-Jochen-

Actually Lufwaffe used pair of 21 cm WGr unguided rockets on Fw 190 and Bf 109. R4M rockets were used in Me 262 as air to air and in Fw 190 as air to ground, in that role they were fitted shaped charge warheads and called Panzerblits. ------------------ jochen Kids today! Why can't they fetishize Fascist military hardware like normal people? Ladysmith wants you forthwith to come to her relief Burn your briefs you leave for France tonight Carefully cut the straps of the booby-traps and set the captives free But don't shoot 'til you see her big blue eyes

Hyvää uutta vuotta vaan kaikille suomalaisille ja miks ei muillekin! Jan Nousiainen, Tampere. ------------------ jochen Kids today! Why can't they fetishize Fascist military hardware like normal people? Ladysmith wants you forthwith to come to her relief Burn your briefs you leave for France tonight Carefully cut the straps of the booby-traps and set the captives free But don't shoot 'til you see her big blue eyes

Universal Military Simulator for Amiga. ------------------ jochen Kids today! Why can't they fetishize Fascist military hardware like normal people? Ladysmith wants you forthwith to come to her relief Burn your briefs you leave for France tonight Carefully cut the straps of the booby-traps and set the captives free But don't shoot 'til you see her big blue eyes

Apparently big news. I saw no posts about this here so I decided to post just to inform those who are interested. From Toms hardware: Graphics chipmaker NVidia will buy most of the assets of its ailing ex-rival 3dfx Interactive Inc. The purchase includes all of 3dfx's graphics-related assets, patents, trademarks, chip inventory, and brand names including Voodoo. The price is set at $112 million, with $70 million in cash and 1 million shares of registered NVidia common stock as valued on NVidia's closing price December 14. NVidia will not buy 3dfx's graphics board business, which 3dfx intends to dissolve without ending support for existing customers. NVidia has not committed either to continuing the 3dfx brandname or absorbing it into its own label. 3dfx and NVidia will put their joint patent litigation on hold until the announced deal is closed, at which time their suits will be jointly dismissed. For more information, read pcworld.com, cnnfn.cnn.com, zdii.com and techweb.com. ------------------ jochen Kids today! Why can't they fetishize Fascist military hardware like normal people? Ladysmith wants you forthwith to come to her relief Burn your briefs you leave for France tonight Carefully cut the straps of the booby-traps and set the captives free But don't shoot 'til you see her big blue eyes

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Glad tungsten is making Allied players happy (and German ones sad)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, screw them kraut players, always whining about everything... They deserve what they have given all right! ------------------ jochen Kids today! Why can't they fetishize Fascist military hardware like normal people? Ladysmith wants you forthwith to come to her relief Burn your briefs you leave for France tonight Carefully cut the straps of the booby-traps and set the captives free But don't shoot 'til you see her big blue eyes

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So how about Soviet tank gunnery...optics, range finders, accuracy, etc<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I visited Finnish Tank Museum in Parola few months ago and I was able to inspect many common tanks and vehicles, unfortunately on from outside. One thing I found was that T-34/76 and T-34/85 had huge slack in their gun barrels, ie. I was able to move gun barrel up and down 2-3 cm (about 1 inch) by one hand, there was same amount of slack in horizontal but it was not as apparent as vertical slack. On the other hand Stug III (early and late models) and PzKw IVJ did not have this kind of slack. I could move their barrels up and down few millimeters (1/10th of inch) and there was no slack between barrel and rest of the gun as in T-34's. Sherman, Challenger and Comet did have similar "feel" of barrel rigidity in realtion to turret as german vehicles. I don't know if the sights (optics) are connected directly to barrels of T-34's but if they are not, I would think that they have profound effect on accuracy: barrel would move a bit between successive shots. What I have found interesting is that T-34 (at least early models) are actually slower than PzKw III. Up to this point I have thought it was opposite. In closer look it makes bit sense actually. Soviet build quality of transmission was very poor and I would think that it loses fair bit engine power. Tracks are also crude construction so they cause more friction than german (and allied) counterparts. ------------------ jochen Kids today! Why can't they fetishize Fascist military hardware like normal people? Ladysmith wants you forthwith to come to her relief Burn your briefs you leave for France tonight Carefully cut the straps of the booby-traps and set the captives free But don't shoot 'til you see her big blue eyes

