Bazooka Accuracy

Bazooka Accuracy (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns

Message

AmmoSgt -> Bazooka Accuracy (8/13/2003 1:05:40 PM)
Finally found some hard data on bazooka Accuracy.. not an easy find .. and you guys won't like it a bit According to the http://www.carlisle.army.mil/cgi-bin/usamhi/DL/showdoc.pl?docnum=712 starting on page 147 and continuing for several pages The US Army Standard Ordnance Catalog 1944 Heat ammo had a dispersion of 8.5 mils( M6A1 and M6A2) and WP and M6A3 a dispersion of 6 mils , both having a range of 700 yards. A Mil is a measurement of angle equal to 3.375 minutes of arc .. a circle has 360 degrees a degree has 60 minutes of arc .. simply stated a minute of arc is about 1 inch at 100 yards .. that is to say a Bazooka using a M6A3 rocket will shoot a group of 3 or 5 shots of about 1.5 foot at 100 yards 3 foot at 200 yards and 4.5 foot at 300 yards , aiming center of mass at a TANK at 300 yards and you will come within 2.25 foot of you aim point most the time if you follow proper firing technique.. breath control squeeze the trigger ect. Of course good sights will help , and the M9 version had good sights .. you would come within 3 foot of the aim point at 400 yards .. still a real good chance of a hit .. ok the game already deducts from accuracy if you or the target are moving or being shot at for every other weapon in the game so here is hard data .. actual specification .. design criteria and test data .. no more emotional It blew up my tank so we have to make it shorter ranged and less accurate whiny stuff. Here are the FACTS Max Range 700 yards accuracy will hit a 6 foot circle at 400 yards .. not that I really expect actual fact to trump whiny Tiger kitties . Not that i actually expect the fact that the game deals with movement and supprsion and hiting critical and non critical areas and fuze failure and every other possible excuse that a tigerkitty can dream up for every other HEAT Round in the game and that however inconvienent a Bazooka is for the Germans it is just another HEAT Round subject to all the same things other HEAT rounds in the game are subject too.. without being dumbed down for emotional reasons and whining. To make it easier most WW2 Rifles can be assumed to shoot about a 4-6 MOA ( Minute of Angle) or about 1-1.5 Mils .. Most rifles have a range of at least 600 yards ( 12 Hexes) in the game and most folks expect an occasion hit on a human sized target at 600 yards . given the Bazookas accuracy if a tank was only 4 to 6 times larger than a human you would expect an equal number of hits on a tank .. but an Tiger tank ( for example) frontally is about 12.2 foot wide and 9.8 foot high round off lets say 11 x 9 ( cause the turret is not as wide ect ) = 99 square feet a human is about 6 ft x 1.5 foot or 9 square feet .. Tank even frontally is 11 times bigger .. a tank therefore is twice as easy to hit at 600 yards with a bazooka as a Man at 600 yards is to hit with a rifle. We certainly expect people to get hit standing in the open at 400 yards with a rifle , twice as easy to hit a tank with a bazooka .. A1and there you have the facts, the numbers, the information. Range 7 for the M9 is NOT unreasonable Range 6 for the M1 is not unreasonable , and expect your tank to get hit at that range regularily if it is stationary and the shooter is not suppressed. Heat pen in NOT effected by Range , Sides of Tanks are much bigger than fronys and backs .. I don't know how I can make this simpler.

