ASL Veteran

Okay everyone, no need to get your panties in a bunch! Actually, I guess I really did intend to get a bur under your saddles. The reason I can use ASL as a yardstick is because it simulates the exact same scale as CM. Since it simulates the exact same scale as CM then that would mean that there are literally thousands of scenarios and operations that have been researched by respectable individuals as to the participants of battle such and such and what those participants brought to that battle. There are scenarios in ASL that do include bicycles and horse transport. There aren't tons of them, but they do exist. We aren't talking about the GAME itself, but the ORDERS OF BATTLE of the situations that the forces in each GAME face. These situations are similar because the SCALE of CM and ASL is the same. Alas, I suppose the ability to draw that comparison is beyond the mental capacities of the anti horse crowd. By the way, I do know a thing or two about history ... not that would really sway any of you guys. I'm also not going to get into a heated argument with the 'anti horse' crowd since it doesn't really mean very much to me anyway. Suffice it to say that horses, bicycles, etc could be simulated at the scale of CM. Whether you want to agree or not is really not my concern. Oh, and yes, rail guns could be simulated as well. Just include them as Off Board Artillery. Whether you would want to include it or not is another matter. See how easy that is? Okay everyone, it's okay to exhale.

The argument about horses not being relevant at CMs 'scale' is ridiculous. When the scale is individual squads, then just about everything that directly effects front line troops is relevant at CM's scale. Horses were the prime movers for German artillery and Infantry Guns. Every German infantry platoon had a few horses and a cart attached. Bicycles too had a role to play at CMs scale. And yes, they could make a difference at CM's 'scale' - assuming you knew how to use them properly of course. I would hazard a guess that the people who are violently opposed to including horses in CM don't really see the need to include trucks in CM either ... or any prime mover for that matter. Basically, if it doesn't have a gun, then why bother including it at 'this' scale since it would be beyond the scope of the game. Since horses and bicycles don't have guns, obviously they shouldn't be included. I would also hazard a guess that these objections are primarily coming from ex or current CC players since there really isn't anything in CC that doesn't have a gun. I view that position to be about as simplistic as BTS's argument that the Pacific theater is 'beyond the scope of CM'. They said something about the Pacific theater being nothing but heavy shore bombardments and beach landings more suitable for a battalion level game (paraphrasing from memory). I view ASL as the ultimate test as to whether something is beyond the scope of CM or not. If it is in ASL, then it is not beyond the scope of CM. Both horses and bicycles are in ASL, therefore they can be modelled in CM. Do we want them to be modelled? I wouldn't lose any sleep if they weren't included, but I certainly wouldn't object either.

I'm sure that they are able to work on both at the same time. They are probably still in the research stage of CM2 anyway. Got to gather all that data before you can start putting it into the game. I'm sure that TCP/IP coding work could be done while the research work is being done on CM2.

I believe that 2/3rds of each Volksgrenadier division was bicycle mounted per the TO&E

While your picture is amusing, and I always appreciate any cheap shot taken at SlapDragon (just kidding), I think it appropriate to point one thing out. A little while ago Kitty posted some 'modified' Hampster and Cat pictures in an effort to bring some humor to our little community and someone ... I don't exactly remember who .... really got on her case for vandalizing the images of soldiers who may have fought and died during WW2.

While I always hated playing as or against Partisans in ASL ... they were included and they can be modeled in CM. Partisans played a much larger role in WW2 than a train derailment or two. They also didn't just participate by being on the receiving end of anti partisan sweeps. Partisans formed large armies in the rear areas and even had tank support at times. There were many full up Partisan brigades in Yugoslavia complete with tank support in 1944 (I think they had a few Stewarts). Partisans also participated in Soviet offensives in the later portion of the war by linking up with Soviet Paratroops and forming strong formations in the Axis rear areas or to secure bridgeheads. Partisans can be modeled at the level of CM. Whether BTS wants to or not is another issue.

