Mannheim Tanker

Originally posted by Red Devils: "I also found it funny that three of the people who flame newbies (and members!) the most responded to it." LOL! If you consider my recent responses to newbies flames, then I have no problem with getting flamed. I just thought that Pacestick missed the point of the FAQ and request for searches. I'm not advocating that people don't bring up old arguments. I was really pointing out that they might get better answers to their questions if they searched first. Many of these threads contain a series of answers that will be more detailed than any single post they may get by starting a new thread. That was dealing with newbie questions...as far as opinions on topics go...well, you know the age-old adage As far as I can recall, I've never told anyone to NOT post their opinions. If I have ever been less than civil to any poster (member or newbie alike), I'd like for them to step forward. I've never intentionally slighted anyone, except for maybe the hamsters.

What you do with your rear is your own business, but I prefer to leave mine as is (and I don't like hamsters either!)

Good points, Steve. The comparison with CivII really drives it home. Like many others have stated, I think it all comes down to the attitude of the poster. I apologize if I have ever come across as "intolerant" in my search requests...

LOL! Have you ever seen that old war movie where they painted the sub pink? I don't think it gave them any stealth characteristics, though.

Thanks for all of your work, Manx.

I'm not arguing that it won't work technically - my point was that it was probably not very practical for use on AFV's or infantry. If the thing is covered in mud or is getting bashed into trees, will it still work? I also wonder if the value added is really worth the probable high cost...if infantry are already fairly invisible to the naked eye (eg snipers and scouts), do you need an expensive system to make them more invisible? I was really hoping that some wingnuts out there would be able to comment on whether this would be more practical if applied to aircraft. I could also see law enforcement applications (eg a stakeout).

"isnt it enough that they made you game that didnt suck?" ROTFLOL! True enough. I guess that's why I was gritting my teeth. I often must bite my tongue when asking about "new" features, because I feel a bit ungrateful in doing so!

Pacestick: I'm not recommending that people shy away from delving into topics that have already been discussed, but for them to take a quick look at what's already been thrown out there before posting. BTS has closed threads on several occasions that have resulted in the same circular arguments that occurred in earlier threads on that topic (eg the Great Roster Debate). I think people will find that they can contribute a lot more if they're aware of the pros and cons of a given topic before they post on it. I don't think many people have been treated very rudely on this forum - it's about the best group of guys (and a few gals) that I've come across on the net. Edit: Note to self - spellcheck!!! [This message has been edited by Mannheim Tanker (edited 08-14-2000).]

Don't forget communications as a combat multiplier. Get thar the fastest with the mostest.

I wouldn't call it negative - more like realistic. I've been around the R&D community just long enough to realize that a large proportion of the "great ideas" out there never materialize because the world has a funny way of not imitating laboratory conditions. If you can't get a simple laser tag system to work reliably on a tank or foot soldier, I find it extremely difficult to believe that you'd be able to get this thing to work. Besides, my personal atomic transporter system will make all of this obsolete

I think this is a really good idea, guachi. I thought of something else after posting my message above. It would be really helpful if, after searching and finding a thread on a topic that has already been discussed, people just posted to the existing thread rather than creating a new one. It makes it much easier to follow the trains-of-thought of the posters if they're all in one thread.

The biggest problem with applying this technology to land warfare is that it doesn't address the method with which all modern AFV's acquire targets - their thermal signature. I've scanned woodlines with daylight optics and have seen nothing, but when I switched to TIS (thermal sights), I saw an infantry platoon sneaking forward! Most land units can already make themselves "invisible" with standard camoflage and smart tactics. Der Unbekannte Jäger (clever handle ) hit it on the head - new technology is cool in the lab, but is often impractical when brought into the field. We had so much trouble with MILES gear (which is probably 1000 times less complicated than this stealth stuff) that I can't even comprehend getting this stealth package to work reliably on ANY land system. This technology would probably have a better application in stealth aircraft. From my understanding, the F117 is most vulnerable in daytime when being tracked by optical sights. If this "Predator" technology actually worked on a plane (and didn't foul up the other stealth technologies employed), it would render it nearly completely invisible from thermal, radar, and optical systems. Cool idea to think about... [This message has been edited by Mannheim Tanker (edited 08-14-2000).]

Minnesota: The scouts and groundpounders get just as muddy as the tankers I'll believe this thing when I see it...I saw a more than a few gadgets proposed for tanks when I was on them that got stuck in the connexes (storage lockers) by the tankers because they were pieces of ***t. The turret hammock comes to mind

"Hmmn.. i woulda figured if they got this far they woulda thought of that already" LOL! I work at a NASA facility, and you should see some of the hairbrained ideas that people come up with! [This message has been edited by Mannheim Tanker (edited 08-13-2000).]

First, I think that flood of newer members to this board is a great development, as it will bring fresh insight to many topics of conversation. The old timers on the forum have also contributed a lot. As a relatively new member myself (joined just this spring), I have learned a ton from the more established posters. I've also found that it's always best to do a SEARCH on a topic before posting a question, since there's a high probability that my question has already been discussed at some point over the past 2 years. I'm not going to play forum police, but I will recommend that before posting, please do a quick search on your topic. It will save you from receiving some blunt, clipped answers from those that have already discussed the topic 1 year ago - and moreover, it may help you to fine-tune your question to discuss a point on that topic that hasn't been brought up before. Thanks! Edit: Once again, I'm a nonspelling ***k [This message has been edited by Mannheim Tanker (edited 08-13-2000).]

I won't flame you too badly but please do a search and you'll see that this has already been talked about ad nauseum (including in a resurrected post just last week).

Cool idea, but I'd LOVE to see them get it to work on a tank that's full of mud, getting banged up by trees and the crew, and that can still provide the same NBC protective properties as the CARC paint that's currently on NATO armor. Still very impractical IMHO. It might work better on a plane or chopper, though. What do you wingnuts think?

***Gritting teeth*** I believe this has been discussed already about 345 times...I'd love to have this feature too. Do a search and it will bring you up to speed.

It can happen with small arms fire, and it can happen with Hetzer fire too (unfortunately for me recently)

Do a search on this if you want to learn more - there was a big discussion on it back in April or May IIRC.

It's been a while since my last CM dream but I did have a strange CM moment yesterday. I was watching a movie, and there was one shot from a rooftop where you had an oblique elevated view of the city (you can probably already see where this is headed!). Without even thinking about it, I had this sudden wish to rotate the view around the city to look back that the location of the movie shot (and maybe use a different camera angle). Time to take a break!

What is a roster, you ask? In its simplest form, a roster is an object that is sure to start a flame war between grogs in their efforts to prove their manhood to each other, most likely by demonstrating why their style of play is superior. Sidebar: EVERYONE knows that my style is the best...just ask anyone else that's posted to a "roster" thread and they'll tell you "I know which style is best..." (in case you missed my dry sense of humo(u)r...) Edit: nonspelling idiot [This message has been edited by Mannheim Tanker (edited 08-10-2000).]

Ahhh...but Germanboy, aren't we all expert scholars in silliness in the "real world"? (smiley inserted for good measure).

Please do! My dog now recognizes the "exit" explosions, as is evident by his excited expression as he bursts into the room: "Oh goody! My master is finished playing games!" Seriously, I'd like to try out your sounds...

Joe Shaw and Germanboy, you both clearly need to go back to school. Any WWII grog worth his salt would know that the P22 was fitted with a Holy Hand Grenade dispenser! The P69 was designed with the "Shade" attachment. Sheesh! And y'all call yourselves scholars!