Oh my god... I have created a monster thread! Anyways, some very good posts here. Few things like spotting ability of tanks and relative accuracy of guns inside CM are grey areas which might need some tweaking. I will conduct some tests and try different ideas after I get home. ------------------ jochen Kids today! Why can't they fetishize Fascist military hardware like normal people? Ladysmith wants you forthwith to come to her relief Burn your briefs you leave for France tonight Carefully cut the straps of the booby-traps and set the captives free But don't shoot 'til you see her big blue eyes

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You keep holding the WWII estimates as if they are "real life data". They are not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why not? German (and presumably british too) tests have data for pure dispersion only (range is known and target is not moving) and also data for guesstimated battlefield accuracy. First figure is about as accurate as we can find, second is an approximation. Anyway, if there is better data to model accuracy with, none of us have seen it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They are guesses and so far NOBODY has presented how these figures were arrived at. So please, stop implying that this data is somehow equal to the number of mm of armor, the speed a turret rotates at, how many men are in a squad. It is not that simple.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think this bit clarifies how those numbers were obtained: The following tables show estimated accuracy, of both the 8.8 cm Kw.K.36 L/56 and 8.8 cm Kw.K.43 L/71, in hitting a target of 2 meters high and 2.5 meters wide, based on assumptions that the actual range of the target has been correctly determined, and that the distribution of hits is centered on the aiming point. The first column shows the accuracy obtained during controlled test firing to determine the pattern of dispersion. The second column (in brackets) includes the variation expected during practice firing due to differences between guns, ammunitions and gunners. All estimations are in percentage and do not reflect the actual probability of hitting a target during under actual combat condition. However, the average, cool gunner, after sensing the tracer from the first round, could achieve the result presented in the second column. I think that describes conditions quite nicely. I admit that it could be better but it also could be much much worser. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Wrong. Real world battlefield conditions DID show that the gyro worked. Go back into whatever that thread was and look at the information again. There were veteran accounts that specifically stated that they hit things on the move that they never could have hit without the gyro.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ok, I must have missed that bit. I only remember that BTS said they had test results from tests conducted in controlled environment. In no way I want gyro's to be removed or that I complain about them! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you can find a spot around you that offers a 2000m straight view, do the following...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You know, I have been in finnish army as a squad leader so I know tiny bit about the conditions. Not that I'm professional soldier or anything! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yes, we are going to look at spotting at long ranges. There is most likely some sort of bug that is around. But do not expect units to have eagle eyes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I really don't expect to have tank commanders with eagle eyes. But person who is accustomed in tank warfare and is expecting enemy contact right now (that's why he hasn't sleep in two days I guess) should be able to spot enemy tank in 2000 meters range in flat grass field. I know those are ideal conditions and not often met in combat in wester europe but anyways it should be looked up in CM2, I think flat steppes of southern russia offer quite a lot flat spaces NOTE! I think if the troops have been up two days at a row without food their status would be other than "Rested" as it is not when you start scenario! Would that mean that "Rested" troops could perform as it was estimated by Germans and Brits? If they have been up for two days their status should be "Tired" and in that case their accuracy should be like it is now ie. downgraded? I think this is also important issue to look at! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why is it that we have to come up with reasons and methodology for our figures but the ones you keep quoting need no such support?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I honestly do think that those quotes from test shootings somewhat support figures I (and others) have posted here. I am only curious how and why CM yields different results in conditions that I found from other sources which I consider useful. I think I understand the results I have seen elsewhere but I'm looking for information why CM behaves differently. It is possible that figures we all see in books and net are wrong and CM is right but we don't know why CM behaves differently. That is the "gray area" for me and I try to find out more. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>For all we know those accuracy figures were invented by some lab technician while having a beer with a single tank commander.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't think that was the case at all! I think me and other peoples in this thread has offered support and reasoning to figures presented here. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Our numbers are based on the mathematical accuracy of the weapon, downgraded based on a feel for how units shot up enemy targets in real life.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is the interesting bit! How do you calculate dispersion and such? Are they abstracted somehow so dispersion is only related to weight and velocity of round? I'm also interested to hear about the downgrading and how much it does affect accuracy. Did you test accuracy before downgrading and compared it to test result from WWII? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Somehow my detailed PzIV vs. Sherman situation is long forgotten here. How much more accurate should we make the PzIVs? The already decimated the Shermans in 30 seconds. Would folks here be happier if they could do it in 20?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't think anyone here is looking for "wish 'em dead" guns. I used KwK 36 as example because that was only data that I have (apart from 75 mm L/24). The test you did was interesting. However it does not isolate different variables too well. Since we are discussing about long range accuracy (1500 is about in borderline I think) and not killing ability in general I think that test was not the most usefull that might have been conducted. I cant remember armour thickness of PzKw IV and M4 Sherman used in your test but I think that at range of 1500 meters Sherman has quite a much smaller chance of penetrating PzKw IV's armour than it's vica versa. That could mean that results are more dependent on penetration ability against opponents armour at range of 1500 meters than accuracy. In no way I want to flame BTS or anyone here! I have some years earlier programmed a small simulation that calculates penetrations and accuracy in 3D and I would like to know bit more how it is done in CM. ------------------ jochen Kids today! Why can't they fetishize Fascist military hardware like normal people? Ladysmith wants you forthwith to come to her relief Burn your briefs you leave for France tonight Carefully cut the straps of the booby-traps and set the captives free But don't shoot 'til you see her big blue eyes