So the Germans captured so many of these weapons that they even designated them with a name? Well, it just so happens that the Germans designated every weapon that they captured with a name. I will just list a few for now, but I can list every allied weapon that was used by any nation the Germans fought and provide you with the German name for it. How about the MP717r for the PPSh1941 that was converted to 9mm or the MP 722 f for the French Pistolet Mitrailleur Type SE MAS 1935F and the Mitraillette MAS modele 38 (French submachine guns). How about the 8mm Selbstlade-Gewehr 310f for the French Fusil Mitrailleur RSC modele 1918 (French semi auto rifle). The Germans called the Soviet TT30 and the TT33 pistol the P615 r. The Russkaya 3-lineinaye vintovka o1891g, also known as the Mosin Nagant, was known as the Gew 252 r when used by the Germans. The SSSR 7.62mm vintovka o1891/30g which is a shortened version of the other Mosin Nagant and used modern sights rather than ‘arshins’ was named the Gew 254 r. The German designation for the Pulemet Degtyareva Pekhotnii (DP) was known as the 7.62mm leMG 120 r. I could go on and on, but I think this should be sufficient to make my point. The fact that the Germans designated the SVT’s with a name does not mean that every Soviet squad was running around with 9 of them. Perhaps you are the one suffering from the propaganda of your office mate? Since you don’t seem to like Ian Hogg’s take on the SVT 38 and the SVT40, let’s just concentrate on Peter Chamberlain’s take. For the Samozariadnyia Vintovka Tokareva o1938g: “The AVS was replaced in service as a self-loading rifle by the SVT38 which was a design by FV Tokarev. The mechanism was another gas-operated system with the gas tapped off over the barrel, and a two or six-baffled muzzle brake was fitted. Like the AVS the SVT38 had several failings. Despite the muzzle brake the weapon had a heavy recoil, but its main failing was that so much attention had been concentrated on reducing weight that the overall construction was not up to the knocks and handling of normal service life. Also the mechanism was very prone to breakdown and maintenance was not easy. As a result production ceased in 1940, but not before some selected weapons had been fitted with telescopic sights for sniper work. Some numbers of the SVT38 fell into German hands as the S1Gew 258r and these were used against their former owners.” For the Samozariadnyia Vintovka Tokareva o1940g and the Avtomaticheskaia Vintovka Tokareva o1940g: “Experience with the SVT38 showed that the basic mechanism was good but the construction was too flimsy, so as many things as could be put right were incorporated into the SVT 40. This was basically the same as the SVT38 but the strengthened mechanism and components meant that the SVT40 was a much better weapon. It was still a rather unpopular weapon as it retained the heavy recoil but it did add to the firepower of the infantry, and most were issued to NCOs. Selected weapons were fitted with telescopic sights, and a further variation came with a carbine version which was either converted from existing weapons or manufactured on the production lines – very few of these carbines appear to have been made. Yet another variant was the AVT40 which differed only in having a selector mechanism to fire full automatic. Again, very few of these appear to have been made. The SVT made quite an impact on the invading Germans as they adopted the basic Tokarev mechanism for their Gew 43, but they also impressed numbers of captured SVT40s as the S1Gew 259r – examples with the telescopic sights became the S1Gew Zf260r”. By the way, the AVS36, which predated even the SVT38, was also used by the Germans as the S1Gew 257r and this weapon was withdrawn from Soviet service in 1938.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: Jeff, their is a contrast the table in the NA book is diferent then the other 3 Jentz tables I have Ie, 100m - 100 500m - 98 1000m - 64 1500m - 38 2000m - 23 2500m - 15 3000m - 10 Trying to figure out why this table is diferent as its even lower then the modified Table 2 results. I had Tobruk but lost it so I can't comment on its refrences anyone here got it lying around?. Regards, John Waters <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In the North Africa book, Jentz uses the British method of dispersion rather than the German method so that he can compare the British accuracies to the German accuracies using the same dispersion. The British used something like a 10% dispersion and the Germans used a 5% or something along those lines.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Also, let me kick a few holes in my own arguments though. I am basing weapons captured in Korea on US accounts that often go bolt action rifle, burp gun fired at us, etc. A US soldier could have encountered a SVT and not knowing what it was just called it a rifle. Next, no doubt that the M1891 was issued in great numbers, just that there are too many SVTs to ignore them -- the USSR never had 6 million NCOs. Finally, the Germans liked the SVT-40 so much, and encountered it enough, that parts of its design went into German autoloading rifle designs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If your argument rests on the assumption that 'if x number of weapons were produced, then that must mean Y' then that is a weak argument. How many assault rifles did Germany produce, and how many made it into the hands of the troops? I'm sure that America had millions of Springfield 08's in their inventories, but how many were used? Ian Hogg says the SVT38 was withdrawn from service. I have no reason to doubt a scholar as reputable as he is. Also, Peter Chamberlain, in a completely different work, is in complete agreement with Ian Hogg. I'm sure lots of Chauchat LMGs were issued to US troops in WW1, but if the weapon was a piece of crap then sure, why not throw it into the lake? The US troops did that with the Chauchat, why not the Soviets with the SVT38?

