thomasj

Ah what the heck. WooooooHooooo!!!! :cool:

Please send a copy this way also: james.d.thomas@us.army.mil Thanks, James

Any new updates on this? *Bump*

*Punt*

Looks great man!!!!!

I'll second that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ntg84: The bears almost killed the vikings, so watch it. Go Bears Go Bears<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thats what I'm talking about! I mean when was the last time we (Bear fans) had a team with an offense!?!? It's great to see.

For all those wanting more information on the ZEISS Optics please go to the following link: http://www.wingssimulations.com/zeiss/zeiss.html This also has a nice clip from a tiger training manual.

Hear hear.

Ari Maenpaa, Great post. Thanks for digging out the game stats on the guns, and for pointing out the optics issue also.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: Firstly, How do British tank optics compare in the quality stakes? I imagine they were a bit more on the ball with regard to longer engagement ranges with the desert experience. Also they had the 17pdr which falls into the category of "flat trajectory/high velocity" that you guys are alluding to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I believe that using the desert "Africa Korp" as an example only helps to prove my specualtions even further about the gun sights and accuracy being better on the AXIS tanks. Where most tank engagments were well out of the range of the Allied armor, and where a force of around no more then 275 pieces of armor constantly pushed a force of over 1,100 pieces of armor all the way back to Egypt, and held them there unit their number reached over 1,500 pieces of armor and also recieved a massive fighter bomber increase. Which again as many others battles of the 2nd WW end with air power pounding AXIS tanks and troops into nothingness.

Thanks for the supprt Tom-W. I have ran over 50 ranges now and am now in the process of running the range by vehicle type, one on one through all the tanks that are currently in CM. I know, it's a huge project, but hey! I do believe, though i have no detailed information about it, that neutral steering would prove to be a huge issue when talking about fixed gun tanks like the stug turning on targets, since chasis movement is their aiming when more then a 11 degree turn is required. Maybe this could be modeled by giving them an increased turning rate? Dunno, only a thought.

Just throwing in my post to support the idea and bounce it back up top. Come on your graphics wizards!

Still running the range, experience levels of the crew seems to only affect the outcome of 2000 meters plus gunnery to a very small degree. Still in the process of collecting more data though. On another note the flatter a guns trajectory and the higher the velocity of the round the more accurate and more punch the round has. Not to mention that with a flatter flight pattern, the less you have to move the gun for aiming purposes. It think that the major reason for this thread is that in these ramges that are being ran, by many of us, that there is clearly a higher hit and kill rate leaning to the allied guns at ranges around 2400 meters. The only time this seems to not be the case is when the Allied armor on the range is the straight up M4, but still even then the gunnery of the AXIS tanks is rather poor. Also to this is the fact that the AXIS tanks had sights that had magnification up to 5x on most and up to 6x on a few and that these sights had range clicks built in them for finding proper range to target without giving away position by firing marking rounds. No allied tanks had these to my knowledge and that the allied armor relied heavely on firing COAX MGs to get range information wihtout wasting main gun ammo. As always though these are my observations and knowledge and if I am off the mark I welcome information on these isues for I think we all want to expand our knowldge.

Just to keep this one alive a bit longer. Some things I would like to hear more on.