Mark IV

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: ... your comical toys.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not mine, sport. I'm just a malicious bystander, gaffing otters.

Whoa! You blasted a great honking armored car with a mere Tank Destroyer! You da man. Amazing you could hit anything with your gamma set like that- guess that's what it looks like through Yankee optics...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wince: Exactly why it's not athread I care to read. Is there any way to block a thread I don't want to see anymore?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Wince: It hurts when I do that. Doctor: Don't do that. Seriously, the 'Pool is for CM PBEM junkies through and through. We take our games seriously, whip 'em up with some rhetoric, and laugh about whatever we can. Most of us got our $50 worth out of this sucker before the game was even released, and we can hardly believe the luck, that we don't have to keep dropping quarters to have this much fun. Every so often some cop tries to scatter the kids pitching pennies behind the gas station (during school hours, no less), but we just form back up and start more games. So as we say in the Cesspool... ...nah, fuggedaboutit. just for you.

Well, the turn that keeps on giving is once again in one of your electronic drainage basins, assuming you paid the bill on THAT account. You are SO gonna hate it, that I don't blame you for placing some kind of lien on your old ISP and forcing them under. Looks like M. Tanker's got the Beemer so I'll take that shiny Rolex- I'll enjoy flashing it to cocktail waitresses while preparing for my next Powerpoint presentation. Hey, are those combat boots Gucci? Foobar: "I dont give a damn about whales. The history of the world, is the history of wars between secret societies." Whales ARE a secret society, aren't they (visions of black UN jet-skis)? On the central coast they sound, and dive, all around us while we're fishing. It's really special. It bothers me to see that much Mrs. Paul's on the hoof, so to speak, within pistol range, and not be able to do a thing about it. Gaffing otters is too easy to console me.

He's already stricken, just hasn't fallen over yet. His designer suspenders may have caught on something. I "owe" him a turn, not the other way 'round, so it appears he tracks his games the same way he tracks billable hours, not to mention slime on the judge's carpet. I have sent it to him 3 times and it has bounced in entirety, with attachment, all 3 times, clogging my email and causing emotional and possibly financial distress. This King of Logic has failed to deduce that we must ALL have sent HIM turns, for us to know that his email was screwed and his ISP no longer exists. They were large attachments, too... all those clanging sounds and screams of Mother! I'm hit! take up a lot of e-space.

I thought Simon Fox's list was interesting so I'll put it up for the third time: WO 185/195 "New type sighting for tanks" German Military Technology: The Optical Equipment by Hans Seeger. Eyes of the Wehrmacht by Steve Rohan. Ordnance School. Foreign Materiel, volume 3. (fire control instruments & sighting equipment, German & Japanese, B.C. scopes, range & height finders) Published by The Ordnance School: Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, July 1943. (OS 9-61, vol. 3) ...these sound germane to the topic.

It can wait until CM2.

Yes. Probably no loss, though.

Are they taking any fire? That might slow them down a bit. Otherwise it should go away.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker: He'll probably just argue with you over the definition of "combined arms force" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, now it means infantry plus crews.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker: Are you whipping him as well... We'll shame him out of hiding.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Too soon for any announcements, but at least the combined arms force he put together is now an infantry force. My men are completely unharmed and enjoying their gunnery practice. Now, how you gonna shame a LAWYER?

Same here. I get: "Host unknown (Name server: (deleted): no data known)" Hey, you're not trying to win MY videotape, are you? Perhaps he has over-committed and skipped.

My wording has caused you to misunderstand- I'm not talking about penetration data- that math doesn't happen until a round hits a target. Putting the round on the target in the first place is a huge area of complex interrelationships (which is why some of it is abstracted), of which optics are only one part. The net effect is an AFV which can shoot a certain group at a certain distance. If two AFVs have similar hit chances, one because of superior optics, and another because of a very well-made tube, who cares, in game terms? The group's the thing. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Mostly I am "just" looking for an increased "chance to hit" at long ranges and an increased spotting and correctly identifying the enemy bonus for the "better" german optics<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The ID part would make sense if they want to model to that extent- clearer, brighter optics would help ID a unit at longer range and/or in lower light. Or to pick one out of a treeline. But at least one of the cited studies seems to refute that. The "chance to hit" part really has to defer to the historical record. The tanks don't need to be side-to-side and interchange components. Just dig up their gunnery school records and it should all be there. If you can't hit a 2m square at 1500+m it doesn't matter if you can ID it. It takes more than optics to make a hit... they are part of an integrated system which has to be judged as a whole. The tube and projectile design and manufacture have a LOT to do with how any bullet flies, and I'm NOT talking about kinetic energy or muzzle velocity. The solidity of the "action", or the breech and tube mounting, as well as the aiming hardware and recoil mechanisms, are absolutely critical in all gun performance, and they definitely varied from AFV to AFV. Why would we ONLY consider the optics? Why would we focus on any sub-system, when range data must be available for actual performance of every AFV in the war (Ordnance and Training types are big on these records)? It's tank vs. tank, not glass vs. glass.