SlapDragon is on target with the Soviet LMG. According to Ian Hogg, basically the drum was made of sheet metal and it was easily warped or damaged with rough handling. It also had a spring under the barrel somewhere and during prolonged usage it lost its metalurgical temper. As far as the SVT40 and SVT38 goes I have to disagree with Slapdragon about the scale of issue/usage. I had all my references lined up last night with all the appropriate quotes all prepared, but alas, I could not access this message board from home for some reason so I am left with a less than perfect response from memory. Basically, Ian Hogg and Peter Chamberlain say that the SVT 38 was a fragile design which required a great deal of maintenance. This drawback meant that it was not suited for the rough and tumble of everyday usage as a combat weapon so it was withdrawn from service in 1940. The SVT38's successor, the SVT40 was a more rugged design, but it still required excessive maintenance and was unpopular due to an excessive recoil. Although the SVT38 was withdrawn from service in 1940, some were still in use in second line formations when the Germans invaded and these, along with the SVT40, were typically assigned to NCO's and to snipers since they were more apt to maintain the weapon properly and use it with the appropriate care. So, the idea of whole Soviet squads running about armed with nothing but semi automatic rifles is misleading at best, unless I misinterpreted Slapdragons comments. The Soviet front line rifle was just as much a bolt action as the Mauser. If necessary I can cite chapter and verse.

Once again, I believe the differences in ASL were meant to add flavor to the game and I don't believe these differences were added because the game designers thought the differences were quantifiable. Lets just look at the French for example. There are several differences between French troops and the other nations in ASL dealing with ELR and equipment etc. Just focusing on the morale aspects specifically though, ASL assigns French squads an average morale on the good order side and a lower morale on the broken side. This makes French troops slightly more difficult to rally than German troops after they are broken. This also ONLY applies to the French forces in the campaigns in 1940 and Vichy French forces, not any Free French troops. Ok, now using this example, for ASL purposes the idea is to show that the French were demoralized by the circumstances surrounding the 'Blitz' and that once the French troops broke, they were less likely to rally because they were all running around screaming about the Germans in their rear etc. Problem with CM is that, in this campaign in particular, one could consider the French troops to be green and many of the German troops to be green as well. So if both sides are green then how does one simulate the 'state of mind' of the French troops who, even if they did fight well in some areas, still may have been suffering to some degree or another from the 'overall collapse' of the military situation. This, as opposed to the German forces, who were not suffering from this state of mind. Since CM does not currently cover this time period, I don't think that this sort of a thing is really relevant to CM 1. It would certainly need to be explored for CM 4 though because a Green French squad would certainly not have the same 'factors' when considering their state of mind as a Green German squad. Now I would not call this a 'Nationality trait' of the French. I would call it a 'Situational trait' of the French brought upon them by the circumstances of the campaign in which they participated.

The Iraqi army was different than the 'coalition force' that was ranged against it, not just in terms of equipment and morale, but doctrinally as well. There is an interesting study on both the Iraqi and Iranian militaries during their war called "Iran Iraq war: lessons learned" or some such title. It was pointed out time and again in their analysis that the Iraqi military was not able to use its armored assets as well as a 'western' nation could. Poor training of the Iraqi leadership was the root of the problem I suppose. I don't have the book in front of me so I can't get into specifics, but it explained a lot about how the Israelis were able to fend off numerically superior Arab forces for so many years (my own conclusions drawn from that book, not a comparison made in the book itself). The Arab armies simply didn't know how to use their tanks and mech units to their fullest advantage.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Paul Lakowski: OK this debate is going around in a pointless circle. On the one hand Jentz data can't be accepted cause it doesn't predict 'real combat conditions', but since no one has a clue what that is nothing can be made of it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, I don't believe this is correct. The Jentz data can be accepted because it points out the differences in the inherent accuracies of each gun/ammunition type when compared to each other. In this area we can use this data to show if the differences in these accuracies are reflected or not. Yes, it has no value in predicting the battlefield accuracy of these weapons, but it has value in predicting that the 75L24 should be just as accurate as the 88 Flak at 1000 meters - something that is not reflected in CM currently. The 50mm PAK should be more accurate than the 88 Flak. Also, APCR rounds should show a rapid decrease in accuracy as the range increases - in CM they display accuracy characteristics that are identical to AP rounds from the same gun. So, while we can't really say that the accuracy model in CM is incorrect in the assumptions that it makes, we can say that the accuracy model doesn't take into account the differences between ammunition and guns per the Jentz data. Now, in CM's defense, CM does model different accuracies between gun types, and even has differences between HE and AP, but these differences do not necessarily correspond to the range and dispersion data that Jentz has presented.

