Tanaka

See guys, that’s what happens when the school is over... Why 24hours/day; 365 days/year school doesn’t exist for some kids puzzles me Now you know what some times a teacher has to put up every day… definitely a profession to respect

Do these include all those setups I knew in advance my adversaries didn't have a real chance of wining?

he is not "angry" ( :mad: ), he is "confused" ( :confused: )

Who is Fionn ?

No, only your memory can take you out of this one

Now I know why I didn't sow it... It wasn't there

Who fights at night? Only bats I think... Aren't we supposed to be a sleep ? PS- Shhiii...don't tell no one, I didn't see the "night" word on his post

I’m sorry, but… Never sow this and I'm pretty sure it isn't possible... There is no FF for infantry small weapons in CM. Look for other possible causes for the fact…

I remember my teacher’s alert regarding conflicting names between English and Latin origin literatures... The funny part is that I think the “tempering” English word comes from the Latin one (Romans), so the different technical meaning must have some funny history behind it. For instances, in Portuguese (a Latin origin language) we type “tempera”, meaning a fast (or not so fast) cooling from the “austenite” domain with intention of forming “martensite” or “bainite”… (This is equal at least for French, Italian and Spanish) The direct translation into English is “tempering”; wish for the English speakers is a thermal treatment made normally after “quenching” and under the faze transformation temperature (A1). So the correct translation shouldn’t be “tempering” but “hardening” or “quenching”… I think “quenching” is more appropriate for the “martensite” formation, as for non Fe alloys there are martensite forming treatments that nothing have to do with hardening. Martensite is hard in Fe alloys, due to his capacity to retain Carbon in its crystal structure… For instance non Fe alloys, martensite is softer then the austenite faze… (Austenite is a high temperature faze and it very important regarding the final structure of the material) The C flows into the steel by diffusion… This process was used for many centuries in Japan on its famous Samurai swords… (I also think the Persian used it). Yes, thanks, it clarified the things… I did a metallurgy “chair” a year ago and I’m now doing a thermal and mechanical treatment “chair”… This together with a composites materials one are my favorites In a more general way, its funny how the 2nd ww armor used the “all or nothing theory”… an hard steel armor vs. a full of kinetic energy AP projectile… bigger/harder the steel armor the better…hehehe The only energy dispersion method used was the “slope” introduced by some designers, even then as we all know not all sides of the war went by sloping the armor, wish is quite funny as the principle behind sloping is one of the XVIII classical mechanics. (I think maybe the problem for some tank designer not going after the slope was the difficulty of manufacturing the edges needed for the “sloped” armor…as we know stress-cumulating points). When the micro-soldering (heat) penetrating type projectiles come along, the tank designers answered with pre detonation plates… Its also of some interest to see in nowadays TV (for reasons I totally dislike) how the Israeli army rehabilitated their M60 with pre-detonations blocks (useful anti-rpg)… What fun I and others would take out of an armor analysis of a nowadays LAV or a MBT… Now if any of you gentlemen’s out there wants to give to “my” university one of these vehicles, obviously only for didactical and learning proposes, is more then welcome I herd submarines are even funnier…if a submarine comes along… ok forget it Just to finish this already long post, Jeff Duquette… Yes it would be interesting to find the original text and get someone who could read it… As we all know Russian translation about Russian armor are as impartial as English translation about American/English armor (hehehe…don’t flame me!)

Again, this composition numbers or any others, in the form they have been presented here, have no great value… How did they get them? X-Ray diffraction? From what part of the tank/armor are them? From how deep are them? Surface of the armor? Crew compartment? Even if at a certain place in the armor, the steel composition was exactly that, it might be the result of a poor homogenizing processes (austenitizing) and be far away form the rest of the armor composition. In my view, there is much more importance in how the steel was tempered* (speed/austenizing temperature and time) and what thermal treatment it had after tempering*... *-I can’t remember exactly, but I think there is a conflict in what is the meaning of tempering for Latin origin languages and Anglo-Saxon ones… By tempering I mean fast (or not so fast) cooling of a material (main goal is to obtain martensite). “Quenching”?!? Is that the word you use ? For instances, for the composition quoted above in order for a complete martensite composition, a quite fast tempering* would have to be done wish add up with the Cr composition, would lead to a very fissure prone steel. ---------------------------------------- Edited after seeing Michael emrys post... Again, there is a technical word for what I mean by "bubbles", and again I don't know the English counterpart... "bubbles" is what I did when was a child with soup and water [ May 19, 2002, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: Tanaka ]

