Wilhammer

Thanks for the links guys. The most important thing I can do is Listen. The picture/memorbilia thing is one technique I had in mind. When I met him, it all started with such a thing. I just showed interest, and he was most talkative. My specific questions about the weapons systems made ME feel uneasy as I was getting this information for my benefit, but he was happy to share that as well. I told him, briefly, about CM and the community I share it with, so he is prepared for that. I think I will just be my sensitive old self and show the man the respect he so richly deserves. Let him do the talking, and as suggested, let him be in the editing process. It is his story, he owns it. I am merely a conduit to get it out into the public.

I am really concerned about being overly pushy, and insensitive. This is whole new ground to me. Yeah, the momemto value is my thoughts as well. I have the resources to make a real nice book, and I am an experienced web author (www.jsclark.com), so a WWW presence is a good idea too. I also have to get up with my wife's Uncle Raymond. She told me he was a hero in the PTO and was recently in the paper for returning to Japan and giving the widow of one of the soldiers whose remains he came across his personal effects. I was an adult of age 36 until CM ended that . If I was some kid under 25, I don't think I would have a chance. Mr. Perkins was real open with me yesterday and seem somewhat awed when I called him today; he was enthralled by my effort to locate him via the 12th Armored Society, and so quickly too. I hope this works. [This message has been edited by Wilhammer (edited 10-08-2000).]

Well, I managed to find the guy thanks to the help of Vernon Williams of the 12th Armored. His name is Francis Perkins, and he was a 1st Lt. I just did get off of the phone with him, and we will be speaking again on Tuesday night. I have asked him if he would be interested in providing me with his memory and share his expereiences in the interest of doind an oral and a written history. This is the first time I have ever done this, but it is something I want to do well. Any pointers? This is more thrilling than playing CM, guys!.

Found the guy's battalion; http://www.acu.edu/academics/history/12ad/23atbx/1stpg23.htm

In relation to my cost/FP analysis post; As I illustrated, the German player does have an apparent cost to FP advantage since he has an excellent selection of troops to choose from. This is the weakness of the QB system in that the German player can buy a dispraportionate force of heavily armed troops relative to what a "real" pool of troops would have. However, as Steve pointed out, and I have proved for myself, is that this is not the only thing to consider in purchasing a force. The German squads are more brittle, they do lack staying power. My original gripe is that some rarity scheme to have an optional place/time "historical" QB is missing from the QB system. BTS is going to do something about this in CM2. All, in all, if you are considering that what the QB is trying to simulate is relative equivalence in force capability purchase options to create evenly "game" balanced battles, then CM's current QB system lives up to it's promise. If you feel you are getting the ****ty end of the stick as the Allied player in QBs, review your tactics and your opponent. If your opponent is always german in relatively large flat terrain battles, and he has to have King Tigers, then that opponent has skewed the system. Now if I could just get really good at this game.

