Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 6:29 am Post subject: mmm
dima
Quote:
if u had any experience with industry u'd know that to steal and copy is possible
(i say again possible) only with v simple things.APCR isn't simple thing. So if u want
to copy that u'll need to adjust everything according to your production possibilities
and experience with it. And that means develop yer own thing.
yes that would be extremely difficult to copy something when u have an example of it.lol such development.
L4W
Quote:
Also no war with Russia was a big factor too.
dima
Quote:
yes of coz lol.
L4W
Quote:
Then follow the natural progression for the ammo to be introduced
to the 5cm pak.
dima
Quote:
what year? 1940?
another 2 questions u dont know,u say ur a ww2 historian,but dont know what the /1 means on a KwK39.
dima
Quote:
and i will give u another tip.
Production of 3,7cm-Pzgr40 in 1000 shells:
1940 - 286,6
1941 - 885,2.
and that proves that the tungsten ammo kept the 3.7cm atg on the front line a year longer.
as well as eating into there ever dropping tungsten stocks,which started to fall from 1941.
dima
Quote:
so how does it correspond with: Germans were at the peak of using APCRs during 1940 invasion of France. (c)Anzac_Lor4war?
thats right u quoted pak 3.7 figures(which they only started to use Tungsten ammo in 1940) hoping they would represent overall picture.
have u any idea how many 20mm ammo was in use,or even how many 20mm guns there was at time,let me tell you!
they dwarf the pak 3.7 figures.
dima
Quote:
good, u start to learn how to have civilized argues.
Tho u still substitute lack of knowledges by speculations and insults.
well obnoxious, im not asking you for a thank you or anything
i dont mind telling u which tanks had which guns if my knowledge is greater than your knowledges.lol
u just recently learnt about the kwk39/1 for the Puma.its free info for you to copy,steal,develop,invent.
just to show no hard feelings i give u 1 tip for TRSM v94 PzIVG does not use the same gun as PzIVH!
dima
Quote:
Now let me tell u the facts:
during 18 monthes of Soviet-German trade agreement, Germany received 500 tons of tungsten. Does it tell u anything?
L4W
Quote:
Russia being Germanys primary Tungsten supplier
dima
Quote:
at least put "imho" in such lame statements.
thanks for verifying it after insisting i put imho in such lame statements,such manners.is that a fact or facts?
dima
Quote:
I don't even tell u why did the soviets supply tungsten to germans. Maby u can try to make a guess?
its really not necessary,as i did not ask you,i told you about it.
dima
Quote:
well, u know enough is v subjective word. f.e. for u 1000$ is enuf and for me 10000$ is not enuf or vice versa.
objective thing is that they supplied to germans 1100tons per month in 1944.
Now try to compare with the Soviet supplies in 39-40 and mining capabilities
of tungsten of USSR or USA (or just world mining capabilites).
once again i asked u to provide evidence of it(in the form of some type of documentation).not to type some figures in forum,in an attempt
to obfuscate the matter,i really would like to see the documentation,coz if u can find that it will probly say which industries
it was delivered too and for what!
p.s $1000 is way too much for me(feel better now?),id think i was rich.but i guess them dollar amounts r just like ur mining figures.lol
dima
Quote:
well yes, take Pupchen into account...
why? u comparing it to a 2.8cm sPzB 41 which was designed a few years earlier and also for a total different ammo used.
dima
Quote:
same for Pupchen.... reason - tungsten shortage?
Pupchen and sPzB.41 r like twin borthers in terms of employment.
usually twins r born within an hour of each other.not half a war apart.
dima
Quote:
what do u mean by that then: i guess the 41 gives away when they were made,(c)Anzac_Lord4war ?
the same date of standardization—1941 this is german naming not mine.i.e:like Hitler renaming MP43 to Stg44.
In reality they were made in 1941,the sPzB rolled off the production line in december of 1940,the main production run
was thru 1941,the 75mm taperbore was manufactured during 1941 as well,but the finished product was not ready till early 42
it still retained the same date of standardization—1941.how come you dont know this?
dima
Quote:
huh ho, so SdKfz 221 with sPzB.41 appeared in 1940?Thats another historical breakthough!
ahhh silly i said sPzB 41 got rolled out in 1940
dima
Quote:
Anyway, to fill the gaps in yer knowledges i will tell u that operation of mounting/dismounting
of the sPzB on SdKfz 221 or SdKfz 250 or SdKfz 251 could be pretty fast made by field repair units.
