:USERNAME:

I cant believe that moving from a pentII system to a 1Ghz wouldnt speed up this part of the game. Is that what you are saying?

The fact is that the game makes PF30s ineffective not due to any modeling error in panzerfaust usage (besides ignoring that a firer would position himself better) but that the uber spotting and sharing of said spotting puts infantry at a disadvantage. People like Jason cant see the forrest for the trees. The game uses an abstracted (and flawed) spotting routine. It puts a short ranged weapon like the faust30 in the useless category. Tanks are hard put to spot within 30 metrs of themselves when buttoned. Thats a fact. But the game does a 360 and makes them completely aware of their near surroundings. I look at it this way; Panzerfaust 30 are "actually" hand thrown weapons in reality (like mag mines and such), the panzerfaust 60 represents the "real" 30. Dividing production figures by kill claims is so beyond the scope of the game that it boggles my mind.

I cant believe some of the math/logic that goes on here. The PF was a one shot weapon. It therefore is more like ammo than a gun. You wouldnt divide the number of 7.92mm produced by the number of infantry kills would you? Many fausts were used in street fighting, bunker busting, destroyed during barrages (I heard they were volatile and you wouldnt keep it in a trench with you but outside on the ground), shot to pieces in trains, left behind because of infantry attacking,etc. The proper way to analyze it is to look at tank destruction studies. Towards the end of the war , hollow charge weapons, in suitable terrain, were accounting for a good number of tanks. Jeesh Lewis

Check out Comp-u-plus. You can get a 1 GHz TBIRD and a FIC AZ11E MB that will allow you to use alot of old chips, hardware and have alot of the expansion possibilitys for later. It has AGP4X, ATA100, etc and you can use PC100 or PC133. I think the combo is about 273 $US. To step up to DDR is alot more bucks and you need to buy the memory etc. Ill be able to report a upgrade to 1 GHz from PII400 at the end of next week.

Check out Comp-u-plus. You can get a 1 GHz TBIRD and a FIC AZ11E MB that will allow you to use alot of old chips, hardware and have alot of the expansion possibilitys for later. It has AGP4X, ATA100, etc and you can use PC100 or PC133. I think the combo is about 273 $US. To step up to DDR is alot more bucks and you need to buy the memory etc. Ill be able to report a upgrade to 1 GHz from PII400 at the end of next week.

And you dont understand the issues either. If you bothered to read other threads, then you would know that I NEVER said there should be an easy or guarenteed way to get HD to terrain or vehicles. It should not depend on the players micromanaging the vehicles. It should not be a sure thing but a reflection on the crews training and status. Just because you order it doesnt make it happen. You are missing the point. Certain functions like firing weapons, choosing targets and things like getting HD should depend on the crew. Not the player. Thanks for setting the thread back 8 months or so. I dont believe you for a second that you know when you are HD to a piece of terrain. Its only known when a vehicle target drives onto that terrain. Lewis

I think the Athlon/MB combos that are selling for 250-275 are the way to go for people that have a PII and below and want to keep as much memory/hardware as possible. I am buying a 1GHZ and a FIC MB that accepts all my old memory and allows expansion into the future for ATA100 hard drives as well as PC133 mem modules, AGP4X, etc. I am still going to have enough parts left over to put together a PII windows NT machine for just engineering tasks. I still have a vid card with 16MB that I had upgraded from because of CM. My 32MB Cougar vid card should work better with the faster processor. The price of PIV machines and the DDR/Athlon MB prices are just too much. Ive never been a new car man and take my performance within my budget.

Shouldnt the armor guy move first?

In a recent thread BTS said it would consider changes to the handling of PF use. I suggested that extending the range of the fausts should be modeled beyond the 30/60/100 numbers 5-10 meters. This reflects the infantrymans ability to quickly make a short burst to a better/closer firing position. An alternative is to measure the range from the area the squad/unit could occupy. These werent fixed 88s but man mobile weapons. Personally, I find the 30 model to be useless in the present game. The omnispotting buttoned up tanks dont help. Lewis

OK this stuff belongs in the general forum (or maybe the major general forum )so I am padlocking this one up !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Madmatt (sniff)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The stug commander, gunner and driver are all on the right side of the vehicle (lets say you are facing the vehicle). His visability is then better on one side of the vehicle than the other (when buttoned up). Being lower to the ground than a tank offsets this a little. A big advantage is the proximity of all these three elements. They were within arms reach and could interact better than a compartmented vehicle (The gunner could kick the driver to face a certain way). The elevation difference in their LOS was smaller than a turreted tank and this allowed the vehicle to use terrain better. As soon as the gunner could see a target, he could tap the driver. In my opinion, the teamwork was magnified. This isnt easily translated into CM modeling. The vehicle proved itself from 1942-1944 and it wasnt luck. Its role as a TD was well known but it was also an integral part of any infantry attacks.