AmmoSgt -> (8/13/2003 1:58:13 PM)
I might add On Page 28 is a detailed description of the Bazooka .. mostly the M9 , but the M1 is described as well as the M9 is described in terms of improvements on the M1 Bazooka .. The Sights are the main issue here .. M1 simple sights graduated at 100, 200, and 300 yards M9 Optical sights graduated every 50 yards up to 700 yards. By comparison even the latest deployed version of the Panzershreck only had crude sights and they only went up to 200 yards ..( 4 hexes) http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust3.htm. The Optimal Range ( that means very best possible range , not the max effective range) for the M9 is stated as 200 yards .. German tests of the Panzer Shreck in the link above stated in early trials the Panzershreck only hit a staionary T-34 3 times out of 12 at 100 yards .. seems the Germans had a problem with center of gravity shifting on alot of thier solid fuel rockets causing bad inaccuracy problems after a very short flight time . I think it is time to put the PanzerShreck back to range of 4 hexes .. maximum sight setting with limited accuracy, and return the US Bazookas to 6 hexes ( maximum sight setting, just like the PzSk ) for the M1 with limited accuracy, and 7 hexes for the M9 with good accuracy .. the facts are in .. it is not about whining anymore. Use the Facts . This is assuming that in game terms M1 Bazooka means M6A1 or M6A2 rockets and the M9 means M6A3 rockets .. and just incase anybody wants to quibble about avialbility of ammo The US Ord Catalog in the above post clearly states the A1 and A2 were concidered obsolete in 1944 ..A3 rockets should be universal issue by Jan 44 Yes the PanzerShreck really did have a bigger warhead , can't argue with that. And Yes the US bazooka did have a WP warhead, smoke and flame and antipersonel all wrapped in one rocket with a explosive load about the size of a german 80mm Mortar shell , for comparison purposes.

Belisarius -> (8/13/2003 2:22:40 PM)
I agree that setting the PzSchreck to 4 hexes and longer for the Bazookas is reasonable. Now, when looking at the facts I have one question in mind: why did they use tanks and TDs at all? Obviously bazookas were just as good. :p

Sunray -> (8/13/2003 3:50:14 PM)
Yeah, Carlisle's archive is a real goldmine. About the Panzerschreck : I see in the German Handbook, vol 2, p. VII-12 (from Carlisle too) that "the Germans claim an effective range of 120 meters for this weapon". This is maximum 3 hexes indeed (almost 2 in fact), not 4. This matches other sources for the R PzB 54 : - "Anti-Tank Weapons" by P. Chamberlain and T. Gander (MacDonald and Jane's, 1974) : 200m - "Panzerfaust and other German Infantry Anti-Tank Weapons" by W. Fleischer (Schiffer, 1994) : 150-180m - "The Encyclopedia of Infantry Weapons of World War II" by I. Hogg (A&AP, 1977) : 150m - "Highway to the Reich: Operation Market-Garden 17-26 September 1944" by P. Kosnett (in Strategy & Tactics No. 61, 1977) : 400m. No other source is so generous as to give Panzerschreck a range above 200m. Some time ago I got a large text file quoting hundreds of "penetration performance details of WW2 anti-tank weapons" from the defunct link http://www.britishwargames.force9.co.uk/js_index.htm I could send you a copy if you want. Cheers

mlomax -> Whats the secret? (8/13/2003 8:36:19 PM)
Is there a secret to viewing http://www.carlisle.army.mil/cgi-bi...c.pl?docnum=712. Everytime I try, it does nothing. Also sunray if you could send me a copy of the document I would greatly appreciate it. My email address is: [email]michaellomax@charter.net[/email]. Thanks, Mike

Sunray -> no secret (8/13/2003 8:55:50 PM)
No secret man. For the US Ordn., try the direct links (expect some delay, the files are large) : http://www.carlisle.army.mil/cgi-bin/usamhi/DL/showdoc.pl?docnum=710 http://www.carlisle.army.mil/cgi-bin/usamhi/DL/showdoc.pl?docnum=711 http://www.carlisle.army.mil/cgi-bin/usamhi/DL/showdoc.pl?docnum=712 or browse the full list, entering http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usamhi/DL/ (I suggest you chose the "Chronological List"). I'll send you the "armour penetration list" by email asap. Cheers.

tmac -> (8/13/2003 9:58:42 PM)
Ammo Sgt and Sunray.....very cool links, those ordn catalogs are some great reading. The military modelers (like me) who are here should take a look too, some great shots in bw, easy to print, etc, wealth of data. thanks, Tim

Toontje -> (8/13/2003 10:25:04 PM)
no more emotional It blew up my tank so we have to make it shorter ranged and less accurate whiny stuff. Now who's getting emotional hmm? ;) you sure a mil is not a 1 meter dev for 1000 meters traveled? If its a 1/1000 a 6 mil at 650 meters = .65 * 6 = 3.9 meters. Still pretty accurate but (I don't know the actual dimensions of a tank) say a 3 m tall by 3 meter wide front is hard too hit. (surface area 9 m^2 to hit in a 12 m^2). Ideal cicumstances, 75% chance to hit an immobile target you've got hr's to draw a bead on. If it moves that ought to complicate matters.