Geez u mean the sPzB 41 was easily mountable,such extrodinary knowledge,who would of ever thought that
from a 120kg 2manned gun,that troops carried up mountains?did they do it to the Pak42 too?lol dont stop ur running hot.
ur knowledges know no knowledge,lol
dima
Quote:
maybe would better for u to start to study subject?
i always am and will continue to do so regardless of ur advice,its enjoyable for me.just becoz u think u know all and have stopped.
dima
Quote:
Tips for u:
1)Try to get information in what role was sPzB41 used in SS-PzD after reorganization in 1943 i.e. which units inside the division had them.
2)If u speak about 21.Pz, just get some good book about it, start with J-P Peregault's.
thanks im sure they are great books,but im mainly concerned with mid 1944.and am aware of how fast things change in a war,
and of the need to be constantly adaptable to the situation around you.And in 1944, A major problem resulted from a lack of clarity
in the panzer command structure. The newly formed 47th Panzer Corps was still in process of taking over command of 21st, 116th and 2nd Panzer Divisions,
whilst administrative and supply matters remained under Panzer Group West, with both responsible to Rommel's Army Group B.
To complicate matters further, Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt, Commander in Chief West, was powerless to commit the
strategic reserve without the authority of OKW, meaning in effect Hitler.
dima
Quote:
it was irony on yer statement
and i will keep telling u that tungsten and not irony is the subject.
dima
Quote:
sure, and maybe Napoleon was great and Charles XII and many other....
whatever you reckon on this subject,napolean is yours to be master of.
dima
Quote:
ohh, those genious generals could do everything...if not stupid Hitler/general Frost/T-34/human waves/etc lol
ok the generals didnt want to retreat when they knew they had to do so for survival.Hitler ordered them to retreat,and the german
generals said no we will stay here without supply and fight to the last man and do it for the fatherland.
is that easier for you to believe?I thought so!
dima
Quote:
of coz i will enlight u - ask more.
Thing with MG.34, FlaK.37, leIG.18, KwK.36 etc is that they were not made the year that their index says.
That was told just to point that: i guess the 41 gives away when they were made(c)Anzac_Lord4war - often is not correct.
funny part is i didnt say it,u did.lol MG34 is in ur head.
but at least u now know that it is the case with these 3 weaponswhich i was talking about,,which primary use was anti tank gun.
k98 hmmmm,they got a bit ahead of themselves there.lmao according to your logic.
dima
Quote:
Tip:
Pak.41 even with AP shot with steel insert could penetrate more than Pak.40 with APCBC.
what does that have to do with the price of fish/tungsten?
dima
Quote:
Thing with PaK.42 is same as with Pak.41. Try to guess what is it.
i already know,and offered you the debate.(see image below)
dima
Quote:
well, again, why do u try to insult if u want good debate?
it was an honest question to you,there was 2 answers for you to pick from,which u could not pick one (kinda lame).
are you too scared to say its ur opinion?like u might get trapped?or is it a dickhead throwaway statement?
here i post what u said again
dima
Quote:
PaK42 was v effective ATG as well but somehowe production was ceased. Reason - tungsten shortage?
and here is pak42 production figures and why i offered u them 2 choices of answers.
most people wouldnt hesitate to back themselves and say that was their opinion/or IMHO,but u have! lol
dima
Quote:
ever tried to make logical conclusions from what u read/hear?
well i will try to give some tips:
1)Who had the most armored AVF in 1940 according to germans?
2)When and why did the germans decide to make the tank that will be named PzVI in 1942?
anything to obfuscate the subject at hand,hey dima.
Forget words,actions will show your true ambitions!The Battlefield,In many cases, the terrain of a battlefield can be the best resource a commander has. A clump of trees, an abandoned house, or a drainage ditch can all be powerful tools in the right hands
yes that would be extremely difficult to copy something when u have an example of it.lol such development.
First of all it would be as the example u have was made on different machines by different ppl using different tools.
