Matrix Games Forums

US Army Standard Ordnance Catalog 1944 Vol 3 .. I know you have the link because you sent the same link to me Leo, on the Bazooka issue

Originally posted by AmmoSgt
US Army Standard Ordnance Catalog 1944 Vol 3 .. I know you have the link because you sent the same link to me Leo, on the Bazooka issue

Sorry, but I don't have access to my links right now and can't find the one you meant in the Bazooka thread...and I actually have troubles recalling it :rolleyes:

So if it was mine, could you give it back to me and show me were I can find it...

Obvious. The US was using 1800 g black powder, the Germans 550 g cordite.

Originally posted by Panzer Leo

But the Sturmtiger is not important here, as most of these small and picky details...what really is of importence, is to prevent folks from actually believing your conspiracy theory of the US being cut down in the OOBs...laughable at best...

everyone who has a little bit experience in this game should note that US is one of the best nations. IMHO. at least in after normandy times and in 7.1 ! in H2H they are somewhat weaker ( i believe ).

another remark: if you want real historic accuracy even german 88mm AA and other AT guns ( as US 57 + 76mm ) and even tank guns must have the ability for indirect fire.....

Originally posted by Frank W.
another remark: if you want real historic accuracy even german 88mm AA and other AT guns ( as US 57 + 76mm ) and even tank guns must have the ability for indirect fire.....

Kbing! Correct!

...and British 3" AA should not be able to direct fire, since they were never used in that way before '44 at least.

Originally posted by VikingNo2
I diagree with somethings AmmoSgt has said but I do believe 60mm mortar should get smoke and the US should get some WP ammo.

The jeep-mounted version of the 60mm has smoke rounds...are these classed differently?

Yes the 60mm jeeps are classed differently .. and thats all that stops the Inf 60mm from having smoke .. they are classed as infantry mortars .
Not all AT Guns and Tanks had sights for indirect fire .. but alot did , Yes those that did should have indirect fire capability .. but that will open up a can of worms .. I think you are going to find some of the direct fire HE ratings are simply not going to work unless all HE shells are looked at closely so their is some cogent pattern and relationship between HE weight and shell weight and some differentation between high fragmentation / flak rounds and HE rounds with Fuzing appropiate to ground targets and some inculsion of US/ Brit VT Fuses after sept 44 ..
You can look up various US Unit Histories online and find that Tank and Anti-Tank Units were often and routinely assigned as Artillery in an indirect roll and you can go to some of those AFV modeler type sights with internal pictures of actual vehicles to find ample evidence on at US Tanks having Indirect fire sights ..in fact the M3 Lee/ Grant 75mm was originally intended as an indirect fire weapon. I don't think you are going to find many German Tanks with Indirect fire capability simply because they were designed more from an Tank V Tank philosophy while US Tanks were not designed from the philosopy .. AT any rate this has been brought up many times . The .Matrix Honchos, usually Paul, are dead set against this happening in the game because despite actually unit combat diaries available on the web and actualy printed unit histories it is Matrix's stated postion that this seldom if ever happened .. sorta like spotter planes
some examples http://www.100thww2.org/support/776combat.html or http://www.100thww2.org/support/824/824combat.html
those are from the two AT Bn's attached to the 100th Inf Div .. you can find more easily if you need more evidence.. in fact even the AAA Unit Attached to the 100th makes comment about using their Quad 50's in an interdiction role against German ground troops in conjunction with Mortars .. could it be ? Indirect? the Devil ? http://www.100thww2.org/support/898/898combat.html


Leo the link for the mortar ammo specs is http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usamhi/DL/ ... II19391945
that should get you both the US and German WW2 stuff

As long as VT fuzes came up .. uhhh just why is such an important weapon as VT fuzes left completely out of the game .. not hard to model, just make US/ Brit arty say 105mm and up about 3 times a lethal after Sept 44. ooohhhh "Fair and Balanced" ooohhhh

Back to the StrumTiger for a minute .. Here is a website with detailed loading and firing sequence for the 380mm rocket launcher on the SturmTiger .. took 10 minutes or more to load a round .. in the game it gets two shots a turn .. and I complain about little details ... about monir overratings of German Gear .. yeah right ..http://members.aol.com/sturmpnzr/sturmi.html
In this article they call the loading crane an " overhead trolley"
anyway just incase anybody wondered about real life abilities instead of the inflated GameGerman " fair and Balanced" stuff.

Uhm, not to flog the poor horse anymore, but the Jerries did use their tanks for indirect artillery support, being their intended for it or not. I guess this was a stopgap measure when real artillery was in extremely short supply and/or too far away, like in the desert battles.