Voriax -> (8/13/2003 11:07:12 PM)
Heh, good thing I posted those ordnance manual links already in..april I guess. Obviously no-one reads the oob/military eq. forum :( Voriax

tmac -> (8/13/2003 11:17:03 PM)
Sorry Voriax, I just got onto forums in April, and had an enormous amount of reading through old posts to do. Must have missed your previous one on this, but never let it be said this place is not redundant. (Did that make sense?):confused: Thanks to you too, Tim

Jack -> (8/13/2003 11:28:51 PM)
Excellent post Ammo Sgt and very good info. Some other things to remember when it comes to shoulder Anti-tank ordnance. Speaking from experience with the 84mm Carl Gustav. Yes it is a bit more modern but the same principles apply. The iron sites have to be bore sighted properly goes without saying. Also the experience of the crew is also crucial. Do not underestimate the ability or inability of a crew to estimate range with the naked eye. In prepared defensive position the drill was to physically go out and pace distance and use some sort of stake or marker for that particular range. In advance to contact with visibility obscured from smoke, heat haze and the like determining range can be exceedingly difficult. I guess the point I am trying to make is just because a weapon system is capable of hitting a target at 700 yards does not mean your going to hit there are still numerous variables. Good job on the tech data.

rbrunsman -> (8/14/2003 12:48:40 AM)
...still numerous variables... Like getting shot at, like having just run 200 yards yourself and having to hold your breath to "squeeze" the trigger, like the target moving, etc. Come one AmmoSgt, I expect better arguments from you than this. SPWAW bazookas aren't being used on a shooting range. What's the combat effective range? Don't give us firing range data. To get the accuracies you describe maybe bazookas should be classed like the MGs: no move and shoot.

AmmoSgt -> (8/14/2003 1:35:27 AM)
-rbrunsman .. everybody runs ,, even riflemen thats why I put the rifle data in there. The game takes into account movement of both the target and the shooter for every weapon already .. you don't need to make a fudge factor for just bazookas .. the game takes into account suppresion already ..you don't need to fudge the numbers for just the bazooka .. the game takes into account training and experience already, you don't need to fudge the numbers for just the bazookas ... Movement , size , experience, morale , range is already in the game the game automatically reduces accuraccy in the same ammount for doing the same things for every weapon in the game , all you need to do is plug in the base accuracy of the weapon and then let every weapon get adjusted for what it and the target does in the game, BY THE GAME. Jack yup .. I sorta was an ref/ observer on a "Snowball" once way back , seems some 3rd Mech Comando snuck up behind some tanks on the objective and nailed them pretty good with Gustavs ,, to bad they were friendlys that got thier ahead of the foot. Anyway, yes, range estimation is crucial , thats why those little lines inside the M9's optical sight are so important . M1's and Panzershrecks just have a wire hook and bead type sight. As to training well ... http://www.coulthart.com/134/chapter_10.htm History of the 134th Inf Div records the That while Training for River Assualt they expended 1200 bazooka rounds .. that probably works out to maybe 20-25 rounds per Bazooka in the Regiment , and that was just for a upcoming river assualt during a week off the line.. US Logistics and production allowed for this kind of training with live ammo to a degree I don't think any other Army or Nation could afford .. so Yes Training is important but so is having well fed well supplied well clothed troops.. getting mail from home where they know their loved ones are safe .. ahhh but I digress.. lets just say that US Troops probably had more opportunity to Train with Bazookas and actually shoot them in training than German Troops.. Having Competent Well Trained Officers Probably helped too .. especially the part about promotion by merit not politics and low chances the US Officers had of the President having them exicuted on a parnoid whim .. but I digress again ..