Second im not familiar with the history that germans copied someone's APCR. At least no country had APCRs in production in 1940.
Quote:
another 2 questions u dont know,u say ur a ww2 historian,but dont know what the /1 means on a KwK39.
1)I never pretended/told that iam historian.
2)I can't understand what u mean by dont know what the /1 means on a KwK39. I mean how did u come to that conclusion or how it corressponds with our topic?
3)Also no war with Russia was a big factor too.(c)Anzac_Lor4war - explain this statement plz.
4)Then follow the natural progression for the ammo to be introduced(c)Anzac_Lor4war - so u know that 5cm PzGr.40 wasn't introduced in 1940 ?! Cool! Now how then yer statements corressponds with:Germans were at the peak of using APCRs during 1940 invasion of France.(c)Anzac_Lor4war?
Quote:
and that proves that the tungsten ammo kept the 3.7cm atg on the front line a year onger.
wow cool conclusion!
Quote:
as well as eating into there ever dropping tungsten stocks,which started to fall from 1941.
i didn't get it...
how the higher production of 3.7cm PzGr.40 shells in 1941 supports the statement:Germans were at the peak of using APCRs during 1940 invasion of France. (c)Anzac_Lor4war?
Quote:
thats right u quoted pak 3.7 figures(which they only started to use Tungsten ammo in 1940)
hoping they would represent overall picture.
seems u have problems with logics...
I showed u rite direction by tips, but u just can't get it.
Second try:
When did 3.7cm PzGr.40 were put in production i.e. month?
Quote:
have u any idea how many 20mm ammo was in use,or even how many 20mm guns there was at time,let me tell you!
i have an idea of how many 2cm PzGr.40 were in production in 1940 - will be close to....ZERO.
Quote:
they dwarf the pak 3.7 figures.
in yer reality.
Quote:
well obnoxious, im not asking you for a thank you or anything
i dont mind telling u which tanks had which guns if my knowledge is greater than your knowledges.lol
u told me? what? when? did i miss it?
Quote:
u just recently learnt about the kwk39/1 for the Puma
how did u come to that conclusion? u r not woman, rn't u?
Quote:
its free info for you to copy,steal,develop,invent
thnx!!! lol
Quote:
just to show no hard feelings i give u 1 tip for TRSM v94 PzIVG does not use the same gun as PzIVH!
do u mean it doesnt use in TRSM or it didn't use in reality?
Quote:
thanks for verifying it after insisting i put imho in such lame statements,such manners.is
that a fact or facts?
fact.
Quote:
its really not necessary,as i did not ask you,i told you about it.
u told me why USSR supplied tungsten to Germany? when?
Quote:
once again i asked u to provide evidence of it(in the form of some type of documentation).not to type some figures in forum,in an attempt to obfuscate the matter,i really would like to see the documentation,coz if u can find that it will probly say which industries it was delivered too and for what!
u asked me to provide evidence? when?
anyway, u know what is logical?
1)i give u numbers as there were not any given by u.
2)u try to counter them with sources and it is u who's not agree with them.
3)i show u my sources.
Quote:
p.s $1000 is way too much for me(feel better now?),id think i was rich.but i guess them dollar amounts r just like ur mining figures.lol
it's yer own problems - can't help u with them.
Quote:
why? u comparing it to a 2.8cm sPzB 41 which was designed a few years earlier and also for a total different ammo used.
becoz Pupchen production was ceased for same reason as 2.8cm sPzB.41.
Quote:
usually twins r born within an hour of each other.not half a war apart.
now i c it - u do have problems with logic.
employment was the key word .
Quote:
the same date of standardization—1941 this is german naming not mine.i.e:like Hitler renaming MP43 to Stg44.
i guess the 41 gives away when they were made(c)Anzac_Lord4war ?
can't c anything about standartization in yer statement. But can clearly c that they WERE MADE.
Quote:
how come you dont know this?
how did u come to such conclusion?
Quote:
ahhh silly i said sPzB 41 got rolled out in 1940
2.8 spzb rolled out in 1940,when they made the only 24 Sd.Kfz 221.fitted with the 2.8cm sPzB 41(of which 10 survived 4years to represent in TRSM)(c)Lord4War
I believe anyone can clearly c that u told SdKfz 221 in 1940.