Belisarius .. do you have any links , battle reports, book titles , battle names where this happened .. it would help, the more evidence the better, this is just something Paul has absolutely been against anytime it has come up.. Any Tank with the sights should have the ability regardless of nation. But as it stands even US Armor who's primary function and designed intention to be indirect fire support like Scotts and Amtracs can't get it.

I'll try to see if I can find it. I think it's mentioned by Liddell-Hart (at least) concerning the battles in Egypt, due to the artillery lagging really far behind in the race for the Nile. I'm not sure if I have read about it being used in France as well, but that may just have been the AA.

In any case, that must have been cases of just lobbing shells in the general direction and having FO's zeroing in. I know some US tanks have instruments for setting indirect fire, but with the overwhelming artillery advantage, I wonder if it was used much except for very local support like river crossings and such?

LOL Belisarius .. Actually Indirect fire for US tanks was more of a make work detail .. US never had any problem overdoing firepower, and the concept of "too much Artillery" wasn't in the US Play Book .. It was more a matter of giving all those extra Tanks sitting around something to do when terrain or other conditions limited the number of tanks you could cram up at the front. US was very much an Infantry ( albeit Mech Infantry) and Arty kinda Army . Well just look at the examples I posted from the 100th Inf Div .. Typical Inf Div + 2 Attached TD Bn's and an Attached Tank Bn and a Mobile AAA Bn , and in the AAA Bn's Combat History you see they set up to defend the Divisions organic 4 Artillery Bn's . Think about it for a minute Typically a Division is what ? 9 -12 Bn's .. here you already have 8 Bn's that aren't Infantry either in or attached to the Division. Thats about average attachmentwise usually an At/TD , A Tank and a AAA Bn and an entire regiment of Arty were attached to Infantry ( and other) Divisions's when they were on the line. As I am so fond of pointing out, the US Army in the ETO had more Arty Bn's in Theater than Tank Bn's . A fair Portion of the Div's attached Armor was Typically held in reserve ( notice it's the TD Bn's that kept getting the indirect fire mission much more than the tanks proper, Tanks were probably in direct support of any Inf Bn's in contact.. and as long as you are in the area and not in contact .. why not use them as Arty .. otherwise they just sleep and eat.

Haha, touché. It didn't quite cross my mind that tankers would have had problems finding something to do. It certainly wasn't the case for the Other Side, but I can see that Allied armored units would have such occasions. Impassable terrain or just way too many units cramped into one place... :p so yeah, why not use the weapons if the enemy is in range anyway?

the links ammo posted are good:

esp. we find here good examples of too trigger happy american pilots:
( "friendly fire" )

http://www.100thww2.org/support/898/898combat.html

Originally posted by AmmoSgt
I love the high , but nonhistorical, Rate of fire on a Sturmtiger. I real life maybe once every 12 minutes , muzzle loaded from outside the vehicle with a crane .. in SPWAW loads from inside and fires every 2 minutes. Oh those clever Germans , But hey it is "Fair and Balanced"

*Yawn* Breech-loaded. From inside the vehicle. That crane often visible in photos was used when restocking the ammo supply inside the turret. Though there probable were hoists of some sort for moving the round from rack into the loading tray.

At least if you believe achtung panzer.

Voriax

Originally posted by Belisarius
I'll try to see if I can find it. I think it's mentioned by Liddell-Hart (at least) concerning the battles in Egypt, due to the artillery lagging really far behind in the race for the Nile. I'm not sure if I have read about it being used in France as well, but that may just have been the AA.

In any case, that must have been cases of just lobbing shells in the general direction and having FO's zeroing in. I know some US tanks have instruments for setting indirect fire, but with the overwhelming artillery advantage, I wonder if it was used much except for very local support like river crossings and such?

I dont have the source(s) handy but i can at least 2nd Belisarius in that i've read of it being done by the Germans, actually quite frequently during the early days when the Pz-IV was a true "support tank" armed with it's short 75mm howitzer. Accounts from both sides described on this vehicle's versitility and that it was often employed as a mobile artillery platform.

Given all the arguments that have raged for years on what constitutes the "true" effectiveness of artillery in this game i can understand Matrix's position to not invest in such a code change.

If the early types PzIV were used in this way, you can bet your behinds the StuG B and E, equiped with the same cannon IIRC, did the same.

And it's nice and so it was, but:
1/ chances of hits are small, as we've seen in arty. 7.5cm saturation does not result in casualties.
2/ would it improve playability?

especially with number 2 I say screw history. Nice if everything is arty or armoured arty, as seen by others who did unlimited arty, it's no fun.

IF anything is to be rectified, it's flametrowers.

Whats wrong with flametrowers