M Hofbauer

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hey hey, that's how we can use the jeeps!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ...w or w/o the MG? [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 09-30-2000).]

Bob, stuff your little bit of command of estonian, actually "Räägime eesti keelt!" translated means "I had to use the bathroom but now it's too late". Award?? All you get is a nosepunch for not answering to my "authoritative version" question on this stinkin' "english as official language" - topic that _you_ have brought up. ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

the problem (~freedom) of choice re. Jeep w or w/o MG only comes up in QBs. IMO nobody really tows guns, intentionally, in a QB. Gun pieces derive their value from opening fire from a hidden position, like, at an opportune moment they "uncloak". This advantage is nullified if some vehicle with the gun has to drive up to a spot where the gun will then be placed. ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

?

BadMot, if you decide to cut yourself some slack today then that'll be 40 minutes for you tomorrow. You know what that means - you have double the time as usual. And considering how much you are doing within your regular 20 minutes we are expecting something HUGE, mind you. ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

jackhammer, if you want us to help you you need to be more specific. which "intro music" do you mean, the movie music or the one played when you enter the main screen? If it is the latter, see my procedure above. It works fine for me. If it is the former, sorry, but not possible. "it did not work." again, that doesn't really help. exactly WHAT did not work? did the game crash, did it still play the old music, did it play no music, or.....??

you know what you are all spoilsports, the whole lot of you ... I was about to offer him that "sorry I dunno how ftp works but if you give me your address I can copy the CD for you and send it to you via snail-mail"... LOL ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

David, is your post serious or in jest? The Arado 86 did not molest any britons unless they happened to sit on a german flight school runway. The other warplanes mentioned are pre-war, too. Btw, it's the 29th already, what became of your Scottish Copperfield-forerunner who vanished a whole german severely-overstrength Panzerdivision with his magic kilt? ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

you can replace the intro music with any other *.wav file. rename your NEW intro sound to 00005010.wav and move it into the CMBO/WAV/ folder, where it replaces the original. ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

damn, you are right, Mr Clark! I could have sworn the MG Jeep has no transport capability, but I checked and it has! Is this new ? ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

"Maybe some units don't have a rarity at all? Thus in '44 I would never run out of Rifle '44 squads?" exactly, something like that, I agree.

Slapdragon, thanks for the explanation. I mean it, thank you. However, you write "The United States has no national language, since to mandate language would be a violation of civil rights." and in the next sentence you write "Some States have passed English Only laws, but they only cover in what language official documents are published." excuse me but I find this ridiculous, it is like saying "No, it is NOT a bike, it is a BICYCLE". If something is officially published in english, then english is de facto an official language, call it whatever you want. "Many areas have more than one language for official documents" but only a limited number of such quasi-official languages, this does not cover the example of the armenians above. "Finally, if you are arrested in this country it is required that you are read and understand your constitutional rights." Interesting. In our legal philosophy, it is important that people know what's right and wrong BEFORE they violate the law. This is hard to do if you get a translation of official law into you language only after you violated it. You did not answer my question about "authoritative text" above. The main job of jurists is to interpret the text as presented by the law. Obviously, translations of the law into other languages means a loss or change in meaning. Hence it is important to know which is the authoritative version, if all other means of interpreting fail to reach a common meaning between the two possible versions. Hence my question about the authoritative version of the US Code. If the authoritative version of the US Code is the english one, then this proves IMO that english is the de facto official language. what do you think? again, thanks for your explanation ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