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is. However, there is still a margin for error ESPECIALLY at very long ranges. Hitting once is NOT a guarantee of hitting with the next shot. This is basic laws of probability mean that the greater margin of error the greater the chance for a miss, regardless of knowing the range (although that is the most significant part).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I understand that you don't neccessarily hit target again right after first hit. I try to sneak to my computer to do conclusive testing during this week. I will concentrate on eiter 1500 m or 2000m range and gather larget set of data that is usefull enought to determine to what extent hit propability increases after range is known (after first hit). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>True, but no nation had a statistician riding into battle. Those numbers quoted by the Germans you mentioned are an educated guess. What you see in CM is "actual".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Are you implying here that Germans and brits had less accurate educated guesses during WWII than you have made 55 years later? What I do know is that BTS has made hit propability smaller by some artificial number that does not rely on scientific data. This is also aducated guess at best and I fail to see how it is any better than what was made 55 years ago by persons that might have had firsthand knowledge about battlefield conditions. To support my view, I again present some test data. At 2000 meters I found out that CM 88 mm KwK 36 had hit change of 0.067 against M4 Sherman. Real life data of 88 mm KwK 36 has hit propability of 0.5 (0.87 under ideal conditions) against similar sized target. The hit propability difference between real life data and CM data is almost ten fold. Which one is more likely to be off? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My guess is that the Germans, and Allies, had a rather simplistic and generalized system to downgrade the ideal numbers based on a scientific guess after talking with tank crews.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But is that almost exactly what BTS has also done? Some real life test results (possibly even the same we have used in our discussion?) have been looked upon and then they are downgraded by simplistic and generalized system? Why modify the numbers yet again? I fail to see this as an way to improve overall accuracy of simualtion. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The question is... what were the skill levels of the tankers they talked to? In any case, I very much doubt there were any sort of scientific tests done on the battlefield.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I hope you don't take this as an any sort of flame but I cannot refrain to use US Gyro's as an point. BTS stated that gyro effectiveness was only assessed in tests on firing range in scientific conditions, not on battlefield conditions, yet their effect on accuracy has been succesfully added to CM. What prevents using real life shooting range test data in CM? It has been gathered on conditions much similar to gyro testing as far as I know. Even the battlefield accuracy which could be reached by those tested guns are estimated by contemporary specialists have been given, in form that should be directly usable in CM without any further modification. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I will only say this one more time. It does not have anything to do with accuracy. But OBVIOUSLY if you can't see something you can't shoot it, so it does have something to do with the ability for the vehicle to shoot (accuracy not even a factor). This is something totally different that needs to be looked into. Since 2000m+ ranges were next to impossible to find in NW Europe we didn't weigh spotting abilities towards greater ranges.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree. I think I haven't said that accuracy and spotting are the same thing but that they are related: you cannot possibly exploit your accuracy advantage if you cannot spot enemy. I also agree that spotting is issue that should be looked upon in future, I don't think that regular Tiger IE crew can miss sight of M4 Sherman at 2000 meters away in level grass field. Atleast it is highly unlikely. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I disagree. We have "real life guesses that we don't know how they estimated them". CM's hit probability might be too low, but I do not think these guesses are irrefutable and unquestionable figures.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree that the real life figures we have for basis of our discussion are not the whole truth. But taht is all we have. If BTS (or anyone) cannot present more information, those real life figures are what CM should produce because no-one really knows better. I think none of us has the knowledge and experience to say what the exact hit propabilities should be. So why don't we just use the numbers that were obtained during WWII? ------------------ jochen Kids today! Why can't they fetishize Fascist military hardware like normal people? Ladysmith wants you forthwith to come to her relief Burn your briefs you leave for France tonight Carefully cut the straps of the booby-traps and set the captives free But don't shoot 'til you see her big blue eyes