Okay, I see ASL being bandied about so of course I must jump in for a brief moment First off, I don't believe that ASL was trying to quantify anything when they created their nationality differences. I believe that those differences were simply included to add spice and flavor to the game. For the most part the differences were rather small anyway. Specifically they were the following (if I remember them all correctly): British: cool under fire – they never had suffered cowering penalties when rolling doubles on outbound shots. Range of 5 Americans: low morale on good order side, high morale on broken side. Range of 6 Germans: no special characteristics. Range of 6 Russians: Could perform human wave attacks. Had special commissar unit. Range of 4 Italians: low morale on good order side, even lower morale on broken side. Range of 4 French: average morale on good order side, low morale on broken side. Range of 5 Allied minors: average morale on good order side, low morale on broken side. Range of 5. Axis minors: average morale on good order side, low morale on broken side. Range of 5 Finns: high morale on both good order side and on broken side. Japanese: well, I’ll get into them in a minute Okay, beyond the basic differences there were some specific differences in the areas of artillery accuracy and availability (already modeled in CM) and differences in gun accuracy. The accuracy differences were basically on the order of Russians and French use red numbers and everyone else uses black numbers when trying to hit with ordnance. Another area where national characteristics played a role was in the Heat of Battle table. Certain nations were given pluses or minuses (along with other factors, such as troop quality etc) when rolling on this table. For example an elite unbroken German squad may get a minus one, whereas an elite broken German squad would get no modifiers (-1 for elite, +1 for broken). Axis minor troops were more likely to surrender when rolling for Heat of Battle and Russians were more likely to go Berserk etc. About the only thing I would like to see implemented in CM would be some sort of Heat of Battle rule whereby heroes could be created or a unit can go Berzerk and charge the enemy with battle lust in there eyes! I think it would be kinda cool to have a random chance of a squad going fanatic or berzerk in the middle of the battle. Oh yeah, and SS never surrendered to Soviet troops and vice versa. Anyway, on to the Japanese. Japanese: No broken side for regular squad. Squad was step reduced in size until eventually it was capable of breaking when it became the size of a half squad. Japanese squads could perform banzai charges! Any squad could create a tank hunter hero who ran at a tank with bombs strapped to his body! Japanese leaders never broke – they died or got wounded instead (spending too much time waving that sword around). Japanese squads stacked with a leader had their morale raised (although significantly, the standard Japanese squad still had average morale – they just never broke when their morale was exceeded). Japanese support weapons could not be assigned to squads but had crews (kinda like the way CM is now). Japanese squads had a bonus in hand to hand combat (those long bayonets were excellent for stabbing). Japanese troops were also stealthy and had a bonus to their ambush roll. No quarter was always in effect in the PTO. So, really, ASL didn’t have a whole lot of differences other than some nations were more difficult to rally than others and that is easy enough to simulate in CM. The other differences such as artillery and gun accuracy are either already modeled in CM, or will be looked at – although these are more equipment related items. As far as the Italian examples being bandied about, they would easily be modeled in CM by degrading the quality of a veteran unit to a regular unit since that is essentially what ASL did anyway. The only weird nation would be the Japanese, but I suspect even they would be relatively simple to model in CM with a little imagination.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: From what I have read I would like to disagree with that. The high muzzle velocity meant that the gunner did not have adjust for the shot drop to the same extend as for the slow muzzle velocity rounds which dropped more. The research we are refering to suggests that the shot drop of the high velocity 88's was so minimal at long ranges that if the gunner targeted the center mass of the tank or the turret the shot was VERY likely to fall somewhere on the upper hull or lower hull, as the deviation was less due to the flatter trajectory of the high velocity round, this is also why the Allied gunners liked their high velocity ammo too when they could get it. And yes without question, these high velocity rounds struck with greater kinetic energy and sure they were more likely to penetrate, but I would say more importantly they were MORE likely to hit and easier to aim and target with because the variable of shot drop was so minimal it fell within average 2-3 meter hieght of the tall Allied tanks like the Sherman. Accounting for the varible of shot drop was one the skills that experienced gunners learned, the less shot drop over range they had to deal with the easier it was to lay the round on the target at long range, and the German gunners had a reputation of being GOOD at it. -tom w<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I don't have to read anything to know that accuracy is not entirely dependent on muzzle velocity. Just go outside and throw a baseball around with a friend. You can lob it underhand, you can toss it lightly overhand, and you can throw it as hard as you can, and you can be just as accurate with each method as you are with the throwing hard method. I also see you continually mentioning the 88 Flak as some kind of hyper accurate weapon with its 'donkey eared' range finder, but the Jentz data shows that the 50L42 and the 50L60 both have superior accuracy at 1000 and 1500 meters. Furthermore, the 75L24 has the same accuracy as the 88 Flak in the Jentz data. So which is it Tom - is Jentz right or is Jentz wrong? If Jentz is wrong with the North Africa data, then we might presume that he is wrong about the Tiger data .... eh? Hmmm, quite a quandary here