One of the main problems I have had with this in CC is that there have been (many) times where I could not buy a historical force because I ran out of Rifle '44 squads or something...but still had those SS squads to but. that is not a problem of the system per se, but of How it is implemented. If done rightlym, there would be enough. Just because someone builds an aircraft that doesn't work doesn't mean the whole idea/concept of aircraft is invalid. The other problem is that in a ladder game you can play the same person twice switching sides for balance only to have your forces restricted to PzIVs and he gets his choice of King Tigers, Tigers and Panthers (for example). Especially for ladder play, I would much prefer that randomness be removed from the force selection and just have CM adjust the cost making the more rare units more expensive. The rarity is OPTIONAL, ok? o p t i o n a l... that means ladder guys don't have to use it - voila. It's like saying "I am not sure if the option to make a right turn in a vehicle is a good one. I might turn right, and turn right offf the street into a tree." If there's a tree, don't turn right. Easy. Besides, there is another OPTION for ladder players. The option is called "get a life". Sorry, but "ladder" is a term which IMO is in the same category as "MS Zone", "Quake 3", "12-o'clock-flasher" and McDonald's - customer ION, I really like the idea Hans put forward. Now, CM/CM2 will not be a business simulation, but the limited OPTION to edit the forces presented, under a penalty, does look interesting. CC2 worked that way too, if you rotated a unit out of your forces, you would get half that unit's original value back. Interesting. ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

just wanted to add on the reality thing: if it's optional, it doesn't hurt anyone. personally I would like a system remotely like cc2 where you can choose from a limited forcepool, the quantities available (=in the forcepool) are determined by a rarity factor plus a little randomization factor. ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

The reason why the regular Jeep costs as much as the Jeep with the machine gun is because the regular jeep has transport capacity (the MG jeep doesn't). Force projection and force multiplication. An aircraft carrier itself is worthless. But it can carry airplanes to far away places. That's also why the SdKfz 251/1, armed with only a measly 7.9mm machine gun, is so damn expensive - because it can get people to places. infantry, FOs, commanders for rallying, engineers, AT teams, machine gun and heavy machine gun teams, pull an AT gun etc. ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

Bob, It is not mandated as the numerous movements like English First! with their attempts to having english established as the official language demonstrate. wait a minute- did I get this right, are you saying that english is not the official american language? wow...in school, english, we had learned that some hundred years back the americans which back then were just a bunch of english, irish, germans and french etc., plus the indians, agreed on english as the official language. Or if they didn't agree on it, at least it developed to be. so you are saying that there are armenian american citizen which are born in the US, grow up never learning english, go to a school where they are educated in armenian, make their armenian-american high-school diploma, go into politics, become president etc. pp. without ever having to speak english? if so, then this raises an interesting question. The US Code is in english (why?). Is there a US Code in Armenian? If there is, and the two versions differ in a critical phrasing, which is the authoritative version, the english one or the armenian one? or the Kaswaheli one? cookie question: what language was the bill of rights and the declaration of independence written in? a) armenian swaheli c) english please note that I am not trying to offend you, I am just genuinely interested and thoroughly puzzled. ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

The reason why a 50cal team is more expensive than the same thing mounted on a jeep IMO is that a 50cal Jeep cannot hide in woods or enter buildings, or plain hide at all. The 50cal team has more ammo and is more durable. ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

Paul Lakowski, yes of course there is more to penetration than that. What I meant was that Charles is right in disregarding the projectile mass for his rough comparison between 7.5 and 8.8 A performance increase if projectile mass would be the same for L56 and L71. Combatboy, "L" is for Länge / Length, I think. It is the length of the gun barel measured in the caliber (=diameter of bore). So, in theory, a 8.8cm L/56 is 8.8cm x 56 long. One has to be aware though that often the L-length isn't integer calibers, but approximations, and that between the angloamericans and the germans there is a difference in measuring barrel length (barrel vs. barrel+chamber) and caliber (field to field vs. groove to groove). Aussie Smith, to continue on this O/T olympics thing, I was indeed asking myself whether the way above average medal performance of Australia has always been like that? Or is it a thing of these year's olympics? They are doing way beter than Great Britain. What puzzled me even more though is the fact that apparently INDIA with a billion people doesn't have a single medal, not even a bronze yet. Do they not participate or what? They must be having the worst medals/population ratio around. - Wait a minute. I re-checked. India now has a bronze. ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

Kitty, ROTFL those little dead hamsters....! ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

