[chuckfourth]

HI Claus
Well I have been waiting for some time now to hear from Andy what the "recalculation of the terminal effects of bursts for both HE and AP" were and how these changes fix the problems I've identified but as this information doesnt seem to be forthcomming I'll just take this opportunity to summerize this thread.
Claus Ive had a close look at your claim that the weapons magazines are always loaded with a HE/AP mix.
Here is the passage you are refering to, verbatum
"The 2 cm tank gun was proven to be especially effective in combating antitank guns. Magazines were loaded with a one to one ratio of Panzergranaten (AP) and Srennggranaten (HE)."
To put the quote in its correct context, it is a two part combat report by a brigade commander describing how his tanks performed against other tanks and AT guns. The quote is in the tank vs AT guns section
He could easily have said in the first section on tank vs tank engagements that magazines loaded with just AP were especially effective against tanks but he hadnt realised you would be reading his report.
What he is saying is that half HE half AP is an effective mix against AT guns, he is not saying that every magazine in every vehicle that carried this weapon had this mix as you would have us believe. In any case it is obvious the units themselves could decide to use whatever mix they wished. Perhaps just AP when engageing armour and just HE when engageing infantry or would that be to simple?

It is mentioned on pg 111 that "It (kwk) was effective firing Sprenggranaten (HE) shells" looking at this line through your goggles one could easily interpret it to mean that they had HE only in the magazines.
Another passage on the same page has this to say
"A considerable expenditure of ammunition occoured during the battles with enemy tanks as a result of the inadequate penetration ability of the 3.7 and 2 cm rounds. As as example, almost 100 percent of the 7.5 and 3.7 cm shells were fired during the major battle on 13th may. The brigade had to be resupplied before they could continue."
Notice that 2cm guns didnt use up all their ammo. If they can only fire bursts as currently modeled Pz II would have run out of rounds in one quarter of the time that the 3.7 cm weapons did. As this didnt happen perhaps these guns were a bit more judiscous with there ammo than is currently modeled in the game.

In any case I dont mind if they are modeled as firing bursts or single shots what my gripe really is is that the bursts are modeled so poorly that the weapon is effectively neutered. In light of no further input from Andy let me just run past you the difference in in-game performance with the weapon firing bursts and single shots
lets use Pz II as our example with its current 5 round burst. And say it hits the armoured target on the third burst.
Because he has fired two bursts to aquire the target rather than single shots he has wasted 8 out of 10 rounds thats a performance hit of 80%
Now the third burst containing 5 rounds hit the target so there are 5 "chances" of penetrating, but in game there is only one. So once again a performance hit of 80%. Whats 20% of 20% you ask, its 4 %, yes thats right in a normal situation when engaging armour with the currently modeled compulsory 5 round burst the gun is now exactly 4% as effective as when it used to fire single shots. Thats a 96% reduction in performance, this is what I am complaining about.
An 80% decrease applies to the guns performance when engaging soft targets, as described previously.

from the program World at War in episode 3 battle of France, there is footage of the the crossing of the muese with an 8 wheeler Ac and 222 firing in supoort, and yes the are both firing single shots.
By the way no-one has presented anywhere in this thread any advantages to modelling this weapon as a machine gun
Best Regards Chuck.