...and I went to Office Depot to replace it. Standing in line is an elderly genetleman with a stack of photocopied sections form an old newspaper article titled "12 Men Rescue French Big Wigs". I asked the guy if he was a WW2 vet, and he was, then I asked what he did, and he tells me "I was a tank platoon leader in the 12th Armored Division". Woo Hoo!, I know my eyes lit up. I mamaged to spend about 20 minuted with him in the parking lot and got some information. He told me that he arrived in the Strasburg area on December 11th, 1944 as platoon commander of some M4A3E8s. After the German counter offensive started a few weeks later, he was in combat constantly for 6 months. "We would go out, get busted up, get some new tanks and replacements, and go out and do it again." He cannot recall how many engagements he was in, but he never had a stretch of inactivity more than a week long. I got to ask some specific questions; What was it like taking on the German tanks? "Well, it was tough. You alwasy tried to hide from them and attempt to ambush them to get some side shots. You never took them head on. If they appeared in front of you, you turned and ran. Hitting them in the front was a waste of time. I remember many times watching my shell just bounce off the sloped armor of Panthers and head to the sky." Did you have any special ammo for taking on tanks? "AP". Nothing special, like hardened rounds or tungsten? "I can't recall ever seeing a special AT round, just AP. The round did not matter anyway, it was that our muzzle vlocity was too low. The 76 had a velocity of 2700 fps, while the Panther's 75 had 3500 fps. They just ripped into us while we had to be sneaky to get a shot that could kill. A front hit from a 76 always bounced off." What about smoke rounds. Did you have WP? "All our smoke was WP, but it was not used for concealment, it had too small a blast. We used it for markers, like when we called in planes or artillery, we marked the area for them with the WP." Did you ever use it for anti-infantry? "I never used it for that purpose." What did you do if you wanted concealment smoke? "Called in smoke from 81 mm mortars. Rarely we would mass some tanks together to do it." Another thing I debate about is the use of a gyrostabilizer. Did you use yours? "Sometimes". How did you use it? "Well, I rarely shot on the move, and never against tanks. All that moving around would make that impossible. It really was useful against infantry because we would move and shoot at them. It scared them to see a bunch of tanks moving and blasting at the same time. I don't think German tanks did that. We found it effective. But we could not do it if the terrain was to rough, as the gunner could not focus." Did the gyro give you any advantege vs. a tank? "No, not really. I never shot at tanks while I was moving. It did help us to get a shot in sooner as the gun would be close to the proper elevation, but sionce we tried to ambush German tanks up close, I don't think it really mattered much." Except for a few dates and a little conversation about myself (which is not interesting to CMers ), I found the guy interesting and informative. Assertive personality. When I met him in line, he was number 2 in one line, and then jumped in front of me at a line that just opened, just before I reached the point I would of been officially in line. HE ended the conversation firmly saying "Well, I have to go". I thanked him. I left very happy, but this stupid CMer forgot to get the man's name That's it. Thought you guys might enjoy it.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/011102.html Go to the above thread. We have been there and done that, but you will find some useful analysis charts to view. If you want my cost analysis spreadsheets, I'll get 'em to you. Check out the above thread first.

Found on the Oral World War 2 History site, www.tankbooks.com. Tony D’Arpino: I think Sergeant Warren used to have the right idea. I can remember him, God rest his soul, saying, I made tank commander for a couple of weeks, that’s another story, but he used to tell me, "Listen, if you ever become tank commander," he says, "never mind getting the high explosive shells. Get the white phosphorous." He says it does the same job and twice the damage. Ed Spahr: Well, they’d have knocked us out quicker, I think, if I wouldn’t have fired white phosphorous that day. Because that one tank stopped. Tony D’Arpino: Nobody got much white phosphorous until Sergeant Warren. Ed Spahr: I hit him right in the front and that tank stopped because he thought he was on fire. Interesting. -Wilhammer

So, when can we expect an IPO? I have never heard of a wargame getting reviewed in a newspaper. [This message has been edited by Wilhammer (edited 10-05-2000).]

Won't shoot what you can't identify? Dead wrong. Friendly fire is more prevalent, I feel, than what we are told. I read just recently (was it on this board?) a story about some GIs manning an ATG that got shelled, bugged out to a covered entrenchment, and when they lifted the lid, the GIs inside (Engineers, if memory serves me), riddled them with bullets, killing the whole crew. You are in a battle, you are scared to death, and someone you can't identify is coming at you from the enemy's approach. NOT pulling the trigger would be VERY difficult to do.

Hakko, Thanks. I was just getting ready to summarize the thread to get us back on track, and you showed us the way.

Looks like we got a game! I will gladly set up one for you both, just ask. I will have some time late tonight. You can send me the movies and I can write the AAR. I will design the parameters, you will make your purchase, and maybe can have some fun with the "Slappy and ThickHeidman Show"! Gotta laugh. Serious leads to a heart attack. [This message has been edited by Wilhammer (edited 10-05-2000).]

Jeff, Please drop it.

Jeff and Slappy need to do PBEM, Hellcats vs. Tigers. Jim Lehrer can moderate. ============ Hmmm. A new ladder setup. 2 guys decide they want to play and another guy sets up the battle. This can't possibly be an original thought, but it is an interesting idea. [This message has been edited by Wilhammer (edited 10-05-2000).]

Adding to my "Rules of the Argument" with these corollary; 1.Name calling, even if you think it is deserved, will always cause your argument to be consdidered withour merit. 2. No one is stupid. They may lack facts or research, but they are not stupid. How else could thet play CM? Come on guys, let's avoid the Ad Hominim barbs and stick to the argument. If you think someone's point is dubious, logically state why and provide damn good reasons. Calling folks liers, etc, is destructive and contributes nothing but animosity. Also, it takes two to tango, so if you are the subject of a misunderstaning or verbal attack, try not to join into the fray. Can we all kiss and make up? "Just the facts, ma'am" Joe Friday.