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: It is nice to see Charles has mentioned this will be a consideration for CM2 in the latest interview about the "goodies" we can expect in CM2. Now that sounds positive! -tom w <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I wouldn't get too excited about that. The accuracy of German vehicles vs Soviet vehicles was already mentioned by BTS prior to this thread being started.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by machineman: It sounds to me as though the ability to shoot at range depends on a number of factors: 1) High velocity, flat shooting gun, with high quality ammunition.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Although logically this may seem to be the case, it isn't necessarily true. A mortar can be extremely accurate at long range and nobody will ever confuse a mortar with a high velocity, flat shooting gun. The accuracy of the 75L24 as shown in the Jentz tables for North Africa also contradicts this assumption. I am starting to think that the ballistic qualities of the ammunition itself must be combined with the muzzle velocity to get an 'accurate' picture of that weapon's capabilities. High muzzle velocities are important for penetration of an armored vehicle once the round reaches the target, but high muzzle velocities aren't required to get the round to the target accurately.

You want to go to the "ASL Crossroads". That is pretty much the definitive ASL website

"Major Kenneth Macksey MC Tank vs Tank The story of Armoured Battlefield Conflict in the 20th Century. (pg 129) This new method worked on the principle of firing a shot of smaller caliber dense material encased in a lightweight, carrier through a standard gun barrel: increasing velocity was obtained because the full-caliber projectile had a greater base area for the charge to act upon than the normal AP, APC or APCBC round. The new projectile was also lighter in weight. With a German round of this kind, known as Armor Piercing Composite Rigid (APCR), both shot and carrier traveled to the target, but generated higher air resistance and a rapid falling-off in accuracy beyond 600 meters." This is independent confirmation of Ian Hogg's statement about the ballistic coefficient of the lightweight APCR round. Problem here is that in CM the APCR and the AP round do not show any accuracy difference at 1000 meters for the 50mm PAK.

"Major Kenneth Macksey MC Tank vs Tank The story of Armoured Battlefield Conflict in the 20th Century. (pg 94) The clash of armored masses to the southeast of Tobruk erupted as a turmoil of formations and units seeking combat in dust clouds and battle smoke. Shooting might open from the 88s at 2000m, but hits were rarely scored above 1000m (where the L60 50mm guns came into their own) and at 300m, if their luck held, the British with their 40mm guns might begin to take a toll, Notably on the vital ground of the Sidi Rezegh feature, with its airfield, the losses to the British, fanning out to seek their quarry, mounted alarmingly as they fell into ambush after ambush." This is an independent confirmation of Jentz accuracy tables, which I have already posted earlier. The 2 pounder drops off in accuracy after around 500 meters, the 50mm PAK is very accurate out to 1000 and even out to 1500 meters and is actually more accurate than the 88 at those ranges. I think the thing about the 88 is that it could kill the Matilda at great range and that was why the 88 was considered so remarkable. Killing power, not necessarily accuracy (although still more accurate than the 2 pounder).