Few things: - Nobody should trust hit propabilites reported by CM and use them as basis for discussion! As BTS stated they are only approximations. I did find out in my tests that real hit propability is about half that is reported by CM. This is apparent at ranges above 1000 meters. So when you compare real life hit probability data and hit propability reported by CM, you really can't draw conclusions. For my limited testing CM reported hit probability 3 greater than it really was at range of 2000 meters ie. Tiger IE was reported to have hit probability of 0.24 but my test showed actual hit propability of 0.067. I admit that there is margin for error in my test but 3 fold error is quite large. - I think spotting is related to long range gunnery. If you limit spotting ranges to below realistic, you limit efectiveness of guns that are accurate and more likely to penetrate target on longer ranges. In my test regular unbuttoned Tiger IE was incapable to spot M4 Sherman jumbo at 2000 meters at level grass field. Would you be able to miss profile of M4 Sherman Jumbo at that range? Maybe even using a binoculars? Tiger spotted M4 after it had moved about 5 meters towards the Tiger. - Question about target tracking is still open. This one requires quite a lot of testing to be completely answered and I'm aways from my computer for two weeks - Gun differencies should be modeled beyond round weight and muzzle velocity. Same round fired from rifled and nonrifled barrels would have very different hit propabilities, even if they have same weight and muzzle velocity. I readily understand that quantification of such variables is difficult. - I still question feasibility of tweaking down hit propability of all guns when compared to real life data. If both German AND Brits felt that battlefield accuracy (even approximated one) they gave was accurate, is it really wise to discard such data and trust your own approximation? After all, German and Brits had truly firsthand information that none of us cannot claim to posses today. Reasoning that gunners ability to hit targets were worsened by missing recently dead loved one or such can be reversed to a reasoning that gunners could perform better, desire of avenging death of recently fallen comrade etc etc. We have real life data about certain gun's accuracy on battlefield, yet we cannot reproduce that accuracy on CM. As for my personal testing actual (not reported) CM hit probability can be as much off as 8 fold or more when compared to real life data gathered on similar situation at range of 2000 meters. This is far more important matter than arguing about few millimeters difference on guns penetration capability! ------------------ jochen Kids today! Why can't they fetishize Fascist military hardware like normal people? Ladysmith wants you forthwith to come to her relief Burn your briefs you leave for France tonight Carefully cut the straps of the booby-traps and set the captives free But don't shoot 'til you see her big blue eyes