AmmoSgt -> (8/14/2003 1:45:58 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rbrunsman [B]...still numerous variables... To get the accuracies you describe maybe bazookas should be classed like the MGs: no move and shoot. [/B][/QUOTE] LOL rbunsman Bazookas don't have tripods to set up and don't weigh 60 lbs and can be carried and fired by one man .. This is exactly the kind of BS that has been thrown in to the game by the TigerKiddies when they don't know or use proper tactics and want US weapons dumbed down to where they aren't a problem to deal with . Bazookas could clearly move and shoot several times in a 2-2 1/2 minute turn .. This game is not about suposed to be about dumbing down everything to make it as easy as possible for the Germans to win .. the better you model weapons to actual documented performance the better the game is for everybody ... I seriously doubt the politics and the tigerkiddies clic is going to let any facts or documentation make anything close to documented performance if it interfers with the German Players winning or forces them to actually learn tactics .. this game has been consistantly drug down in accuracy do to the politics since about version 4 .. it is sad and lame .. but I keep trying. LEARN SOME TACTICS and fight the battles on the map .. quit trying to win everything on the forum .. and post some references once in a while quit whining and trying to rate weapons by how much they bother you when you don't know tactics .

chief -> "A Clash Of Wills" (8/14/2003 2:57:37 AM)
To use an old cliche "What we have here is a differnce of opinion; No, I'm not getting into the weapons contraversy but I will put in my 2 centavos on this subject. On one side we have the opinion that the game is dumbed down in favor of the Germans. On the other hand we have the "Fair play side". What we need here is an "Historical" version of the OOBs. This has been tried pretty successfully by Panzer Leo, but I do believe that he was on the side of balanced play. Hey nothing wrong with that, I enjoy his mod. I also like historical play as I believe Ammo Sargent is pushing for. (AMsgt if I'm wrong I stand corrected). Others enjoy the game in ver 7.1, 4.5 and even 6.? Since we already have the Fair Play versions covered it now stands to reason we need "Historical OOBs" and we all know that's not coming from MATRIX because after the new version comes out they will let the game slide into oblivion (no insult intended Matrix) and delve their energy into money making projects. After all thats what their here for. If you want "Historical" OOBs.....do what Panzer Leo did and come out with your own version of SPWAW????. OK chew me out now. Sorry guys I had to get it off my chest. I hope I did not insult anyone as it was not my intention. Thanks to all who put input into this great game regardless of the version. OK I'll put my soapbox away now. Sayonara:o :) :cool:

tmac -> Ignorant question (8/14/2003 3:09:14 AM)
from someone who's only played the "stock" game and megas so far. Isn't this whole basic argument a moot point? Isn't one of the great features of this game that you can modify an OOB to reflect exactly what you want or desire unit characteristics to be, and then play against like minded or adventurous folks with it? I realize the mods can only go so far, but most things seem to be modifiable. Most of the percieved deficiencies could be addressed this way, and then those that want could have the game reflect what they consider a more accurate historical model, and those that like the so called "more balanced" approach of the stock game could enjoy that version too? It just seems this seems to get close to flaming or more adult versions of the school yard retort 'Oh yeah?, Jo mama!". Leo sets a fine example with his work, he's made huge changes in stock oob's etc. If you don't like whats supplied free, why not put a little sweat equity in and try to come up with something different. If it's better, then you'll win converts (or even if it's different people will likely try it). It might get farther than complaining endlessly. Just my $.02 Tim

Panzer Leo -> Re: "A Clash Of Wills" (8/14/2003 3:41:06 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by chief [B] This has been tried pretty successfully by Panzer Leo, but I do believe that he was on the side of balanced play. [/B][/QUOTE] I hope I was not...at least it was not my intent. I tried to be as precise as I could in terms of historical accuracy. That the result is still a balanced game is only the result of changes to the costs system, the only non-historical factor I had to work with. Sure I had playablility in mind, but only on how to evaluate the purchase costs for the units...it never was a factor for modeling any other ratings. Actually historical inaccuracies in the German OOB were the driving factor to start all this...then came the next OOB and another one...a.s.o. :)

rbrunsman -> (8/14/2003 3:41:19 AM)
AmmoSgt: I like playing the Germans because of the variety of equipment offered. However, if I really want to win a game, I'll take the US. I don't see why you are so adamant that the US OOBs should be modified to make them even better. They are simply the best country in SPWAW, IMHO. Why make them more powerful just to be more accurate? It's a game (as I've said before). Do you want any newbie playing the US to be able to walk over an experienced player?