I've found an interesting sight that calculates the ballistic coefficient for small arms ammunition. www.lascruces.com/~jbm/ballistics/calculations.html Unfortunately they only allow the use of bullet weights in the calculations - and that's going to be too light for shells. Personally, I think comparing range accuracy to CM is comparing apples to oranges. I think the only way to get anywhere with this is to compare range data to range data and CM to CM and see if the differences are modeled appropriately. It seems to me that the Ballistic Coefficient is the main factor here (which is modified by a large number of variables). If I could find a calculator that handled that for any weight of projectile I could compare the coefficients of the 75L24 to the 88 Flak and see if they are similar.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Claus B: We seem to be going in all directions here A: Smokeless propellant. Old invention, probably used by all combattants in WWII (except perhaps certain African tribes using Napoleonic-age rifles B: Flashless propellant. Chemicals added to prevent muzzle flash. Would prevent you from being spotted by the enemy (and yourself from being temporarily blinded by the flash?) C: Muzzle blast. Regardless of propellant, when the projectile leaves the barrel, the gasses driving it will follow, creating a blast that can stir up dirt and dust. If the gun has a muzzle brake, the blast will be directed to the side and rear, throwing a cloud of dust and dirt up just in front of the vehicle/gun. Furthermore, anyone standing too close to the muzzle will be knocked silly and probably toasted as well (the temparature of the muzzle blast from the 7,5cm PaK 40 was 2100 degrees celsius). The primary problem effecting ROF seems to be C: Muzzle blast as it could completely obscure the target until the dust had settled, as well as giving away the position of the gun firing. Claus B<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> True enough, although every tank is going to suffer from muzzle blast - the bigger the gun and the closer to the ground it is, the worse it would probably be. Why would the Sherman's muzzle blast be bigger than a Tiger's? A crew could theoretically fire at a close stationary target through the muzzle blast too as long as the first shot was true.

I think Commissars were modeled in ASL quite well. Any squads stacked with a commissar had there morale raised by one. The commissar also rallied troops easier, but if they didn't rally they were reduced in quality. Maybe in CM you could make any squads in the command radius of a commissar fanatic, but have any squads that break or route or something lose a man each minute until they rally (to simulate the commissar 'inspiring the troops)

Okay, I just tested the 88mm PAK 43/41 and the PAK 43 at dug in Sherman Jumbos at 1500 meters (any closer and the AP would smoke them). Same gun, different carriage. For the PAK 43/41 HE, the initial TL was 8% and the max was 23%. For the AP rounds it was 11% initial TL and 30% max. For the PAK 43 HE the initial TL was 8% and the max was 23%. For AP the initial TL was 11% and the max was 31%. The data Ian Hogg provides says that muzzle velocity for the HE round was 2640 feet per second with a shell weighing 20.3 pounds. For AP the muzzle velocity was 3282 feet per second with a shell weight of 22.9 pounds. This gun shows remarkable accuracy in CM – most other guns I tested at 1500 meters maxed out in the mid 20s against dug in Jumbos if I am remembering correctly. This gun seems to be modeled correctly, but without any firing range data it is impossible to tell for sure. The thing that is starting to bug me is that the muzzle velocity of HE rounds is always lower than the AP rounds yet with a lighter shell. Does this necessarily mean a decrease in accuracy? Why would the 75L24 be just as accurate as an 88 Flak when it has such a low muzzle velocity? The AP shell of the 88 flak weighs 9.50 Kg at 810 m/s while the HEAT shell of the 75L24 weighs 6.80 Kg with a muzzle velocity of 385 m/s. Anyone here know enough about ballistics to answer this question? My only calculus book is for business applications and they don’t cover ballistics at all.

Whoa, hold on there guys. I never said that I disagreed with the basic accuracies that are present in CM. I only maintain that the differences in the accuracies of the individual guns/shells is not reflected correctly. I have no issues with whatever criteria BTS used to 'dumb down' the accuracies. This is why I am always comparing things to each other (either CM to CM or Real to Real) rather than comparing CM to test fire data. I believe that Tom and PzKwpf 1 have the position of comparing real to CM.