This is an important source of true problems, steel temperability, and it shown by the difficulty, due to internal tensions, of uniformly tempering a big piece of steel (see Jominy works). Another true source of poor steel quality could be defects on the steel manufacturing process allowing problems as the high level of S or P or yet “bubbles” to show up in the final steel. Now, as for the steel composition, you all point only for trace amounts of V in all 2nd ww steel armors, I’m a bit amazed that the grain size limiter proprieties of the thin vanadium carbonates were not explored by the time. It is also commonly known Cr is a steel hardening element, but it is of no use if this Cr doesn’t have sufficient C to form the (FeCr)3C… Saying these and also not wanting to annoy anymore any one with technical details, it is my believe that: The soviet scientists and engineers of the time were as advanced or more as any western counterpart in regards metallurgic studies, so in relation with steel composition, I don’t believe there was any theoretical shortcoming of their part… A shortcoming to exist had to be in the manufacturing process in likes of the ones I talked in the 1st paragraph or some others also pointed in this topic. Even this manufacturing defects most likely had nothing to do with lack of knowledge but instead had their origin in the war itself… (Unlike the UK and USA, USSR had a very destructive war in his home soil as we all know).

Could you elaborate a little bit more? Lack of Cr? Lack of V? Lack of Mo? thanks

Olle Petersson, Sorry , but I don’t have time for ifs and what if and the sort… That was an extreme situation example so the point was well understood, obviously it didn’t work for some… Next time read the post fully; my English is not that good, but for skilful minds, half word is enough :cool: So in short and in a less confusing way here are again my thoughts; Facts Due to engine short comes and compromises the following happens: 1-Fires never end 2-Fires don’t spread 3-Objectives are not flexible; they can’t change once the battle starts… After saying this, in my opinion, using fires intensively, and most specially in firewall functions is not polite or it isn’t the gentlemen expected behavior in a pbem or tcpip CM game. --------------WARNING----------------- The intended post ends here, after this, read at your own risk; its lecture is only advised to open minded types Obviously some man “want to be” need a victory above all and desperately, so ,all tactics are valid… :eek: They play with infantry recon by death; mix country forces; mix army branches; soft AA vehicles; jeep ruches (mg and at); firewalls, AFV lines… in short a “gamey” extravaganza! These guys are not playing for enjoyment, they are in a nervous state where victory above all is what counts… to them My advice regarding playing with these gentlemen is: 1- Wait for them to grow up. 2- Write a 3 or 4 e-mails congratulating them for something, a victory, their name, the cat, the dog, their simple existence or something else. Normally after four quick e-mail “victory” parades in a row they feel great and play in a more decent way. 3-Don’t play them… my final and maybe the only true advice [ May 17, 2002, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: Tanaka ]

How smart...clap, clap, clap... I’m amazed, why don’t write a book about it ? 1-Fires in real live spread. 2-Fires in real live run out of “fuel”. 3-Fires in real live can be put off. 4-Troops in real live don’t have 30 to 60 min to “get that flag”. What are you implying ? You enjoy a game in likes of this one: Guy with 6 FT… the other with a full Bn. Guy of FT “mounts” a firewall around the flag with his troops inside. Guy with the Bn spends some time figuring out what is really happening. Guy with the Bn loses the game. Isn’t that a complete disrespect for your adversary? Not only making him lose his time but also for putting up a game that he doesn’t have a chance of wining? Would you like to spend 3 weeks playing a pbem only to find out your fighting a fire wall and you can’t do anything about it? You will say: “No, not to me, I wouldn’t let him put the fire wall up and he doesn’t have time to do it” What if he buys 6 FT carriers ? Does he have time now? You, as a defender, can very easily put a fire zone in a flag you can’t/don’t want defend… now you don’t need to defend it, but neither your adversary can get it. Nice, isn’t it?… not :mad: PS- Must say I only once found an adversary doing firewalls at one of my games… but as you can probably guess I wasn’t particularly happy about it