Quote:
Geez u mean the sPzB 41 was easily mountable,such extrodinary knowledge,who would of ever thought that from a 120kg 2manned gun,that troops carried up mountains?
actually it has crew of 3.
but good that u know some things .
Quote:
did they do it to the Pak42 too?lol dont stop ur running hot.
i think it was irony?
Quote:
ur knowledges know no knowledge,lol
hmm didn't get what u mean....
Quote:
i always am and will continue to do so regardless of ur advice,its enjoyable for me.
that's good
Quote:
just becoz u think u know all and have stopped.
lol, how did u come to that conclusion?
Looks like once again yer logic fails u.
Quote:
thanks im sure they are great books,but im mainly concerned with mid 1944.and am aware of how fast things change in a war, and of the need to be constantly adaptable to the situation around you. And in 1944, A major problem resulted from a lack of clarity in the panzer command structure. The newly formed 47th Panzer Corps was still in process of taking over command of 21st, 116th and 2nd Panzer Divisions, whilst administrative and supply matters remained under Panzer Group West, with both responsible to Rommel's Army Group B. To complicate matters further, Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt, Commander in Chief West, was powerless to commit the strategic reserve without the authority of OKW, meaning in effect Hitler.
what is it all about?
i've asked about what units had those guns in SS-PzD and 21PzD.
2.8 spzb rolled out in 1940,when they made the only 24 Sd.Kfz 221.fitted with the 2.8cm sPzB 41(of which 10 survived 4years to represent in TRSM)<---ican't understand yer statement.
Explain plz.
Quote:
and i will keep telling u that tungsten and not irony is the subject.
has tungsten was used in production of Pak41 series?
Quote:
ok the generals didnt want to retreat when they knew they had to do so for survival.
from where to where? when?
Quote:
Hitler ordered them to retreat,and the german generals said no we will stay here without supply and fight to the last man and do it for the fatherland.
where from? when?
Quote:
is that easier for you to believe?I thought so!
hmm, can't understand u.
what u have thought of?
Quote:
funny part is i didnt say it,u did.lol MG34 is in ur head.
of coz u didn't. MG.34 was like an example that:keep in mind they also ceased being made that year(c)Anzac_Lord4war - can be wrong.
Quote:
but at least u now know that it is the case with these 3 weaponswhich i was talking about,,which primary use was anti tank gun.
so now u talk that i know....
Quote:
k98 hmmmm,they got a bit ahead of themselves there.lmao according to your logic.
my logic?! how did u come to such conclucion?
Quote:
what does that have to do with the price of fish/tungsten?
hmm, now u talk about fish...
anyway it does say nothing about price of tungsten, it does say only that Pak41 with PzGr.40(W) could penetrate more than Pak40 with APCBC at same distances vs soviet tanx.
Quote:
i already know,and offered you the debate.(see image below)
hmm, pic w/o sources gives no information as u could do such table yerself...
well yes, i have reasons to suspect that u r cheating as u did i before.
anyway i was speaking about Pak42 ATG...and yer table shows correct numbers for 1942 .
Quote:
it was an honest question to you,there was 2 answers for you to pick from,which u could not pick one (kinda lame).
i'v replied to the part that was most interesting to me .
Quote:
are you too scared to say its ur opinion?like u might get trapped?or is it a dickhead throwaway statement?
sry can't understand what u r talking about...
Quote:
and here is pak42 production figures and why i offered u them 2 choices of answers. most people wouldnt hesitate to back themselves and say that was their opinion/or IMHO,but u have! lol
dude, u r useless...PaK42 or Pak40/42 was meant as ATG. And germans did cease production of that ATG. Were all reworked as KwK42 or Pak42(PzIV/70).
Quote:
anything to obfuscate the subject at hand,hey dima.
hehe, that were the tips for 1940 PzGr.40 shells .Sux, yer logic sux lol.
1) U've posted wrong statements. I corrected u. Instead of thanking me, asking why i think so or just keep silence (as usual) u decided to post more rediculous statements.
2) Regarding tungsten shortage...