LOL!!! That would realisticly model the worst crew I can think of!!! Do you really think the TC has to get out and ground guide the tank into position under combat conditions?

Hey are you the Conall from Panzer Elite? I almost forgot how much I dislike your posting style. Heres a better website bub. http://web.inter.nl.net/users/spoelstra/g104/firefly.htm#ffcamouflage I think you may need to catch up old boy. Start from the beggining of the thread and read all the words real closely. I mentioned that the achilles had some sort of weight on its barrel and this serendipitously would stop muzzle jump. How thats a red herring is beyond me. The basic physical fact is that mass resists movement. Called Inertia by alot of english speaking people. So muzzle brakes have inertia and so did that weight at the end of the achilles. So your source claims that APDS cant be fired from a muzzle braked weapon? Thats interesting. You got wrecksford all excited about that? Aside from the fact that the 17lbr is braked and fired APDS, do you see anything wrong with that picture? The sabots need some interaction with the atmosphere to discard. That doesnt happen till the shell is a little clear of the end of the barrel. XRay photos backed it up. It was known in 1945. Ill have to go to my car and get my notes. In the meantime. Please use good sources like myself. lewis

I was thinking of something similar. The owning player would not know how many guys was left himself once the unit started getting depleted and was beyond command radius. I think that units out of command radius should be 'fogged' so that the player doesnt have as much knowledge or control over them during the orders phase. These fogged units dont share LOS lines or spotted units either. It would be a nice way to curtail the shared knowledge bank. The TACAI would make the decisions for them (if there was anyone left). So lets say a player gamily runs a unit into enemy lines so as to find out whats over there. The shot up recon guys will blink into ? mark status after being whacked (and all spotted enemy are not reported on screen). The owning player loses control and wont find out the status of the unit till a 'good order' unit can see them. Units with radios might not be so susceptible. Basically, I think that too many battles get the 'army soldiers syndrome'. Thats when the little plastic guys fight to the last man. Also the level of synchronization is way off. Its more like football than battle. But these are just ideas. Some people get off on Mods and I get off on ideas. And others like things just the way they are and will give weak arguments why there shouldnt even be an option for whatever they cant get their minds around. Lewis

I would like to see your references. By the way, you confuse trajectory and yaw in another post. Tarjectory has to do with the translational motion of a projectile; I.e., its path. Yaw has to do with the rotational motion of a projectile about an axis. Pitch deals with the projectiles nose going up or down. Yaw deals with rotation that would make the nose go left to right (like slip in a airplane). Roll has to do with the round spinning about its centerline. http://www.missing-lynx.com/gallery/canada/emhybrid.htm Heres a website showing a model of a firefly using some sort of barrel weight. It shows the barrel being painted white in an effort to camoflauge itself. What the bulge in the middle of the barrel is something of a mystery. I still can provide data on the US and British sharing of APDS during the war.

Hey Jack, you better not be talking about me there. I put alot into the threads about HD and it doesnt bother me a bit if there are trolls here that like to crawl around trying to pretend they can ascertain the TCs POV when it isnt even there. Most are probably at the wrong scale and flattering themselves. Thats fine by me. I am hoping to get BTS to realize the issues and not get caught up in reactionary reasoning/pissing contests. I never get overwhelmed and defended everything I said rather well. The bottom line is the game engine came up short. Maybe you should go back and do some homework. Lewis

You miss the point. You assume that there is a target that will stop your tank/SP/whatever from moving too far. Many people want to be HD to an area. Why not read the previous threads and decide? If nothing else, the fact that a defender cant setup units HD or make some sort of check is unrealistic. The arguments against giving HD orders to areas further away miss the point also. Its the game that allows you to micromanage ad infinitum the amount of moves even into future turns. The TC will be at the area and is making the move at that point. The commander is just abstracting that dynamic. As most fans of the board know, the game does not model multiple POV from a vehicle. It also does not model levels of HD. You are or you arent by some formula. This needs to be addressed for CM2. The issue of gun depression is also major and I hope BTS either can model it well or do a decnt abstraction. Lewis PS. Old Blundering Butt (Thats Maximess yall). Are you still playing Chance? Cause when I played it , it was a demo. Back then, there was a definite HD status issue. You couldnt tell what was HD. Are you sure you were HD? Hmmmm.