Simon Fox posted a reading list that sounds like a pretty good start. I don't really agree with the requirement to put German optics in an Allied tank, to assess their relative efficacy. The optics are only one part of a shooting system, and seeing me at 1000+m is only the beginning- you have to hit me. The GAME issue is the odds of ANY given tank hitting and killing another at a given range. If certain optics were proven superior, it would confer nothing but bragging rights on any AFV or other weapon system that couldn't follow through with a kill at the specified range. So the lethality of the whole shooting package is what's really at stake. I know there have been comparative gunnery tests, at least for Panthers vs. Allied tanks, but I'm not groggy enough to have them. But wouldn't these tell a more complete story than focusing (haha) on the optics? Hydraulics, tolerances in gear drives, tube quality, and projectile design are all factors in long-range hitting. A Mark IV with the same optics as a Panther is not going to have the same luck at 1000+, is it? Any more than the same high-quality scope would guarantee that I shoot the same groups with 2 different rifles of different caliber and quality. I think a lot of us would like the issue resolved, and that very few are doing this from a blanket pro- or anti- German stance. BTW, a stupid or flamey response from a proponent of a certain idea IN NO WAY diminishes the validity of that side's intelligent arguments (just an unfortunate association, not a logical event). These accs and counter-accs really lower the quality of what was a fairly interesting thread.

Just forced an abandonment of a Hetzer with grenade-tossing Ami infantry. It rolled up next to a treeline and stopped right in front of the squad's position, in very dark and snowy conditions, and they went after it on their own. About 4-5 grenades went off at the Hetzer location before the crew bailed and surrendered. The engineer squad which had quietly been stalking it with satchel charges were probably relieved to let the grunts have some glory.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SS Peiper: and we got to have the Spanish Blue Division in the Eastern Front.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I actually made a reference to the Spanish on the East Front in the original post, but deleted it because I thought it sounded smart alecky. K. Reichmann has relieved me of the responsibility to be sensitive, so I may now point out that Kiwis & Ozzies, which sounds like a breakfast cereal, were nuts to get involved in any of it, and should have cut a deal with the Japanese. As subsequent events have shown. Wanker.

My understanding (I don't speak for them at all, but this has been their general plan as published here): CM2 is Barbarossa, forward. CM3 is Mediterranean/Africa. CM4 is Early War- Poland, Low Countries, France.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by risc: How the heck it can be ULTIMATE when it doesn't support Zeiss optics being on every German tank <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps you haven't been reading along, but the issue is what do "Zeiss optics" mean, in qualitative terms, that can be accurately modeled? Were you planning to make a contribution to that discussion?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Renaud: Read all 2500+ posts and you still won't know what's going. To whit, there is nothing going on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Cesspool is where CM is played... as a blood sport. The way it's supposed to be. We have (largely) left the redesign of this magnificent game to others and are immersed in its grandeur. For this we are condemned to slither the sewers of the BBS, locked in mortal PBEMs augmented with sneers and humiliation. Xtreme CM, Cesspool-style... bullets are not enough!

They've discussed plans for modeling other nationalities in many previous threads: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/002391.html ...for one. Finns, Italians, Kiwis & Ozzies, other nationalities on the East Front... everything but Japanese and Koreans (sniff)... at least for a few years. But they never said HELL no! I can live with that.

There are some quantifiable areas that could make a difference: Glass quality: purity of the lens, meaning optical clarity and thus accuracy at greater magnifications. Grinding quality: the more perfect the finished curves, the more accurate at the longest ranges. Distortions cause misses. Lens coatings: Low-light performance, glare reduction. A key factor in targeting optics of all kinds. Reticles and range-finders: Higher accuracy, faster target acquisition, better lead indicators on moving targets. Field of View: Faster target acquisition, greater situational awareness. Physical Durability: Ability to retain "spec" performance over the wide variety of harsh conditions, including weather extremes, shock, and vibration experienced by AFVs in a real war. These are at least some of the things optical and ballistic engineers would evaluate and quantify in assessing comparative merits of different sight manufactures. Not all of them directly affect the likelihood of a hit at long range, but together make a sight "better" or "worse" in the overall efficacy and survivability of the tank. I suspect these things have been quantified and analyzed somewhere, and I hope someone finds them... there really is no place for emotion in such a straightforward factual case. I would love to know where the PE guy got his info... it was a very interesting article, but the bibliography might yield some rich primary sources. The sight is only one part of an integrated shooting system, and aiming and trigger ergonomics and other tangibles also come into play. Barrel and ammo quality? Big time factors at long range, maybe the biggest. I often wonder if those fast turrets didn't yield something in the way of accuracy (though I don't know that they did). How precisely and incrementally, in mils, can a gunner control his traverse and elevation? These things are critical at 1000+m, where a minute of angle determines the difference between a kill and an enemy second chance.

...I thought we were an inebriated, undisciplined mob with torches and pitchforks?...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME:: Nice story but what bearing does it have...Sounds just like a case of beginners luck to me<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Question, answer. The point was that stuff happens, and luck is a big factor shoot-outs. Unexpected single outcomes don't invalidate the general principle. A Greenie taking out 2 vets (admittedly speculative in the example) is a possible outcome, but prompts cries of "no way" from the loser.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CommanderC: Don't think this question has been asked before... But would you consider licensing the CM engine to a third party so that they could develop a version of CM for modern battles...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ...and Korea and the PTO and WWI and the Crimea and the Franco-Prussian War and the Russo-Japanese War and... Yeah, it has been asked before. I think BTS needs to finish their own run before opening the engine up, though I can't speak for them. The demands for custom support would seriously distract their own efforts on the CM series... AND WE WOULDN'T WANT THAT. Would we?

I think the "Soyuz" comes first: "Soyuz Sovietskaya Socialistka Republik" Union-of Soviet (advisory councils)-Socialist-Republic. The "C" in Cyrillic has the "s" sound, and the "P" (for Republic) has an "r" sound. Never let Greek monks make your alphabet for you, is the lesson here.