New Russian OOB (or SPR OOB)

[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

[KraMax]

I consider that you are wrong.
I have given you the table of shooting for the given guns, I have given you even appearance of this sight in which for B-11 it is possible to see a scale of adjustment of range for shooting on these distances: www.pecypc.kz/kramax/b10b11/899538.jpg
What for then these tables in general were necessary - there is this gun shoots only on 450 metres? For appearance? 450 metres are a range of a direct shot and it in any way an effective shot are different concepts. At HEAT shells does not decrease penetration with increase in range of shooting. Tanks of those years shoot approximately also the-tipper-of corrects range in a sight.

[DRG]

KraMax said:
I consider that you are wrong.

Go right ahead and consider that I am wrong. You won't be the first. It doesn't make you correct though anymore than it makes me wrong.

I'm tempted to continue this discussion until you understand my position on this but I suspect it's futile so I'm done with this for now. I have repeatedly told you that the maximum shooting range is NOT the same as the effective range which is what we use in the game and my sources and your source BOTH come back with the same 450m number. It matters NOT in the least what the sights are set for. There are military rifles from the early part of the 20th century with rear sights calibrated up to 2000 metres and beyond. The French Lebel M.1886/93 had sights calibrated to 2400m ! Does that make it the EFFECTIVE range for that rifle using iron sights? I don't think so.

I admit the 450m range seems short but so what ? We set out to use the reported effective range for recoilless rifles whenever we could and 450m was the range that came up over and over and over for the B-11 as it's effective AT range. Find me something better than the range printed on the sight for that and I will admit you made your point but so far you have not done that. I've said this already, just because the thing can shoot that far or has sights set up for that distance doesn't mean anybody could hit anything at that range and source after source after source says that effective range for a B11 was 450m.

Don

[Suhiir]

Let me try it this way.

The AK-47 has a maximum range of 2,653m according to one source I found.
However its maximum EFFECTIVE range is 3-400m.

As DRG has said, the maximum range of a weapon has very little to do with it's maximum effective range.

This has also been an ongoing "issue" with my USMC OOB rebuild.
According to the US Army official manual the max effective range of the M16A1 was 460m. In practice however they considered it to be about 300m.
Meanwhile the USMC continued to require each and every Marine to fire (and pass) a qualification course that required them to hit a man-size target at 500m.

So who's "right" ?
The book?
The Army standard practice?
The USMC standard practice?

[KraMax]

Hello Don.

Well that you recognise that an effective range for these guns too small, even against M40 RCL. I am assured that at M40 RCL - a real effective range almost same as well as at B-11.
How much I understand, game itself does small chance of destroy unit if unit is very far from a gun, also it is influenced by experience crew. Limiting range of our gun - you actually put us in is unreal long odds with armour units.

[DRG]

We used the effective range for these guns based on the information we could gather from a number of sources. It's NOT a matter of "Limiting range of our gun" when I'm using numbers supplied from various different sources and the Russian gun come up short in comparison. I didn't write the data we used, I just used the data that we had found. The data I have seen lately and in the past for the M40 gives it an EFFECTIVE range between 1100m and 1350m but I have also seen it as high as 2750m (maximum effective) and we don't use that number.... do we? So who was it that "assured" you the M40 equalled the B11 ?

I don't make up these numbers. They come from various sources and if I found source after source after source that said the B11 could fire 1400m effectively I would change it but I don't. What I find is source after source after source ( including one YOU provided ) saying 450m was it's effective range.

It has NOTHING to do with "Limiting" the Russian gun. WE still give it 38cm penetration because all the sources I find give it that value. Does anyone get on your case about "limiting" the B11 penetration to 30?

Andy and I discussed this earlier. He felt they were too low but all the research comes back to the original numbers being correct.

Don