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>CM absolutely, and without a question of a doubt, increases the chance to hit with each and every shot that is fired from a gun. It might not be reflected in the % hit figure when the Target order is used.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmm, I think I should conduct more test to get bullet proof data... But I think that once gunner scores first hit to target he knows the range (and other gun laying parameters) for sure and scoring further hits would be much easier than with first round. What my tests showed is that Tiger IE in CM did not gain measureble benefit from hits ie. successive shots tend to miss. This is apparent at ranges above 1500 m. I don't think gun's dispersion is that great, if gun points to same direction as with shot that hit target, dispersion is about only variable affecting fot fired round. In short, I think once the correct range has been established by gunner it would be much easier to hit in succesive shots. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We also did not "dumb down" any particular weapon arbitrarily. Instead, we looked at a whole bunch of battle descriptions, which actually made note of misses, and came up with our own "battlefield" probability to hit. It might not be exactly correct, but it is at least consistant internally.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I did no suggest that some particular guns have been given a smaller hit percentage than others. As I understanded the tweak affected all guns. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In general, remember that test range numbers are done under rather ideal conditions and not battlefield conditions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thats why I also conducted my test in ideal conditions in CM. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In CM the gunner is trying to fire pretty much as fast as he can. On a range, unless the test parameters state otherwise, great care is taken with each shot, which would increase accuracy quite a bit. Not to mention that the test gunner was not being fired upon or worried about unknown threats suddenly popping up from nowhere.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I understand this reasoning. However German data that I have (and which is already presented elsewhere in this thread) also gives estimate of battlefield accuracy which is considerably higher than in CM. Data is taken from original KwK 36 manual which was produced pretty much trough the mid-late war period. If they had found out that their estimate of battlefield accuracy was far too optimistic I would think that they would have changed those numbers to reflect reality. I also think that they would not represent unaccurate information to troops using the guns. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There is also the problem of the TacAI taking over and either moving or popping smoke during the test. If this should happen it will totally throw off the numbers since test range data is not against moving or obscured targets. Weather and partially broken terrain also factor in here, but they can be rulled out by using Clear weather and putting the targets on pavement (I would think).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I did not see any other actions by TacAI than target buttoning up when it was hit. It did not move a inch (I watched the target from 50 m away and not from shooter perspective) during the test and I'm positively sure that it did not affect the hit propability. Target did not pop smoke because it didn't have any. I used M4 Jumbo as a target which seemed to think that Tiger cannot penetrate it and did not bother to move anywhere, even at range as close as 100 m. To conlude: target did not move and it did not pop smoke. I think I will concentrate on one range and to gather large set of data and then analyze first round hit propability and hit propability after hit. ------------------ jochen Kids today! Why can't they fetishize Fascist military hardware like normal people? Ladysmith wants you forthwith to come to her relief Burn your briefs you leave for France tonight Carefully cut the straps of the booby-traps and set the captives free But don't shoot 'til you see her big blue eyes

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also, you stated, "This was not a suprise since BTS has stated that they have intentionally weakened hit propability of all guns at longer ranges from hit propabilities which were achieved in combat." Did BTS give a rational for this? If this is indeed the case, it seems to me that one of the historic advantages of German weaponry has been compromised.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think someone quoted (in that notorious "German Optics" thread) old message by BTS which stated that they had data about gun accuracy in different conditions (I think it said it was German data, perhaps same as I used and what is available trough links in this thread) but they made hit propability smaller in longer ranges. I think (can't remember for sure) BTS stated that they thought that hit propabilites in combat was too high. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>- Then it's far from sure that the first round fired will be seen by the gun crew, or that corrections from one single round are enough. I'd let five rounds be fired before any certainty to have the aim right.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I meant that first round that hits the target. This should produce quite visible visual effect. After this round the target, following rounds are fired with same gun laying setting and hitting depends only of gun's own dispersion. I can't produce this in CM ie. after round hits enemy tank the hit propability of next round should be higher than before since correct range is already known. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> - Both target and gun are supposed to be stationary. This luxury was rarely ever available in combat, so there was always the need to account for target velocity and elevation difference, and estimate the new range. When firing from a tank then that would usually move between each shot as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is bit more advanced subject to test. But I think that we must first determine does CM produce realistic results with stationary targets. I'm quite sure that CM does not model target tracking between individual shots. Can BTs comment on this? I think CM calculates hit propability from size, orientation and speed of target and velocity of firing gun for each individual round fired. In other words I think that even when gunner is firing at the same target as before he does not "remember" where his round went, thus missing shots after direct hit and not gaining any bonus for tracking same moving target for several shots and observing needed lead. New bed arrived, gotta go! i post later more. ------------------ jochen Kids today! Why can't they fetishize Fascist military hardware like normal people? Ladysmith wants you forthwith to come to her relief Burn your briefs you leave for France tonight Carefully cut the straps of the booby-traps and set the captives free But don't shoot 'til you see her big blue eyes

Readily I admit that crew quality is an issue. I used a regular crew but might run tests later with different experience level crews. ------------------ jochen Kids today! Why can't they fetishize Fascist military hardware like normal people? Ladysmith wants you forthwith to come to her relief Burn your briefs you leave for France tonight Carefully cut the straps of the booby-traps and set the captives free But don't shoot 'til you see her big blue eyes