I remember Weinberger as Reagan's Defense Secretary well. IIRC he was heavily involved with the SDI issue. If you want to ask him, ask him about what he now thinks about SDI. However, personally, I feel that asking concrete questions of that kind might semm misplaced when he is casually touring a Computer Lab. It might look like an over-eager questioning for questioning's sake, to feign interest in the VIP and his history, if you know what I mean. Wouldn't look very natural, I mean. tell him one of GAZ_Stransky's eternal one-liner universal truths, like the "Please fix! or do somefink!!!!", or tell him the current sig. GAZ-quote below *g* ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

just want to set the record straight that the original comparison (between AP performance increase between 7.5cm/L48-7.5cm/L70 and 8.8cmKwK36-KwK43) made by Charles was done assuming that the mass of the projectile fired by KwK 36 and KwK 43 was the same, and that my point was that the tests for the KwK 36 used a lighter projectile which would explain the difference in AP performance. If indeed the two projectiles were of the same weight then his reasoning and the conclusion that the AP performance of one of the two seems way off (presumably the KwK43 (L71) being rated too high rather than the KwK 36 (L56) too low) is obviously completely reasonable. btw: I have a cross-section/sketch of the PzGr. 39/43 - 8.8cm of the KwK 43 here, however I cannot find the one for the Pzgr. 39 - 8.8cm (KwK36 and FlaK 18/36, 36 and 37 *g*). The difference in composition and makeup would maybe help in determining how much they were alike, esp.in the mass aspect. Maybe they were almost identical, like the 7.5cm projectiles in the L48 and L70. Anyone having a cross-section of an 8.8 FlaK or Tiger I AP projectile/shell? ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

Charles, your post seems to be an answer to a question that I had formulated for myself. OK, so you're saying: FlaK36 = 10.2kg KwK36 = 9kg KwK43 = 10.2kg not quite. what I (my sources, rather) am saying is that FlaK 36 uses (X) and 10.2kg, whereas (X) < 10.2kg KwK 36 uses 9kg (and possibly (Y) ? - whereas (Y) might be 10.2kg) KwK 43 is using 10.2kg I did see the problem that the FlaK 36 apparently used a 10.2 kg projectile as a standard projectile, however that since the KwK 36 and the FlaK 37 ..erm.. 36 fired the same ammo, at least in the AT department, then the KwK should have a 10.2kg too. I contemplated this and the solutions for this contradiction I came up with were a) the FlaK 36 used the KwK 36 9kg projectile and a 10.2kg projectile that for someunknown reason was not used by the KwK b)the PzGr. 39 somehow "evolved" from the early 9kg type to the late 10.2 kg type. I had reached for myself the conclusion that a faint white ray of light of truth shone upon more than it did on a). your posting that The earlier type ("Pzgr") is 9.5kg, but the later type ("Pzgr39") is 10.2kg. directly goes inline with that. thank you for that info. OK, so we have two regular AP projectiles, the lighter one and the heavier one. Case solved? no, because... HOWEVER... the german tests AP performance of the KwK 36 (100mm at 1000m etc.) are using the 9 kg projectile, at least they do here in my sources. This would also make sense because then the difference between the L56 and the L71 AP performance wouldn't seem so off (this doesn't prove anything but would be a nice side-effect as an indicator). It would also make sense because such test-firings occur very early, and maybe they just took the AP data from the FlaK 36? Hmm, well the problem isn't solved yet, but it has shifted to a new area, and in the meantime I learned something. There's nothing better than a healthy exchange of ideas and data (wait - let me re-phrase that, my wife might be reading this). Thank you, Charles. There are german books available which specifically deal with the different ammunitions etc., cross-sections and all. Maybe they can help. I will try to see if I can obtain those, but it'll take time, they might be out of print etc. ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ) [edited to fix AP typo of "100mm at 10000m" *g*) [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 09-27-2000).]