Was tungsten used in manufacturing of Pak41, sPzB41 or lePak41?
If Pak.41 with PzGr.41(W) had better penetration stats that Pak.40 with APCBC - why should we remove it from production? Same for all the tapered bore guns...
So yer statement:keep in mind they also ceased being made that year,for u guessed it no other reason than tungsten shortages.- is at least very doubtful.
3)Regarding the issue of PzGr.40...
3.7cm PzGr,40 were issued in 1940 (late summer - fall) for first time.
3)before that it was majority 2cm kwk and flaks who had the stocks of it.(c)Lord4war - totally wrong statement as 2-cm PzGr.40 shells were put in production in 1941.
2cm PzGr.40 were issued in 1941.
5cm PzGr.40 were issued in 1941.
7.5cm PzGr.40 were issued in 1942.
8.8cm PzGr.40 were issued in 1943.
Thus yer statement:Germans were at the peak of using APCRs during 1940 invasion of France. (c)Anzac_Lor4war - is totally wrong.
4)Yer statement:
Russia being Germanys primary Tungsten supplier.(c)Anzac_Lor4war - is wrong again.
So my advises to u:
1)Ask if u not sure about something.
2)Ask if u want to know about anything.
3)Read more books.
Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:53 am Post subject: mmm
dina
Quote:
First of all it would be as the example u have was made on different machines by different ppl using different tools.
Second im not familiar with the history that germans copied someone's APCR. At least no country had APCRs in production in 1940
well at least u r being honest about not being familiar with it.
think about the taper bore craze again,and what lead to it.
there u will find the answer.
dima
Quote:
1)I never pretended/told that iam historian.
2)I can't understand what u mean by dont know what the /1 means on a KwK39.
I mean how did u come to that conclusion or how it corressponds with our topic?
since this
dima
Quote:
Anzac_Lord4war - often is not correct.
just trying to point out u fixed that up for v94 from v92.thanks to having it pointed out to u.
and my other tip to u regarding the PzIVG it does not use the same gun as PzIVH!this one is for V94 TRSM or reality.
so why not help u to see i often am correct.and that dima is often incorrect.
dima
Quote:
Also no war with Russia was a big factor too.(c)Anzac_Lor4war - explain this statement plz.
well there is only 9 words and there all really complicated (see a dictionary).
just keep in mind u already agreed
dima
Quote:
Then follow the natural progression for the ammo to be introduced(c)
so u know that 5cm PzGr.40 wasn't introduced in 1940 ?! Cool!
der fred,who said it was introduced in 1940 for the 5cm gun? r u assuming as u usually do again?
dima
Quote:
Now how then yer statements corressponds with:Germans were at the peak of using APCRs during 1940 invasion of France.
read previous thread from me.
dima
Quote:
wow cool conclusion!
oh u already read it then,and ignored it then continue to carry on like a fuckwit and keep asking it.
dima
Quote:
i didn't get it...
how the higher production of 3.7cm PzGr.40 shells in 1941 supports the statement:
Germans were at the peak of using APCRs during 1940 invasion of France.
there is a lot of shit u dont get.some industry leaders may see it as replacing what is used/
or stocking for what is needed.but i understand ur not good at reading into logistics.
dima
Quote:
seems u have problems with logics...
I showed u rite direction by tips, but u just can't get it.
Second try:
When did 3.7cm PzGr.40 were put in production i.e. month?
wtf u talking bout now?
dima
Quote:
have an idea of how many 2cm PzGr.40 were in production in 1940 - will be close to....ZERO.
LMAO
dima
Quote:
u told me why USSR supplied tungsten to Germany? when?
no confused boy,i told u russia was the primary tungsten source to germany.
u struggled with it.lol now u have researched it.and realised u r wrong.lol
ur probaly shocked that russia supplied over half the german imports,just before russia was attacked.LMAO
dima
Quote:
anyway, u know what is logical?
sorry man not when it comes from you.
dima
Quote:
1)i give u numbers as there were not any given by u.
2)u try to counter them with sources and it is u who's not agree with them.