POWs, what an issue. Huge damn issue. Germans went rushing to the West because they knew they would get better treatment than the Soviets would hand out. German POWs spent much of the time in the US or Canada, and many got work release and became farm hands, etc. In Louisiana, a national disgrace was exhibited when German POWs were allowed access to facilites that were denied to Black Soldiers. Horrible. The Germans killed, tortured, and worked to death, and starved all Slavic prisoners, unless the conscripted them on the West Front, in which case they were fodder and labor. The Russians probably still have German prisoners, and Italians, and Spanish, and others, along with piles of the dead in mass grave sites. War is horrible, ain't it?

Basic Rules on presenting an argument and earning respect while doing it. 1. Never get angry. 2. Never get angry. 3. Unless you know something to be true, and have taken an objective look at the "facts", avoid making conclusions. You will almost always be wrong 4. Facts are almost always irrelevant when stood up against belief. 5. Changing people's minds is VERY difficult. 6. Never get angry.

The Wing's developer article is interesting, but very poor in its comparison with American optics. It does no comparison as if Zeiss optics are in some vacuum. It only says that American optics were poor (how did we win the war blind?) and that the site provides NO range markers. This assumes you NEED range markers. It explains Zeiss optics, and blast Allied optics WITHOUT any supporting reason to do so. Did they take the word of Germans who said the American optics were poor? Did they pay too much attention to the "Gee-Whiz" comments of GIs? No evidence is presented as to why the American system was poor, if it was poor. I remind you, after the battle prior to Kasserine Pass, the US NEVER lost another battle. We must of been able to SEE the enemy to CRUSH him. The Germans in WW2 were technology dependent to a ridiculous level at times. They trusted machine over man. Technology is NOT always the answer, and too much dependence on it cripples us when it breaks. The question is; depending on doctrine and training, as well as culture, would the different methods of finding and hitting targets mean any real difference? Do American boys, many use to hunting and 'fixin' stuff' without technology (bailing wire and spit) have a disadvantage for not having Zeiss optics? So far, I have yet to see any comparison report or history that attempts to argue and present facts to show if one system is better than the other, only stuff that reports German optics in detail in combination with American optics being called names without reference. Could someone please correct me and show such material? [This message has been edited by Wilhammer (edited 10-04-2000).]

"This is exactly what is at issue here, High quality German sights and optics really aided those experienced German gunners in seeing where the shot fell and helped them WAY more than the Allied sights account for the difference of where they aimed and where the shot fell." Prove it. - Wilhammer

Slappy, You are on the verge of being funny, very funny. I will take it up. "Should we factor in the nutritious eyeball factor?" Sure, I bet the US Quartermaster records will show us how many carrots were deliverd to the front. A trip to the national archives is in order.

