scotsman

Registered Users
  • Content count

    6,098
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    25

scotsman last won the day on August 2

scotsman had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

397 Salty

7 Followers

About scotsman

  • Rank
    Monthly Hero Builder
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Navy
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat
  1. It's HEAT has 110mm penetration at 30 degrees - it can kill anything - but I'll check it one more time...
  2. Well by using your own thread...I'm sure you read this: http://forums.thecmp.org/archive/index.php/t-166792.html Canfield's assertion on AP usage for the M-1 does not track with other wartime documents. I wouldn't argue that it was used on occasion and that the airborne folks and others actually preferred to have a basic load of it. For line infantry units? No...big difference between wanting and getting. Some might get it for a specific circumstance or situation, or have some tucked away for an emergency. (I did! ) Its simply economics. Hard core ammo is more costly than FMJ ammo....andbelieve me the bean counters ALWAYS win...frequently even in war time. I served in USAREUR HQ and had access to basic load information going back to WWII and also had info on what stock was available ammo wise at given points in time. Have to agree with the other comments in the thread above that the assertion it was used by rifleman across the board is an urban myth. I'm very open to adding AP back in for the K98 (where documentation exists for AP during the battle of France), the M-1, and other weapons at some point, once we have user selectable basic load capability....but until then...and as we can only have ONE standard basic load for a weapon to represent service during the entire time frame...I'm content to leave it parked as is.
  3. And that folks in a nutshell is the curse of any developer - two veteran players with opposite views of the same issue. On a more positive note we made a test change on the human modeling and the initial results look very positive.
  4. Chasing our frag issue gents... definitely related to the Infantry model...not munitions performance. Some fixes already being tried.
  5. What little I can say so far is this....when we had few large fragments traveling at ordnance velocities...the energy transfer to the trooper model was massive and overwhelming....now that the munitions are where they are supposed to be accuracy wise theworld is different...we have things like .7 gram frags traveling at 800 m/s (mortar frag there) and those frags seem to be interacting with the trooper target differently. Hits are being recorded, but the frags arent transferring energy to the trooper target in the manner is which they should. Generally speaking, 80 joules worth of frags to an individual will create a disabling wound and anywhere from 110-200 would stand a very good chance of dropping them. Lots of testing going on now...but I'm guessing our issue is with the way the frags are bleeding velocity on impact and doing their energy transfer. stay tuned.
  6. Chasing some issues right now...again thinking is that its the data for the human body thats the issue...not the munitions...stay tuned
  7. If you were clipping into terrain and sheltered from frag calcs that's why you didn't die... intentional clipping isn't kosher by the way... If you were intentionally clipped into terrain then ( a) that's not kosher play and (b) you aren't subject to proper frag
  8. Alas we have but a single German grenade model - so what we have had to represent the full wartime period, Thus giving it credit for its frag ring.
  9. Was just tested by QA vs four different target types and had no issues killing if they were fairly close hits. You're likely not as close to the target as you think you are.
  10. probably ---
  11. copy all - I am thinking its not the munition itself - likely the human effects modeling of frags less than one gram in size not causing internal injury as they should - I'm on it...
  12. standing??
  13. will check ... US 57mm and 6pdr are the same gun for all practical purposes - running through QA now
  14. Can't disagree with the need Irish.. I'll copy this over and post internally so people see it
  15. On it...looking at damage logs