Johnson, you are so genuinely funny. Hell, the corner of my mouth almost twitched into a smile. Almost! What is this creation of an artificial rivalry between the I-play-CM-now-oh-I-am-so-grognardish CM and CC wargamers? Again, the two games do not hurt each other. CC5 will obviously not harm the CM sales. People who play CM might pick up cc5 and have fun with it or not, according to their personal tastes. Some die-hard CC players might have wandered into the CM camp and enjoy it, but I think most of them will like CC5 again, too. ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

but according to the previous statements it was the KwK 43 data which was way out of line with all other guns which fit the formula, if I understood you all correctly. Currently we are discussing whether the KwK 36 projectile had a lower weight than previously assumed. IThis is illogic with sentence 1, because it would have to be the KwK 36's data that would have to collide with all the rest, not the 43?? Just wanted to emphasize that I am not going to kill anybody over this issue, my ill attempts at phrasing a contribution above might not have made this clear. Like Steve pointed out before, it doesn't really matter that much in the game anyhow. So, it might as well be 10.2kg for you, and 9kg for me. Hell I won't even be loyal to the 9kg if you put me under pressure, there's no flaming to be expected from this end of the copper cable. No no, u-uh. Everybody, see our former board philosopher's most wise words in my current signature below. peace!..erm...(seems unfitting for this board) Markus Hofbauer ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ) [originally posted to wrong thread] [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 09-27-2000).]

Charles, I understand your point about the increased penetration due to mass. good. I always find it hard to express/copin into words a concept in english. I _am_ glad to see that you understood what I meant. My comments were based on the fact (?) that the 88mm KwK36 L/56 and 88mm KwK43 (and PaK43) L/71 projectiles have the same mass. Both are stated to be 10.2kg in Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two (Chamberlain, Doyle, Jentz). wrong simply because there is no "88mm KwK36 L/56 - projectile". Different munitions existed for both guns. More below. However, it's worth noting that German Artillery of World War Two (Hogg) states that the 8.8cm Pzgr Patr 39/43 projectile used by the 88mm PaK43 is 10.16kg, but that the 8.8cm Pzgr Patr used by the 88mm FlaK37 is 9.5kg. This 9.5kg value is close to your value of 9kg. But my understanding is that there are differences between the KwK36 used in the Tiger I and the FlaK37 antiaircraft gun, and projectile mass may be one of them. So perhaps this is where confusion arises? My earliercommentary was based on the Tiger I's KwK36, not on the FlaK37. Your statement about 9kg projectile mass seems to refer to the FlaK37. I just want to be sure you're looking at the ammunition for the same weapon that I am. There were only six FlaK 37 ever produced, it was a subvariant of the 8.8cm FlaK 18/36 for use on the 18t-tractor chassis. So I assume you are referring to the FlaK 36. Among the munitions for the FlaK 36 were two types of AP projectiles. I only have data for one of those types which says the projectile weight is 10.2kg. The AP ammunition for the Tiger I's KwK 36 L/56 were the Panzergranate 39 and Panzergranate 40. Pzrgr. 40 was the tungsten version, so we will disregard it for the moment. The Panzergranatpatrone 39 had a total length of 870mm and a total weight of 16kg. The projectile weighed 9kg. AP performance according to german tests 100mm / 1000m. Production of 8,8cm-Pzgr. 39 in thousands per year: 21.2 (1942), 324.8 (1943), 394.8 (1944). The AP ammunition for the Königstiger's KwK 43 L/71 were the Panzergranate 39/43 and Panzergranate 40/43. Pzrgr. 40/43 was the tungsten version, so again we will disregard it in this discussion. The Panzergranatpatrone 39/43 had a total length of 1125mm and a total weight of 22.8kg. Weight projectile 10.2kg, weight propellant charge 6.8kg. Not only overall length was different, shell casing length with 822mm was longer, too, so that the two munitions for KwK 36 and KwK 43 could not possibly used in the respectively other gun. AP performance according to german tests 165mm / 1000m. Production of 8,8cm-Pzgr. 39/43 in thousands per year: 825.9 (1943), 1139.0 (1944), 20.0 (1945) The data is from Fritz Hahn's excellent work "Wafen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933-1945", ISBN 3-7637-5830-5. He had been responsible for weapon development and aquisition in the Heereswaffenamt (german ordnance board) and therfore was involved with many Waffenprüfämter and copnsequently nearly all weapon developments and procurements. His work is a post-war write up of the many original documents he secured from his work. I have nothing personally against all the english books on the subject, but I have come to trust and depend upon "my" Hahn for authentic, first-hand info on any german WW2 issue. ------------------ "Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)