Yesterday I build 2000 meter long shooting range scenario to test out some guns. terrain was totally flat without anything else but landmarks marking different ranges of 100, 500, 1000, 1500 and 2000 meters. Weather was clear and ground was dry. I had accuracy data of 88mm KwK 36 L/56 an so I decided to test regular CM Tiger IE. Target was M4 Jumbo which was stripped from all ammo and smoke. Test data of real 88mm KwK 36 L/56 was from target size of 2.5 m X 2.5 meters. M4 is not precisely the same size but quite comparable. First range was 2000 meters. I had to move M4 for a bit so that Tiger could spot it. 30 rounds fired, 2 hit target, hit propability 0.067, CM reported 0.21. Hits were about 8th and 22nd shots. Real life data indicated combat hit propability of about 0.5 at this range, shooting range hit propability was higher. Second range was 1500 meters. Now tiger could see M4 without moving it. 30 rounds fired, 8 hit target, hit propability 26.7, CM reported 0.54 (I think). Hits were roughly evenly distributed. Real life data indicated combat hit propability of about 0.75 at this range, shooting range hit propability was higher. I have full test data down to 100 meters at my home so I can post them here if needed. i realize that 30 rounds are bit small sample but I think it gives idea of the accuracy. Few things I found out: - Hit propability of this gun in CM seems to be ok in ranges near and below 1000m, after that hit probality is smaller than what was reported by 88mm KwK 36 L/56 manual. The difference between manual data and CM data gets larger as the range increases. This was not a suprise since BTS has stated that they have intentionally weakened hit propability of all guns at longer ranges from hit propabilities which were achieved in combat. -If CM data is compared to real life 88mm KwK 36 L/56 manual data from practice shootings, the different is even larger. - Seems like CM does not model target tracking. I would think that after first round that hits target range would be known by gunner, eliminating some of the guesswork and leaving round dispersion as only variable increasing successive shot hit propability greatly. This was not evident on test at any range. To conclusicely test this I should conduct more test sets of 30 rounds to see if hit propability increases after first round. If benefit from target tracking is not modeled in CM it is quite a omission. I have also data for KwK 75mm L/24 and I think I will test it also since this gun can be found from several German halftracks and armoured cars. This is a low velocity weapon and quite different than 88mm KwK 36 L/56. This might give idea of behaviour of slow velocity rounds at distances. If the hit propability at longer ranges (> 1000 meters) is for some reason weakened this gives some relative advantage to tanks that are equipped with lower penetration capability. Guns with better penetration capability cannot exploit their advantage as they might have done historically because their effective "can kill but cannot be killed zone" is reduced due to smaller hit propability at longer ranges. Example: Tank A has capability to penetrate tank B at range of 1500 meters. Tank B has cabability to penetrate tank A at range of 500 meters. -> Tank A has penetration advantage (can kill but cannot be killed) of 1000 meters over tank B. However this advantage is smaller than it was historically if hit propability beyond say 1000 meters is smaller than was historic. Tanks with lower penetration capability can get closer to tanks with higher penetration capability easier and score kills. Interesing issue, I keep posting my findings here as I progress. ------------------ jochen Kids today! Why can't they fetishize Fascist military hardware like normal people? Ladysmith wants you forthwith to come to her relief Burn your briefs you leave for France tonight Carefully cut the straps of the booby-traps and set the captives free But don't shoot 'til you see her big blue eyes

I don't know about you guys but I find idea of onboard 150 mm indirect fire gun very useful. I think German IG's should have indirect fire capability much like mortars. Why not, fire control is quite similar as is ranges. I don't think it's fair to say that IG's are modeled as OBA. I play low point QB's and very rarely I have enough points to get 150 mm OBA. On the other hand, single sIG 150 mm in indirect role would be much cheaper and perhaps more accurate, suitable for shelling small strongpoints. IG's had the indirect fire capacity in real life and apparently were used in that role too. I hope this will be reflected in CM too someday. ------------------ jochen Kids today! Why can't they fetishize Fascist military hardware like normal people? Ladysmith wants you forthwith to come to her relief Burn your briefs you leave for France tonight Carefully cut the straps of the booby-traps and set the captives free But don't shoot 'til you see her big blue eyes