Frank W. -> (8/14/2003 4:06:39 AM)
i would say this controversy should be fought out on the battlefield ! we need 2 teams: the ones who say US is too weak in the game and think germans are the best. these will play the germans. after their theory they should win with ease because germans are so overated. 2nd team will be those who say: it�s okay as it is, germans are not overated and they MUST play the weak US forces ( poor ones :D ). of course we need 3 more categories in players knowledge - perhaps: a) newbies b) experienced c) vets so identify yourself and let�s fight. i play in the US - experienced team. someone must be kind of game master who checks the results in the end. me and my weird ideas :D

Sonni -> (8/14/2003 2:19:35 PM)
I can also volunteer to play the poor underrated US... in the newbie category. good Idea Frank W. hopefully AmmoSgt agrees to participate in this one. This is 7.1 right?

AmmoSgt -> (8/14/2003 4:10:18 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rbrunsman [B]AmmoSgt: I like playing the Germans because of the variety of equipment offered. However, if I really want to win a game, I'll take the US. I don't see why you are so adamant that the US OOBs should be modified to make them even better. They are simply the best country in SPWAW, IMHO. Why make them more powerful just to be more accurate? It's a game (as I've said before). Do you want any newbie playing the US to be able to walk over an experienced player? [/B][/QUOTE] Newbie walk over Experienced player?? You don't mean like the 10th Mountain In Italy or the 101 and 82nd at Normandy .. Or the Marines at Guadacanal ? Newbies like that walkin over Experienced Players like that ?? Is that what you mean? Totally Green Units going up against experienced battle harden Vets under real lousy conditions of supply and a shortage of the traditional US Heavy Arty Support and all that ? Naw we wouldn't want Stuff like the 442nd and the Rangers just coming into the Game green and kicking butt ,or maybe the 34th Big "T" for Texas just off the boat... To be Historical actually firepower should be high enough for the US Units , even Green units to do well as the traditionally did against Battle Hardened Axis Units .. Elete US Units , well Green Elete ( if that ain't an oxymoron I don't know what is :) ) Units should at least kick some serious butt . Seriously though a "newbie" usually has some experience against the AI , and a serious Newbie into actualy tactical proficency probably should be able to kick some serious booty if the game accurately reflected historical capabilities .. The Germans to win should have to be played with incredible skill .. Thats sorta what is missing here , a simple realization that despite the myths and a few heavy tanks the Germans won by Great Tactical Skill when the won .. their Armor was actually pretty much worse than their opponents . both in quality and quanity when they were winning ( and they were somewhat green themselves in the early days of WW2 ) High Morale from some bloodless anexations and a few key units gaining some experience early on in Poland and to some degree Spain . In France they were Mostly Green , armor was weaker and outnumbered , and even going into Russia over Half the German Army had never seen a shot fired in anger , and they had nothing to compare to T-34's and KV-1's . That is why I am so against this "if I got a Tiger I should win TigerKiddey Mentality" with high pointforces on small maps and using tactics better suited for "Quake". If I am Losing it must be the fault of the US euipment being rated to high so we muct whine and get it dumbed down.. arty spoils the game .. The Germans that created the Myth , didn't create the myth with superior equipment they did it with tactical profeciency , and when the politics and Morale loss took it toll on their Real Combat Comanders and they started beinng exicuted by Hitler and demoted and removed from command .. Not even King Tigers could make up the difference. But it is a Fun Game , not to be taken seriously , Tiger tanks mean you win...and you just don't know how much you are missing .. this game could be so rich .. if it wasn't just a fun game .

AmmoSgt -> (8/14/2003 4:28:12 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sonni [B]I can also volunteer to play the poor underrated US... in the newbie category. good Idea Frank W. hopefully AmmoSgt agrees to participate in this one. This is 7.1 right? [/B][/QUOTE] Guys I am still a couple of months away from the free time it would take to get back into PBEM , This Fall is looking less busy and complicated , and I am looking forward to getting back into PBEM .. And while I appreciate Leo's invite to play H2H , I think I am going to stick to SPWAW , hopefully 8.0 if they ever release it ( I am sure they will , but I think the wait is going to set a record) If you guys do start playing in a serious effort to see if any of the stuff I am raising cain about has any merit .. seriously .. give the 100x200 map and 5000 points no restrictions ( except maybe the standard mine preplacement restrictions ) a chance and you might want to concider uping the number of game turns so you have time to actually use tactics and so Foot Infantry actually has some time to march and fight it's way to objectives , and work the problem the other guys tactics presents . As soon as I can make time , and I do mean make time , not find time , I will join the fight, may only be a couple of games at a time , and I do have some guys on the waiting list already , but hopefully by October ..