I’ve this game pretty much since it come out and I only played 3 or 4 time against the AI, all other more then 160 games have been played against human opponents by PBEM or TCPIP. So have in mind that for me CM is not a solo experience and I pretty much have seen all kind of “gamey/dirty/bug” treks… so the answer is MC So this “CMMC” is a CM meta campaign where the player can play on the role of a Bn commander to other more higher hierarchic military positions… Where does CM come in? As you may have guessed, CM is the battle solver of the MC. The CMMC site is here: http://www.combatmission.com/ Look in the CM Meta campaign section (under the chat section). There is also another MC here in the general forum… I’m on the beginning of the rules understandment of this one, but at 1st site, it is different and the strong points/limitations of this one are not the same of the CMMC. CMMC is a more a military conflict simulation… General forum MC is more a 2 small country at war simulation… I’m the opposite, I’m under the idea on the real live, “95%” of the armor penetrations result in a vehicle being unfit for combat for the next 60 min

It is interesting you talk about EFOW, it is one of my "fears" regarding CMBB Right now, we can have the odd situation of hiding infantry entirely miss a 4 m away on the “open” terrain passing by APC or Light AFV… It just remains a sound contact all the time, you just fell the need to scream “open the eyes, don’t fight with them closed !” When this happens the funny (not so) part is that the sound contacts spots the hiding infantry in woods 1st!!! My fear is just that with EFOW, this problem happens more often… That is a game engine limitation (also a user hardware one), and I’m almost sure it wont be solved for CMBB, maybe only for the engine rewrite… when we are both grandfathers Saying that, I’m not worried about KO vehicles not blocking the LOS… the most limiting situation is the “not KO” ones, not blocking the LOS. Right as the system stands, its one of the limitation it has on its superb AFV game engine… In real live a line formation of AFVs (mainly used for travel by road and not for combat) is very limitative in terms of firepower for 12 o’clock arc fire… In CM no… it’s one of the best formations, as the back of the line AFVs have a bigger chance of not being spotted (remember, no relative spotting), and they all managed to fire 12 o’clock . Of course the terrain plays a major role in this limitation… it can downplay it (hills) or “help” it (plains with narrow ”paths”). Another factor with this one is the battle sise of course… more points there are, more AFV can be bought, bigger the chance of a “ line” of AFVs Conclusion… always play with hills and don’t go very high in the points It has a random factor in it… has the AFVs interiors are not modeled in CM I think the ammo dimensions and ammo type play a major role on the equation that determines the type of damage. Maybe the speed of the gun that fires it and the type of vehicle on the receiving end play a role too… Having in mind I didn’t do any “study” around this… I’m under the impression a PIAT penetration will almost always result in a vehicle being abandoned… An APCs has a big chance of being abandoned when hit by an AP round… A penetrating HE round (light armored vehicles) has a big chance of resulting in a catastrophic KO (fire). and so on... This is getting long, just to finish… This abandoned/KO difference is not that important in a “normal” regular QB… That’s why we have MC (in likes of the CMMC or the General forum one), as they increase the “reality level” that the battles of CM are played and this is very important… For instances, right now I mostly only play with “usuals” and on MC battles… No operation or campaign system BTS can produce in CMBB will ever be on the level of a good MC… unless of course BTS “sponsor” an MC… wish they more or less do with CMMC right now. One thing that would be good in CMBB and onwards would be a built in “GM” friendly battle system … Well, what is that ?… You GMs think on that [ May 15, 2002, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: Tanaka ]

Taking completely out soft vehicle damage model for obvious reasons, I came to four main possible sources of your discredit 1-Tanking out a catastrophic situation as an explosion or a fire (this last one is not that uncommon)… You want to know how in a battlefield you manage to know that a tank is abandoned or knocked out by a single shot at a certain distance ?! (Hmm… this is more for FOW and not for gun fire/damage model, but anyway…) 2-Using an extreme situation as an example… You can’t see how a 88mm AP round that penetrates the armor and “hits” only air inside a light/poor armored tank and after that exits on the other side, has as a result that the vehicle is abandoned, even with “only” that “apparent” damage ?! 3-You want to know why a light armored vehicles is abandoned after “only” “four” or “five” .50 AP bullets go through its side armor ?! 4-Tanking out the “hit or not” and the “penetration or not” calculations made by the game and after a careful statistic study of your part … You think/are sure you came to the conclusion that the game determines randomly the damage result (no serious damage; armor flaking; a crew casualty; abandoned; KO) ?! So, wish one is ? 2 is ok still, 3 is too much work