Lunch Time Reading Below are all the missing posts from Yesterday. ===================== Originally posted by :USERNAME:: It is BTS' position that the burden of proving the obvious is on the rest of the world? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If it is so "obvious" why can no one easily show it? It is often funny how something becomes "obvious" when one can not support/prove it... Cav =================================== 10-04-200 12:27 PM Back to the begining of the thread: "For explanation for gun optics for both American and German please check the following web site: http://www.panzerelite.com/ Click on the developer Journal icon and then click on link called "Zeiss Optics" There is a big difference between Allied and German optics and I'm a bit dissapointed that it isn't modelled in CM. This I believe gives the allies a bit of an advantage. Peter" I'm sorry I can't find the thread or the reference but I have tried this tactic before, quoting that exact web page. But Steve and Charles will reply with something to the effect that they refuse to model any optics bonus in their game on what they consider questionable data in another GAME. What we really need here is the actual source of the information in that article. I have read it over myself and think that all that info regarding those German optics should be modeled in CM BUT Steve and Charles (and I think they ae wise to do this) want the source material that that article was based on and some hard data to determine what actaul long range spotting and targeting advantages (if any) should be coded into or modeled with a patch into CM. It is a fair position to take and I don't blame them. But so far I have been at a loss to come up with compelling, accurate, historical refenerences to say that this or that German weapon and optics combination are exactly this or that much more effective than, this or that weapon or site at this specific range. Without those data, or historical references or field tests, I don't really blame Steve and Charles for holding off on this one. UNLESS a case can be made for modeling it as an abstraction, because there are other abstractions in the the game, then why not the long range German optics bonus as an abstraction as well? That is the only logical (?) (slippery yes) position we could advance and it too does not hold much weight because they will say if they model the German optics bonus as an abstraction then some other group of players will DEMAND to know exactly how and why this feature made it into the game, when they have NO historically accurate facts figures or data to even base their abstraction of modeling this bonus on. I don't blame them for refusing to model the German optics bonus on another games (PE) idea's, data or information. I'm still a little frustrated on this one because I don't know where to look to find information to help them model this proposed german optics bonus into the game? -tom w ============================ 10-04-2000 12:45 PM I can´t help it but has anyone of you guys already bothered to try to understand how target pick-up and bracketing in the german tanks worked ? If not I suggest to take a course in german and read through the chapters of the Panther- and Tigerfibel. Pantherfibel: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/pantherfibel.htm Tigerfibel: http://www.geocities.com/tigerfibel/tigerfibel.htm Perhaps that could help to bring some light into the dark of this thread BTW: The Wings Team with their Panzer Elite article on german optics is right on spot. Cheers Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891 ====================== 10-04-2000 12:59 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by aka_tom_w: Back to the begining of the thread: I'm sorry I can't find the thread or the reference but I have tried this tactic before, quoting that exact web page. But Steve and Charles will reply with something to the effect that they refuse to model any optics bonus in their game on what they consider questionable data in another GAME. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The article can be found at http://www.panzerelite.com/zeiss/zeiss.html. Interesting to note that while those favoring increasing German optics based on this article seem to have over-looked this line in the article, "Variation in gun powder and differences between guns allowed precise shooting under 1000 meters, while those factors added a random element beyond 1000 meters. Shots beyond 2000 meters were considered lucky hits, at 4000 meters pure luck." Cav ========================= 10-04-2000 1:06 PM quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Ron: Can you explain that comment further? After looking at a few guns and running some tests myself, I never found any % increase for the Germans in ranged fire. Actually because most Allied tanks have a faster ROF and were shooting at larger targets, they ended up being slightly more accurate at range, ie getting more hits. I would be interested in hearing more. Thanks, Ron -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think there may be a slight misunderstanding here. I'm pretty sure there is no built-in advantage for German guns just because they are German. AFAIK, when a gun fires at a target, there are only 2 things that affect it's accuracy (we're talking CM here, not RL): 1. Muzzle velocity of the gun (higher= flatter trajectory= more accurate). 2. Size or profile of the vehicle being shot at. This assumes both vehicles are stationary and not hull down. Therefore, the 17 pndr will be more accurate than a 75/48, if both vehicles are of about the same size. But in the case of a Firefly dueling a Hetzer, the Hetzer may end up with a better to hit because of it's very low profile. The reason people say that German guns are already more accurate in CM is that most German guns are higher velocity than most Allied. However, this is somewhat mitegated by the fact that some German tanks such as the Panther have a very large profile rating in CM, making them "big targets". ------------------ So maybe you should listen to this Vanir guy instead of ignoring him -- he has the best take on the whole thing. - Combatboy ============================= 10-04-2000 1:07 PM quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by The DesertFox: BTW: The Wings Team with their Panzer Elite article on german optics is right on spot. