders hit with this thing, with rather devastating results.

Any idea how this device was like? From the name I could guess that it employed some way of lobbing Molotov Cocktails or similar incendiary devices at the enemy, but I am wondering what was the propelling mechanism.

Griefbringer

(in reply to Griefbringer)
Post #: 28
Re: Re: Uh-oh - 4/8/2003 3:47:00 AM   
Belisarius


Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by john g
[B]Incorrect, the tube for a spigot mortar round is built into the ammunition. A spigot mortar in its pure form is just a steel rod, the round is set on the rod and then launched off of it. A tube mortar is the reverse where the round is put inside the launcher instead of outside the launcher.

If you have ever seen the rifle grenade attachment for the m1 rifle which is a hollow rod that fits on the end of the rifle barrel that is what a spigot mortar is like. US WWII rifle grenades were loaded on the outside of the laucher and then fired off of it.

The UK cup launcher for firing mills grenades is more like a tube mortar, the round is put inside and then lauched.

A spigot mortar especially those with a fixed firing pattern is the ultimate cheap weapon, a steel rod set into a cement base that could sit out exposed to the weather with nothing happening to it. When needed you just fixed a round to it and launched it off, a tube mortar used cheaper ammo but it was much more expensive and required maintenance.
thanks, John. [/B][/QUOTE]

Thanks for the clarification, john. I got that mixed up. :o

My point was, it's not spring loaded. I get partial credit? ;)

_____________________________


Got StuG?

(in reply to Griefbringer)
Post #: 29
- 4/8/2003 3:50:30 AM   
Voriax

 

Posts: 1719
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Griefbringer
[B].... but I am wondering what was the propelling mechanism.

Griefbringer [/B][/QUOTE]

Rubber band? :D

Voriax
(imagines a large slingshot...)

_____________________________

Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!

(in reply to Griefbringer)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> SP:WaW Training Center >> Early War British Equipment Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.266