Peter Analysis is one book I’ve read with joy.. Murphy’s law is the responsible for any defeat I’ve had or will have in a PBEM or TCPIP CM game A few war material “sick” people are behind this game, even without know them personally, I would put my hands in the fire for their effort (Have in mind that I’m only speaking about the gun fire model… including armor) Now, not every thing is perfect and if there is something wrong, and there is, it has only one of these 2 reasons: 1-Too difficult/demanding to implement… 2-They missed it, or they don’t know about it… About 1 there is not much we can do, 2 is a possibility… 2, the best way is to find the so-called “error” in the gun fire game engine, prove them wrong (or enlighten) with a fact… They will never do the opposite, gives us their know-how (the formulas) and say :” Here are the formulas, what do you all think of them ?”

That is why we have Weibull statistics… basically we can assure that a certain % of the shoots will behave inside a certain pattern. Almost all major differences between the game model and the “old sailor” histories have been analyzed on this forum and justified… basically if you have any fact (not an history) that proves the model wrong, bring it on, this board enjoys a good discussion. Evidently, the model has a random factor inside of it (this is not a game of chess), we like when that 88L71 gun fires a 50 m shot on a rear of stooped M4A2 and it fails… (the gunner could be thinking if god really exists on that split second or he might have had a little ..hmm… problem in his pants…we will never know ). What we might say is that this random factor applies well for mid rage confrontation, but not too well for short ranges (ie. How can a non-suppressed soldier fail a 5 m shoot on a stooped AFV? ), but even this as not been proven… remember we keep in our memory longer the odd things (close range missed shots) then the “normal” things (the hits). [ May 12, 2002, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: Tanaka ]

Classical mechanics is their proof... Is that good, or do we need quantum mechanics ?

You can't transfer units to another HQ... For your other question, look in here http://www.combatmission.com/ in the Article section.

I’m inspired today, so here it goes When the computer is on, the temperature goes up, with temperature metal dilates… When you shut off your computer, temperature goes down, and the metal contracts. This fan axel radius differential will at the long run, induce a discrepancy between the metal axel of the fun and the plastic support of the axel (the plastic support becomes wither...The prime reason for this is friction by use and not what I described above, but never the less it adds up). So, in the end the fun will have micro-oscillations wile it is high speed rotating (the fun will not be fully parallel to the MB), and that is what you are hearing. Are you sure it is the CPU fan? (Can be CPU, MB, Video Card, Hard Disk or supply source fun) The costly solution (not that much) is to exchange the fan it self… Another approach is; for instances, as all my computers are always open, when on those (hot day/cold night) spring/fall days one of the funs goes noisy, I just apply a little pressure on the center of the fun, in a way the noise goes away or goes down considerably… What you should never do is to diminish your cooling ability by slowing the fun… Semi-conductors are the back-bone of your computer, and contrary to metals, they work better cold, colder the better (don’t freeze them )… Ok, the prime function of cooling is not to work better, is to prevent melting, but never the less… For instances, in some video cards, 10ºC differential makes the card change is clock speed considerably (slower graphics)… That’s why some low end computer components assemblers save on the fun, as they know it wont destroy the component… but on other hand it will under perform when “on” for some time (in truce is just a statistical problem). Why you don’t have speed control of your funs ? Your mother board has a 3 way connector for most of your funs… One is the power, the other is the ground and the 3rd one the rev. counter… To work, your fun only needs the power and the ground, so once again in order to save money some assemblers don’t connect/or don’t have the rev counter… No rev counter no speed control (by variation of the voltage in the power). Hmm… maybe this is a bit confusing, never the less here it stays PS-By the way, in your MB BIOS you have a better temperature controling system then the windows software you are using… [ April 29, 2002, 01:26 AM: Message edited by: Tanaka ]

That was an effective roadblock... it was gunned and all

Wasn’t the MG42 the source of “inspiration” of the M60? I heard, that for whatever reason they were not capable of copying it completely, so they come up with the M60