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Which part of the article? This part: "Shots beyond 2000 meters were considered lucky hits, at 4000 meters pure luck."? Or is this a case of picking and choosing what one wants from an article? Cav ================================ 10-04-2000 1:22 PM quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Variation in gun powder and differences between guns allowed precise shooting under 1000 meters, while those factors added a random element beyond 1000 meters. Shots beyond 2000 meters were considered lucky hits, at 4000 meters pure luck. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yep, that´s what it was. Just to add some doctrine out of own experience with the Leopard II and it´s laser beam range finder. I guess it´s the same for the M1-Abrams because AFAIK they use the same rangefinding optoelectronics and computer. Doctrine could be different of course. Doctrine is that main fighting distance is considered to be 1500 metres! And above 2500 metres it isn´t sensible to engage any target! Of course it´s possible, but you better wait for a sure kill below 2500 metres. The laser rangefinder is able to aquire targets up to 4000 metres. Beyond 4000 metres target pick-up isn´t possible with laser, you have to use your reticles and judge distance. That is possible but everything else than sensible at this distance. Cheers Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891 ================== 10-04-2000 1:26 PM quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by The DesertFox: Yep, that´s what it was. Just to add some doctrine out of own experience with the Leopard II and it´s laser beam range finder. I guess it´s the same for the M1-Abrams because AFAIK they use the same rangefinding optoelectronics and computer. Doctrine could be different of course. Doctrine is that main fighting distance is considered to be 1500 metres! And above 2500 metres it isn´t sensible to engage any target! Of course it´s possible, but you better wait for a sure kill below 2500 metres. The laser rangefinder is able to aquire targets up to 4000 metres. Beyond 4000 metres target pick-up isn´t possible with laser, you have to use your reticles and judge distance. That is possible but everything else than sensible at this distance. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ummm... isn't this article refering to WWII? ========================= 10-04-2000 1:29 PM The Wing's developer article is interesting, but very poor in its comparison with American optics. It does no comparison as if Zeiss optics are in some vacuum. It only says that American optics were poor (how did we win the war blind?) and that the site provides NO range markers. This assumes you NEED range markers. It explains Zeiss optics, and blast Allied optics WITHOUT any supporting reason to do so. Did they take the word of Germans who said the American optics were poor? Did they pay too much attention to the "Gee-Whiz" comments of GIs? No evidence is presented as to why the American system was poor, if it was poor. I remind you, after the battle prior to Kasserine Pass, the US NEVER lost another battle. We must of been able to SEE the enemy to CRUSH him. The Germans in WW2 were technology dependent to a ridiculous level at times. They trusted machine over man. Technology is NOT always the answer, and too much dependence on it cripples us when it breaks. The question is; depending on doctrine and training, as well as culture, would the different methods of finding and hitting targets mean any real difference? Do American boys, many use to hunting and 'fixin' stuff' without technology (bailing wire and spit) have a disadvantage for not having Zeiss optics? So far, I have yet to see any comparison report or history that attempts to argue and present facts to show if one system is better than the other, only stuff that reports German optics in detail in combination with American optics being called names without reference. Could someone please correct me and show such material? [This message has been edited by Wilhammer (edited 10-04-2000).] ========================== 10-04-2000 1:31 PM Sure it does. But you see that despite use of laser etc.. the distances haven´t changed that much. My above post is only meant as an example how it works today and not as a reference how I think it might have been 60 years ago. cheers Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891 =============================== 10-04-2000 1:54 PM quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by The DesertFox: Sure it does. But you see that despite use of laser etc.. the distances haven´t changed that much. My above post is only meant as an example how it works today and not as a reference how I think it might have been 60 years ago. cheers Helge -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My point is how can the German optics be so goood if "Shots beyond 2000 meters were considered lucky hits, at 4000 meters pure luck."? So many have hung their hat on this article as "proof" yet it is saying that long range engagments were mostly LUCK! So I guess the question is, did the Germans take out 3,000 meter targets because of their optics or because they were lucky? Cav ============================ 10-04-2000 1:59 PM quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by CavScout: The article can be found at http://www.panzerelite.com/zeiss/zeiss.html. Interesting to note that while those favoring increasing German optics based on this article seem to have over-looked this line in the article, "Variation in gun powder and differences between guns allowed precise shooting under 1000 meters, while those factors added a random element beyond 1000 meters. Shots beyond 2000 meters were considered lucky hits, at 4000 meters pure luck." Cav -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HI CAv thanks for the e-mail I believe I refered to this article back in the 88 lacking punch thread some time ago. I also am of the opinion I was the first member on this BBS to post that link and discuss its contents... Lets look at this quote... "Because you can see where your shell hit