From that thread....Suggestions "1. have a command so that you extend a line designating a target/position that your vehicle will attempt to move forward to find a HD position in relation to the target/position designated. 2. Have a way of drawing a LOS from the "hunt" commanded-to point. You use the "hunt" command normally and get to examine the LOS or LOF from that 'hunt-to point'. {like the rotate string,} 3. The "Hull Down" command is two part: first designate target/position, then designate the maximum move forward to area. A two string command. 4. Designate an "ambush" marker (out of LOS obviously) and the hunt command is used and the unit will move forward till it just spots the ambush marker." (Was all this really last july?) It occurs to me that vehicles like the stug would be able to get into hull down positions quickly because of the position of the driver in relation to the gun. He was at almost the same level. So a stug could get HD and quickly get the drop on someone. A HD stug shows only its best armor and typically less area/height than a turreted HD vehicle. But thats another mother of a thread between me and Steve. Anyone remember that? Lewis

I believe the US 75mm Pack howitzer fired the same Mk84 shell as the Sherman 75mmL40. Most data contradicts the US uber sherman had a super gun. Even your data points out that most german 75mm had at least as good if not better. I have brought this up to BTS attention and they basically dont comment. Heres a website that shows fillings for US shells. http://library.atlantic.edu/amatol/p-061%20The%20Plant.html It must also be considered that 75mm arty gives itself away with the whining of the spinning shell coming in. Mortars have the distinct advantage of coming in quieter. The mortor shell also lands almost vertical. It spews its fragments out very efficiently while the arty buries them or sends them skyward. If I had a choice, I would not choose to come under 81mm mortar fire if moving in the open. If I were lightly dug in, then I would not want 75mm arty poking around my position. [This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 03-07-2001).]

Do I win a free pamphelet if I tell you?

I am just aware of the fact that the british knew this phenomena to be the real underlying cause of the innaccuracies. The US designers confirmed that the sabots were leaving as they should. It was then discovered that the problem was developed within the barrel not after! I dont know for a fact that the brits put an inertial weight on the end of the 17 lbr for barrels for a fix. If you look at Steel Infernos B&W pictures, you will see an example of an achilles with some sort of collar wrapped around the barrel right before the muzzle brake. It could be some sort of counter balance but would also (perhaps serendipitously) stop the barrel jerk I described above. The only other way to solve this is to have strict quality control where the penetrators are spun at a very high RPM to make sure they are balanced. The shoes on the sabots would have to be matched by weight and the penetrator sitting perfectly between them. But the US design and brit technology sharing was all late war stuff. Alot of the programs were dropped flat at the end of the war. All of this is because the APDS is being fired from a rifled gun. The preferred way to do it nowadays is to use a smooth bore and then its pretty much a non-issue.

Is this booklet going to be written in this same convoluted ramble? I have been following (somewhat) your pamphlet/booklet announcements and have some trouble understanding your points or even what you are saying. I cant imagine what the new guys are thinking.. You seem like some excited runner from the frontlines bearing such important news that you cant gush it out coherently. Breath. Think. write. Lewis PS The british had solved the problem of sabots hanging onto the AP tungsten. It was theorized to be the reason for the innaccuracy of APDS. But there was still innaccuracies afterward. The americans also thought this was the issue with thier APDS (which was not produced in time for WWII). The XRay photos proved the british right. The real issue is the centering of the tungsten round in the sabot shoes and the whole thing being balanced. Any inbalance will manifest itself (in a rifled weapon) in a barrel 'jump' (think of the mismatched weight 'corkscrewing' up the barrel). I believe the brits put a weight at the end of the fireflys/achilles barrel. Whether they knew it or not, this would have helped with solving the jump problem. The brits also had the tungsten sheathed in some sort of 'non-discarding' metal. This helped the sloped armor penetration problem. Anyway. Please stop perpetuating this sabot 'issue' myth. I hope your booklet makes it clear what you 'know' as fact and what you are theorizing/conjecturing. good day. [This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 03-04-2001).]

Peter looks a little like tom green. Or maybe a hamster..

I believe the 50mmL60 PAK and KWK (unlike the 75mmL46 PAK and 75mmL48 KWKW) fired the same ammo. I would guess that elite units like the puma mech recon would get priority on this ammo. Who knows. It certainly would make them fighting-recon.

Will Hare Krishnas be distributing your booklet at airports?