3)i show u my sources.
sorry man,i havent seen any of ur sources.just quotes by u,most making no sense.
dima
Quote:
it's yer own problems - can't help u with them
it is kool i have all the industry imports from russia to germany in tons per month for the period.
off topic but an interesting trivia matter= Russia mines 25% of the worlds tungsten,with 50% coming from China,and the rest of
the world making up the other 25%.
dima
Quote:
becoz Pupchen production was ceased for same reason as 2.8cm sPzB.41.
now i c it - u do have problems with logic.
employment was the key word .
the comment was employed by u to distract from subject at hand.
dima
Quote:
I believe anyone can clearly c that u told SdKfz 221 in 1940.
does that sentence when told by u even mean anything?
dima
Quote:
actually it has crew of 3.
thats known but do u know it can be manned by 2 men?and was more often than not.
just check pictures of it in action. be warned they may clash with ur training manuals.
dima
Quote:
it does say only that Pak41 with PzGr.40(W) could penetrate more than Pak40 with APCBC at same distances vs soviet tanx
was a dickhead statement by u which had nothing to do with argument,u fire the wrong ammo from the wrong gun.maybe kill the gunners firing it.lol
please explain to every1 else how a PzGr.40(W) shell is fired from a Pak41.
u know there waiting for ur made up answer.
dima
Quote:
Was tungsten used in manufacturing of Pak41, sPzB41 or lePak41?
yes
dima
Quote:
If Pak.41 with PzGr.41(W) had better penetration stats that Pak.40 with APCBC -
why should we remove it from production?
k firstly u haved changed the ammo type from PzGr.40(W)which was incorret by u to PzGr.41(W)
the (W) stands for Weicheisen or soft iron.not Wolfram/tungsten.
ive already mentioned the cost and time involved to have this equipment up and running(including cost of PzGr.41 or PzGr.41(W) ammo)
as being many times greater than having a pak40 with apcbc.
Pak40 APCBC ammo was much more accurate at medium to long ranges,also barrel wear issues affected the Pak41 as well.
also there r no verified figures for the PzGr.41(W) type ammo penetration,a lot of sources just seemed to have copied the tungsten row PzGr.41.
but good sources say it is much less,and only being competitive at close ranges.
these penetrations r for the pak40 with PzGr.40/APCR,PzGr.40(W)/APCNR and PzGr.39/APCBC all at 100metres.
PzGr.40/APCR 126mm Tungsten/Wolfram round
PzGr.40(W)/APCNR 77mm Soft Iron/Weicheisen round
PzGr.39/APCBC 99mm
me thinks it hardly worth the manufacturing effort,but i dont know as much as u about irony industry.
dima
Quote:
So yer statement:keep in mind they also ceased being made that year,
for u guessed it no other reason than tungsten shortages.- is at least very doubtful.
nothing doubtful about it they only made 150 pak41 7.5cm(backed by many sources).if u want to cast some doubt it was they ,
werent ready till 1942,proof of the long manufacturing process of the taper-bore guns.
dima
Quote:
3)Regarding the issue of PzGr.40...
3.7cm PzGr,40 were issued in 1940 (late summer - fall) for first time.
3)before that it was majority 2cm kwk and flaks who had the stocks of it.
(c)Lord4war - totally wrong statement as 2-cm PzGr.40 shells were put in production in 1941.
2cm PzGr.40 were issued in 1941.
5cm PzGr.40 were issued in 1941.
7.5cm PzGr.40 were issued in 1942.
8.8cm PzGr.40 were issued in 1943.
ur incorrect on the 2cm.
but see u could follow the natural progression for the ammo to be introduced.lol
only took u 2 of ur own posts to get it.
funny thing is u dont know what beat the 2cm tungsten ammo into service.
Forget words,actions will show your true ambitions!The Battlefield,In many cases, the terrain of a battlefield can be the best resource a commander has. A clump of trees, an abandoned house, or a drainage ditch can all be powerful tools in the right hands
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
In August of 2004, Zappi, Homba, Bambam887, RedScorpion and MOOXE all pitched
in to create this Close Combat site. I would to thank all the people who have visited
and found this site to thier liking. I hope you had time to check out some
of the great Close Combat mods and our forums. I'd also like to thank
all the members of our volunteer staff that have helped over
the years, and all our users that contributed to this site!
.
.
.
