New Russian OOB (or SPR OOB)

[KraMax]

I have shown you the table of shooting for a gun which stood out in army in hands crew this gun. What can be even more demonstrative than the instruction?
I speak about that that as you have told earlier, that probably there is some misunderstanding of the given information or difficulty of translate. I speak that it is impossible for instructions of range of shooting of guns B-10, B-11 and SPG-9 to use - data of range of a direct shot. These guns have a sight - with which help they can shoot on the distances specified by me.

[KraMax]

There was time when all English-speaking editions a rocket 9A4172 Vikhr - named a rocket 9M120. It was an error. And now many editions about it have written. But this modern weapon and it is interesting to people. And here RCL guns of manufacture of the USSR of 1954 - very few people now interest. I have only resulted the real table of shooting on which tipper-of of a gun could destroy the tank.

[DRG]

Showing me scans of a manual I can just barely read isn't very helpful, is it ?

The wrong name of ATGM and the range and penetration of a recoilless rifle have little in common. As you noted, the RCL has been around for years. It's difficult to believe that the known effective range for that weapon could be that far out given that to GET an " effective range " would require field testing and since the B11 has been around for 50+ years some testing must have been done to get that "effective " range

Yes?

Now, Andy and I have discussed this weapon in the past and questioned it's low range but every piece of info we can dig up ( and read ! ) gives the same results. The maximum AIMED range we have matches your info almost exactly. Where we diverge is in the effective range and as I said, that's the range we have been using for those weapons not the maximum range you can actually point and fire it.

Those scans, if I understood correctly what I could read, shows that weapon had a max range or 1430 m for the HEAT round. "which tipper-of a gun ( gun aimer ) could destroy the tank."

OK, lets assume for a minute that 1430m is correct and all the other info about "effective" range of 450m is wrong... even if we do accept that is the maximum range for that weapon that number translates to 28 hexes in game terms not 30.

Consider also..... maybe nobody could actually hit anything with it reliably beyond 450 metres despite what the manual says you should be able to do. EVERY army is guilty of that .

Also, you have 30 for a penetration for HEAT.... all the numbers we have shows 38. Where did 30 penetration come from ?

Don

[KraMax]

Unfortunately in technical characteristics in the instruction to B-11 there is no information about penetration.

Here link on technical characteristics B-11:
www.pecypc.kz/kramax/b10b11/804957.jpg

Here:
The second line - 450 metres - range of a direct shot
The fourth line - initial speed of flight HEAT of a shell - 400 metres per second

Kind of sight B-11:
www.pecypc.kz/kramax/b10b11/889919.jpg

HEAT a shot to gun B-11:
www.pecypc.kz/kramax/b10b11/899538.jpg

PHOTOS (pictures) B-10 and B-11

B-10;
www.pecypc.kz/kramax/b10b11/270.jpg

B-11:
www.pecypc.kz/kramax/b10b11/271.jpg

========================================

Even our data here have an error - HEAT penetration shell B-11 should be even less 290mm:

http://www.militaryparitet.com/nomen...protivotank/3/

The third line of the table.

[DRG]

KraMax said:Here:
The second line - 450 metres - range of a direct shot
The fourth line - initial speed of flight HEAT of a shell - 400 metres per second

And there's that 450m number again. It does keep popping up over and over.

KraMax said:
Even our data here have an error - HEAT penetration shell B-11 should be even less 290mm:

There will always be conflicting information even from the best source. Why assume that since this website gives a 29cm penetration for that weapon that it's correct and the previous info you had was wrong ? As I have said, western sources give that weapon a much higher penetration. Why ? I really don't know. I can only use the info I have and when there is conflict go with whatever I feel is more likely. To do the type of research to make ( almost ) everyone happy with these OOB's would require a staff the size of Janes !

This is why OOB work , no matter how well researched, will never be completely free of "controversy" even with 50 year old weapons systems. It's why any of us can only guess at the numbers we use in the OOB's for modern weapons and who knows, maybe 50 years from now someone might actually figure out what the correct numbers should be.

Don

[KraMax]

Don
-------------
One question:
I have convinced you on range of aim shooting?

[KraMax]

We have found more error.

change units:
units 129,130,131,132,133,219,748, - Armour Steel: HF=4, HS=3, HR=2, TF=4, TS=3, TR=2, Top=1; Armour HEAT: All=0.
unit 134,749 - Armour Steel: HF=4, HS=3, HR=2, TF=9, TS=7, TR=5, Top=2; Armour HEAT: TF=12, TS=10, TR=8, Top=2.

new formantion:
formation 067,066 - Haavy tank Pl3/Co7.

To download it it is possible from the first page of this theme or from here: www.pecypc.kz/kramax/obat011.obf

[DRG]

KraMax said:
Don
-------------
One question:
I have convinced you on range of aim shooting?

No. Not really. Your last post really proved my point.

There is a difference between the range a weapon can be used and it's effective range. Everything points to an effective range of 450 metres for that RCL. Even your last source gave 450 metres. I told you at the start if we used the max aimed range then all RCL's would take a huge leap in range but that ignores the numbers we have on "effective" range and that 450m number you quoted from the manual in the last post matches almost exactly the numbers I gave at the start

Range (m):
Max Effective: 450
Max Aimed Range: 1,400 (est)


and yours..

"Here:
The second line - 450 metres - range of a direct shot "

Now.... MAYBE that means it's effective range over open sights is 450 m and MAYBE the 1400m number is the maximum range it can be fired when a sighting device is used but that's a lot of "maybe's" isn't it ?

Don