AmmoSgt -> (8/14/2003 4:33:26 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sunray [B]Yeah, Carlisle's archive is a real goldmine. About the Panzerschreck : I see in the German Handbook, vol 2, p. VII-12 (from Carlisle too) that "the Germans claim an effective range of 120 meters for this weapon". This is maximum 3 hexes indeed (almost 2 in fact), not 4. This matches other sources for the R PzB 54 : - "Anti-Tank Weapons" by P. Chamberlain and T. Gander (MacDonald and Jane's, 1974) : 200m - "Panzerfaust and other German Infantry Anti-Tank Weapons" by W. Fleischer (Schiffer, 1994) : 150-180m - "The Encyclopedia of Infantry Weapons of World War II" by I. Hogg (A&AP, 1977) : 150m - "Highway to the Reich: Operation Market-Garden 17-26 September 1944" by P. Kosnett (in Strategy & Tactics No. 61, 1977) : 400m. No other source is so generous as to give Panzerschreck a range above 200m. Some time ago I got a large text file quoting hundreds of "penetration performance details of WW2 anti-tank weapons" from the defunct link http://www.britishwargames.force9.co.uk/js_index.htm I could send you a copy if you want. Cheers [/B][/QUOTE] Sunray , Please send me a copy, I keep meaning to log on to my email computer and email you , but I am not getting there for a couple of days .. I just wanted to thank you and take you up on your kind offer .. Brit War was a great website.

Belisarius -> (8/14/2003 4:33:36 PM)
Uhm, I'm winging it now, but the argument that Germany won battles because of greater tactics and not necessarily better equipment is correct. However, those tactics are very difficult to model in SP:WAW as the very principle of GE tactics is to ALWAYS have numerical superiority in the point of attack (which they also made great efforts to ensure in each case). IMO, the SP:WAW battlefield is way too small to accurately reflect that and then I don't mind the GE tanks being beefed up a bit. This ofcourse goes back to your older argument, Ammo, that we play with too many units on too small a map. ;) It seems I come back to that notion every time too. The other workaround is to reduce costs for GE units but I don't think anyone wants to see that. And..uh.. not to belittle the efforts and sacrifice by the allied forces, but the resistance offered on the Normandy beaches were anything but 'elite'. Once the bridgehead was established the enemy units arriving were of a completely different caliber, but by then the Allies weren't steamrolling over the opposition, either. ;)

AmmoSgt -> Re: Ignorant question (8/14/2003 4:43:02 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tmac [B]from someone who's only played the "stock" game and megas so far. Isn't this whole basic argument a moot point? Isn't one of the great features of this game that you can modify an OOB to reflect exactly what you want or desire unit characteristics to be, and then play against like minded or adventurous folks with it? I realize the mods can only go so far, but most things seem to be modifiable. Most of the percieved deficiencies could be addressed this way, and then those that want could have the game reflect what they consider a more accurate historical model, and those that like the so called "more balanced" approach of the stock game could enjoy that version too? It just seems this seems to get close to flaming or more adult versions of the school yard retort 'Oh yeah?, Jo mama!". Leo sets a fine example with his work, he's made huge changes in stock oob's etc. If you don't like whats supplied free, why not put a little sweat equity in and try to come up with something different. If it's better, then you'll win converts (or even if it's different people will likely try it). It might get farther than complaining endlessly. Just my $.02 Tim [/B][/QUOTE] Tmac yeah folks can modify their OOBs to suit themselves , but when you play PBEM or online against another human , you have to have the exact same OOB's .. I don't think very many folks would agree to play with somebody elses customized OOB .. that is why it is so important for the Offical matrix OOB to changed over and over and over again .. and many key internal mechanisms such as how range effects infantry weapon kills and what exactly an HE kill of 8 means are internal game engine mechanics that get adjusted from time to time by the mech.exe to see if some setting or another gives a more "satisfactory" result. Actually most of us old timers kinda hope we can complain endlessly and that someday we will be waiting for SPWAW ver 27.0