you immediately know if you guessed to high or too low. If you have a good sight to the target you can even judge the exact distance you miscalculated and thus can correct your sight and refire. That's why most experienced crews on German tanks could guarantee a hit on the 2nd shot. Variation in gun powder and differences between guns allowed precise shooting under 1000 meters, while those factors added a random element beyond 1000 meters. Shots beyond 2000 meters were considered lucky hits, at 4000 meters pure luck." I understant the author is talking about first shot hits.. "That's why most experienced crews on German tanks could guarantee a hit on the 2nd shot." I would take that to mean crack and elite German gunners in CM should have a 95% second shot hit percentage, at ranges under 1000 meters. At this time no such percentage is modeled for a second shot hit that I know of for that value for that range in CM. AND when the author says: "Variation in gun powder and differences between guns allowed precise shooting under 1000 meters, while those factors added a random element beyond 1000 meters. Shots beyond 2000 meters were considered lucky hits" EXACTLY what kind of "random element" should come into to play for ranges between 1000 - 2000 meters? I would consider that to be a reference to "FIRST shot hits" over 1000 meters being slightly more random, but still with a MUCH greater chance of a second shot hit because "you can see where your shell hit you immediately know if you guessed to high or too low. If you have a good sight to the target you can even judge the exact distance you miscalculated and thus can correct your sight and refire" This is exactly what is at issue here, High quality German sights and optics really aided those experienced German gunners in seeing where the shot fell and helped them WAY more than the ALlied sights account for the difference of where they aimed and where the shot fell. This should mean that in CM the second and third shot hit probability at ranges under 1000 meters should go WAY up. I find it VERY hard to believe that any Veteran, Crack or Elite German gunner could miss three shots in a row at a large target like a Sherman on a clear day at 1000 meters but it happens in CM alot and when it does and we discuss it here it just comes down to waht is refered to as bad luck. Well I think its bad luck because the third shot hit percentage in targeting the algorythym is not close enough to 100% in my opinion. (apparently my opinion doesn't count for much around here, so I need something MUCH more substanitial to base my third shot chance to hit closer to 100% proposal on!) What are the chances a veteran German crew firing an 88 from a Tiger will miss a Sherm three times in a row at 1000 meters on a clear day? If that number was 1 in 20 (meaning 19 times out of 20 they should get a hit on either their first second or third shot)then the third shot hit percentage should be 95%, I will bet that it is NOT modeled that way in the third shot chance to hit algorythym. But as I have stated before, I think Steve and Charles should not base thier game design decsions on how another game works. But Panzer Elite is a good place to start looking for historical source material... Thanks -tom w ======================= 10-04-2000 2:23 PM "This is exactly what is at issue here, High quality German sights and optics really aided those experienced German gunners in seeing where the shot fell and helped them WAY more than the Allied sights account for the difference of where they aimed and where the shot fell." Prove it. - Wilhammer =================== 10-04-2000 02:28 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by aka_tom_w: I would take that to mean crack and elite German gunners in CM should have a 95% second shot hit percentage, at ranges under 1000 meters. At this time no such percentage is modeled for a second shot hit that I know of for that value for that range in CM. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would disagree as I have come across several articles that at under 800 meters the Germans were unlikely to be using the range finders of their sights. If true, is there any "advanatge" to unsing German optics at sub-800 meter range? Cav ====================== 10-04-2000 2:33 PM Cav, quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So I guess the question is, did the Germans take out 3,000 meter targets because of their optics or because they were lucky? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well I think first of all we have to answer one question: Until which distance was it possible for a gunner of a given tank to EXACTLY measure the target distance with help of his optics ? I think we can all agree that all gunners knew their business and could score a hit with at least the 3rd shot if they were able to exactly measure the distance of the target with help of their optics. Now if there is a distance difference between the optics concerning the EXACT measurement of a given target you have the answer IMHO. While one gunner still was able to measure the distance the other guy had to rely on guessing the distance. If you can answer the question which method, measurement or guessing, is the more accurate, you have the answer why one side has a higher propability to hit the target at long ranges. Only problem left is to crunch the difference between guessing and measuring into a hit propability. But this is what BTS business is. Either they make an educated guess after examining the german and US/UK optics, because I doubt that any comparision study with hard figures exists, or they leave it as is. Only problem with leaving it as is will be in CM2 where most engagements were beyond 1200 metres up to 3000 metres and the german optics allowed to exactly measure until 3000 metres (PzGr39), 2000 metres (PzGr40) and 4000 metres (SprGr). I don´t adress other ballistical factors like side wind here, which makes it even more complicated beyond 1000 metres especially for low velocity projectiles. Does anyone know until which distance the US/UK optics allowed exact measurement of distance ? Cheers Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891 =============================== posted 10-04-2000 02:45 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Does anyone know until which distance the US/UK optics allowed exact measurement of distance ?" What abour eyeballs and experienced (or natural talent) dead reckoning? What was the Coax MG for? Was it not used to determine range and direction? -Wilhammer ================================= posted 10-04-2000 02:50 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by aka_tom_w: But Panzer Elite is a good place to start looking for historical source material... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Once again: Simon Fox posted a rather interesting-sounding reading list in this very thread. Don't know how you missed it. IP: Logged ====================== CavScout Member posted 10-04-2000 03:04 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Wilhammer: "Does anyone know until which distance the US/UK optics allowed exact measurement of distance ?" What abour eyeballs and experienced (or natural talent) dead reckoning? What was the Coax MG for? Was it not used to determine range and direction? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The bigger question in comparing optics of weapon systems is to compare EQUAL systems. German guns may have better long range sights because they were better long range guns. IP: Logged ======================= Mr. Johnson-- Member posted 10-04-2000 03:08 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Great debate guys. Gore and Bush wish they were this entertaining. I just think that the only way we can all answer these questions once and for all is to pool all of our money together(BTS must be millionares by now) and buy an island in the South Pacific. We can call it Wargamer's Paridise. We can build tank, rifle, gun optics, and ammunition factorys. Everyone works 5 days a week building historical accurate weapons and on the weekends we play wargames, with real tanks that we've all built. We can reproduce tank gun optics, switch them around in diffrent tanks, shooot them on the move...etc. We will have all of the answers we seek sooner or later. We will all go deaf but man It sure will be fun. IP: Logged ====================== CavScout Member posted 10-04-2000 03:17 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by The DesertFox: Cav, Until which distance was it possible for a gunner of a given tank to EXACTLY measure the target distance with help of his optics ? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think more important is at what range did a gunner START to use the range finding device. Beyond that range is when you would worry about "optical" sight quality. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now if there is a distance difference between the optics concerning the EXACT measurement of a given target you have the answer IMHO. While one gunner still was able to measure the distance the other guy had to rely on guessing the distance. If you can answer the question which method, measurement or guessing, is the more accurate, you have the answer why one side has a higher propability to hit the target at long ranges. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If all other things were equal, perhaps. But we know this is not the case. Even if German and Allied optics were EXACTLY equal, the Germans, for the most part, would be more accurate because their guns fired in such a way as to be more lenient because of round trajectory. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Only problem left is to crunch the difference between guessing and measuring into a hit propability. But this is what BTS business is. Either they make an educated guess after examining the german and US/UK optics, because I doubt that any comparision study with hard figures exists, or they leave it as is. Only problem with leaving it as is will be in CM2 where most engagements were beyond 1200 metres up to 3000 metres and the german optics allowed to exactly measure until 3000 metres (PzGr39), 2000 metres (PzGr40) and 4000 metres (SprGr). I don´t adress other ballistical factors like side wind here, which makes it even more complicated beyond 1000 metres especially for low velocity projectiles. Does anyone know until which distance the US/UK optics allowed exact measurement of distance ? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So I take it you are no longer debating for better optical QUALITY in German sights but for a better range finder? Cav =================== Wilhammer Member posted 10-04-2000 03:23 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The bigger question in comparing optics of weapon systems is to compare EQUAL systems." Oxymoronic statement. We are comparing Weapons Systems, to consider apart without its interaction with the whole is to cause error. The Question, as I understand it, is "How well could the various combatants, relative to each other, at various ranges, using similar but diffirent technologies in similar weapons systems, hit a target?". To consider just the optics is to ignore the question.

Many posts from the day's posts on the German optics thread have vanished. I have a saved page 8 of this group stored on my desktop that has all of today's posts for that thread, if anyone needs it.

My latest post bumped my page 8 solution into oblivion. I have a copy stored on my desktop, so, if want it, I can repost, I guess. I'll wait, BTS may repair.

"To Wilhammer and the gyro-subject, does the gyro compensate for infinite accelerations?" What kind of language is that? Define "infinite accelerations." The Gyro keeps the gun stable relative to the....hell, I explained all of that. If you are referring to whether or not the thing will work while the tank is moving and speeding up or slowing down, yes. As for the ranging thing, the Coax MG with tracer could tell you that. If you are familiar and/or trained with a pice of equipment, you can know how well it will perform, and some of the "Helper Apps" that go with fall away in need, same goes for knowing how your gun behaves. Warships get the range by firing multiple guns and getting the range by observing the splashes. The Coax MG does the same thing, much faster.

If you tell your browser to load http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/010850-8.html You can see all of today's posts up to around 4 pm.