Sunray -> (8/14/2003 7:59:48 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by AmmoSgt [B]Sunray , Please send me a copy, I keep meaning to log on to my email computer and email you , but I am not getting there for a couple of days .. I just wanted to thank you and take you up on your kind offer .. Brit War was a great website. [/B][/QUOTE] I cannot send you attachments, so I've temporary added the file on my geocities website : http://www.geocities.com/phsacre/WW2pen.html I downloaded the file 3 or 4 years ago, but the link is dead now and I dont remember the author's name, unfortunately (could be John Salt though, see begining of the text). Originally it was a rtf file. Cheers.

Vathailos -> (8/14/2003 9:43:30 PM)
Let me preface this with the comment that I sincerely appreciate the base of knowledge that Ammo SGT provides. I think it�s discussion like this, however spirited, that makes the best possible product for us gamers in the long run. All well-reasoned opinions are valuable to a degree (regardless of technical accuracy), reason being they cause us to reassess and reevaluate. Now, with that said� Two things to add from a contemporary (former) AT-gunnin� infantryman: Range estimation: The sight graduation, while helpful, isn�t a panacea. When I tested for my EIB (Expert Infantry Badge) at Stewart, we had a range estimation portion, and it was far from simple. We had a very narrow tolerance, and the ranges were for a variety of targets (troops, vehicles, etc.). The eyes play tricks, even after a good bit of experience. AFVs may look bigger at the same range depending on their profile, color, camouflage, orientation, etc. That wasn�t the most difficult phase, but just to let you know there are a number of variables. Also, if a sight doesn�t have �lead ticks� on the reticle, then experience is the only way you�ll hit a moving target, and a ton of it. If you�re not stationary for a bit, and your target is moving, IMO it�s darn tough to hit something with an AT-4 (our best man-portable/dumb-fire comparison weapon at the time) if it�s moving at all at ranges of over 200-250m. Sweet spots: The penetration factors of these HEAT rounds (IIRC) are based on a flush strike of the round. In other words, If you�re firing at an angle other than 90 degrees (flat and perpendicular to your target), then you can lose effectiveness in penetration. With time and research, engineers (and I don�t mean combat) can determine the most vulnerable areas of enemy AFVs. Charts and GTAs were handed to soldiers to learn where to shoot the BMP based on angle of approach to stand the best chance for a kill. On well-armored AFVs (like MBTs, and if you�re firing at them with an AT weapon, I hope you maxed your insurance ;)), if you don�t hit this �sweet� spot, you stand very little chance of destroying the vehicle. And now one question for you Ammo, because I don�t know. Back-blast and signature. What was the signature like when firing these weapons? Bazooka teams firing and staying hidden when there are any enemy infantry about is a questionable act at best. Your opinion and any other information would be appreciated. ~Vath

Frank W. -> (8/14/2003 10:38:31 PM)
yep. ammo sgt. seems to have a great knowledge of weapons - shurly quite helpful for many ppl. seeking informations here. and it�s great how you fight for more realism in the game. but i still like the game as it is.... you can look in the DAR section, ammo where a game without any limitations is going on between vat ( ger ) and me ( US ) taking place in the ardennes offensive. for shure a difficult battlefield for both sides....

VikingNo2 -> (8/15/2003 1:22:54 AM)
Frank W sign me up, it think tactics can overcome most problems;)

Frank W. -> (8/15/2003 1:58:30 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sonni [B]I can also volunteer to play the poor underrated US... in the newbie category. good Idea Frank W. hopefully AmmoSgt agrees to participate in this one. This is 7.1 right? [/B][/QUOTE] cool ! i think H2H ? do you have it ? viking: you will play the germans in the "vet" category ? so we have: sonny: newbie US frankw: exp. US viking: vet - GER pls. POST do get the rest of the positions !!

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.953125