Theron

I have to say that I have not felt that the Sd Kfz 7/2 crew is invincible. I have had them slowly loose their crew and then abandoned the vehicle. Since there are 8 guys in the vehicle they stay in there for a long while, but in no way do I believe they lived a charmed life. This is similar to the 88mm guns which have larger crews than the 20 & 37mm guns. I find the larger guns a lot more survivable, because they have more crew members. I don't know how a man or two operates an 88mm gun effectively, but I hear that anti-tank gunners lift weights in their spare time. Theron

You hardware snobs. 4MB works just fine, decent scrolling and 800x600 resolution (I know that this isn't the Graphics heaven that some of you live in). I have a lowly PII 266MHz with a 4MB RIVA card. It probably helps that it is an AGP card. I admit that certain senerios are hard to play, but most of them are very playable. I have played all the way up to Large senerios and have had no problem with TXP/IP QBs. Telling people otherwise only looses potential customers (i.e. $$$) for BTS. Maximus, I would be interested in a TNT-2 for $25+S&H. I hope that they sell it over the web. I haven't seen such fantastic deals, could you please point me in the right direction. thanks, Theron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: Interesting that there quite a few weapons seemingly more accurate than the dreaded 88. From Jentz and a OPerational Research Study on the 6 pdr and 17 pdr. 90% dispersion. 2x3 meter target size. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't have the book, but I'm wondering what this graph really means. There are points on the graph (evey 500m) which appear to be data points, but they could just serve to further differentiate the the various curves. Therefore my first question is are these data points? The second point I would like to make is that I can understand why the 88 and 75L24 are very desirable guns at short ranges. At less than 500m the probability to hit > %100. So if this is not data with a fitted curve and is a model why does it predict a to hit > %100? Theron

I'm glad that we have determined that the Germans knew their kinematics (high school physics). The Tiger Feibel basically asserts that one needs to aim farther than the actual target because the target has a certain amount of height or one needs to aim at 500m distance and 1m elevation above the ground. Unfortunately the real question about hit probability is much more complicated since it relies on someone correctly estimating the range quickly under battlefield conditions. Not any of us sitting at home with our spread sheets and calculators figuring it out. I don't claim to know from scholarly study, reading or first hand knowledge how well tankers were able to estimate ranges under battlefield conditions. How well and how often did they properly following bracketing procedures? There are also a lot of other physical factors that the simple kinematics does not consider such at uneven ground, wind, and dispersion. I think that people who want to increase the chance to hit need to research the psychological factors that affected the tank gunners. Then they should make their arguments from that standpoint, since that is what is hard to model properly. Not the solutions to projectile motion, which I believe that Charles has modeled properly in the game. Theron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: I guess I missed this during the switching out of problem parameters...what was the starting height of the projectile...Ho? Vo = 700 ms gunners range setting = 350m target distance = 500m target height = 2.4m aim point = targets center of visible mass<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Jeff, Treat the gun as the reference height i.e. zero meters and calculate the rounds drop versus this height. If you are trying to calculate the gun angle then you need to know 1)the height of the shooter (i.e. gun) relative to some fixed reference 2)the height of the target (center of visible mass) relative to the same fixed reference 3)the estimated range between the two In Charles' example he treats the gun angle as 0 degrees and measures the amount of drop from in height from the barrel out to 350m and 500m. The difference between these two is the vertical error from improperly ranging the target. Theron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rexford: 0.21 seconds go by from 350m to 500m, so shot drops 0.22m in that distance due to gravity.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is only true if the round has no vertical velocity after it was fired. We know that most likely the round has some vertical velocity after traveling 350m. I believe that Charles is assuming a zero gun inclination angle. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If constant velocity at 700 m/s, flight time to 350m aim range is 0.5 seconds. Trajectory equation is: -0.00001154 (target range)squared +0.0040 (target range) Descent angle at 350 meters is 4 mils, or 0.229°. Projectile drop from 350m to 500m if gravity stopped at 350m range is 150m x tangent 0.229°, or 0.60m. Add 350m to 500m drop due to gravity (0.22m) to drop due to descent angle at 350m extended to 500m (0.60m), and round drops below aim point by -0.82m between 350m and 500m. Trajectory equation predicts -0.90m below aim point at 500m. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I haven't figured out where you went wrong in the equations above, but I sincerely believe that you have made a mistake. Using a gun angle of zero you should get the same numbers as Charles did earlier. Not a 0.8m or 0.9m drop. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Your analysis may not include gun barrel elevation factor, which is not a constant from 350m to 500m, as you may have assumed. Trajectory equation with constant velocity probably should have a factor along the lines of "tangent(gun elevation) x range", which is the same as "tangent(gun elevation) x constant average velocity x flight time" and considers the vertical velocity given to the round by virtue of weapon elevation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The trajectory equation as you call it is round height= tan (gun angle) * range - 1/2 * 9.82m/s^2 * deltaT^2 It is not the same as or derived how you describe it (unless the constant average velocity refers to the velocity in the x direction, but I don't think that this is clear). It comes from the following (1) How the round moves in the y direction round height= sin (gun angle) * gun_velocity *deltaT - 1/2* 9.82m/s^2 * deltaT^2 (kinematic motion with constant acceleration, i.e. gravity) (2) How the round moves in the x direction range= cos (gun angle)* gun_velocity *deltaT (kinematic motion with constant velocity, i.e. no air friction) substitute for gun_velocity * deltaT in equation one using equation two and you get the trajectory equation. Your use of the trajectory equation is correct, but I think that you miscalculated from Charles's numbers. I believe that Charles is assuming zero gun elevation. Given a gun elevation of zero his numbers are correct i.e. there is a drop of 1.2m not 0.8m or 0.9m when a round moves from 350m to 500m. This is because there is no initial velocity in the y direction with a gun elevation of 0. If the gun has an elevation of 0.2 degrees you are correct in that the difference in drop is only 0.8m. Therefore the angle of the gun is crucial for how much drop normally occurs. If the gun happened to be slightly depressed by say 0.1 degrees then the drop between 350m and 500m would be larger at 1.84m-3.37m=-1.53m under the target. Therefore even with a more detailed kinematic equation a tank will miss the target if the gunner misjudges range by 150m. The size of the miss depends on the gun angle as you pointed out before, but it seems to me that on a flat plain the tank would usually miss i.e. the gun angle would be at 0 to -0.? degress. Remember the simulation assumes that you are aiming at the center of mass which is 1.2m above the ground for a T-34 as Charles has pointed out. Theron [This message has been edited by Theron (edited 01-15-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pak40: There should be an option NOT to have VFs on Meeting Engagement maps. That way there is no mad rush to capture the flags in the beginning. ME score should be based solely on unit loss/capture. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There is one problem with a no VF meeting engagement. Often I have battles where most of the armor gets knocked out quickly. Either person A or person B wins this armor battle. I have been able to knock out the remaining AFVs with infantry AT assets and pull out a win. The reason that this happens though is that we are forced to fight over a flag. If it were no VF at all, my opponent could reatreat into a prime defensive location or avoid battle for the rest of the game and win. Theron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pktaske: Having absolutely no knowledge of the subject matter, I wanted to pose a question to the community: How is a gun's velocity achieved? I say this in relation to how does one 75mm from the next gain significant ft/s improvements? From a totally ignorant point of view, I can't seem to figure how the length or specific construction of the tube has much of an impact aside from accuracy. It would seem that the amount of propellent (explosive) in the shell would be the main determinant of how fast it travels. Is it that the engineering of the tube itself dictates how 'explosive' a shell it can handle? How much does ordinance have to do with it? Is it the construction of the gun as a whole that provides greater compression and inertia? What is it that I know I'm missing? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't know this by reading it, but from a physics point of view a longer barrel on the gun allows more chemical (expanding gasses from the gun powder being ignited) energy to be imparted on the bullet. For example if one places a bullet in a vice and whacks the primer with a hammer the bullet won't go nearly as far because the gasses will rapidly escape. Don't do this experiment since the brass casing of the cartridge is very likely to explode and become shrapnel. Making a longer and longer barrel for the gun will lengthen the time the expanding gasses can push the bullet. Of course there are limits to how long a barrel should be made. It can become too cumbersome for a tank or person to carry. Eventually a long barrel will slow the bullet down because of friction. Therefore in general a longer barrel increases the rounds velocity in general, but there are several factors that limit the desired length. In terms of your other questions the amount of explosive does influence how much kinetic energy can be imparted to the round. The size of the round itself also makes a difference. One can generally shot a small round at a high velocity or a large round at a lower velocity with the same amount of powder. Both rounds will get the same amount of kinetic energy from the gun powder, but the smaller round has less mass therefore will have a greater velocity. I how that this helps. Theron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuckyStrike: Germanboy, try the same type of test vs Churchill VIII's, they are quite capable of killing Panthers, Jagdpanthers, Hetzers etc frontally with that 95mm 'c' round...only problem is the low velocity means the accuracy ain't the best. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Churchill VIII's are really good against almost all German armor if they have the 'C' rounds. The game seems to give them between 1-9 rounds randomly in QBs. Since most of my tanks only seem to kill 1-2 enemy tanks this usually isn't too important. I've had good luck with at least verteran crews and engaging in tank battles at 500m or less. 1000m range battles and longer cause too much ammo loss, which is important when you only have a few potent rounds. Theron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus: No, this was a featured in either patch b22 or b23, can't remember which. 'Cause if you think about it, if your hull is "hull down" how could your hull-mounted bow MG fire? Co-axial still works though, I believe.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My question is have they fixed it so when your tank or tank destroyer gets a gun hit they can still fire the bow MG. I have yet to see a tank that has a bow MG fire after it gets a gun hit. I can understand the Gun hit disabling the coaxial MG, but shouldn't the bow MG still work. Theron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by yober25: Is there any way to watch a replay of an engagement with no fog of war after it has been fought ala Myth/Myth II? I've had a few really good fights that I'd like to show some other people, but can't. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It is not possible to replay an engagement with no fog of war, unless that is how it was played originally. It is only recently that someone came up with a utility program that allows an entire battle to be replayed. What I want to know is how you can get a movie from a turn that you play against the AI or against each other on TCP/IP? PBEM is no problem. Is there some default save location for the replay? Theron

zgrose, I hate to say this, but this has throughly been discussed before. Maybe a search on tank mines and pavement would work. If I remember correctly the official BTS answer was that 1. Burried tank mines would be too obvious in a road w/ or w/o cobblestones 2. It would take too much work to burry AT mines in a road. Remember the ground is supper compressed underneath the road. I beleive that most mines are burried by hand at this time. Therefore it is impossible to place AT mines on road/pavement. I think a couple modern combat engineers concured with not being able to bury AT mines in a road. Theron P.S. I'm sure if you really, really want to a mine can be burried anywhere. You have to remember that combat engineers are working under a time constraint. Therefore it wasn't SOP to burry mines in paved roads, it took too long. Thats why they make daisy chain mines.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Rooster: It would be really nice to be able to chat with your opponent in the game while playing tcp/ip. I don't know of any actual historical or real precident for this but it would make the game more fun from an interactive perspective. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It is now the "zero key", 0, in the newest beta because the ~ didn't work for people who had remapped keyboards. Theron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wesy: Ok, I just bought a new pc and literally just ordered CM. What is the latest shipping version on the CD's? I did a search but I could only find a message dated in July of this past year. Thanks! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I ordered mine at the end of the summer and it was shipped with version 1.03. Therefore you will at least get 1.03. You will want to upgrade to 1.1 once the final version comes out, so I'm sure you will need to make atleast one download. Theron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Diceman: I'm playing an e-mail with Cubes where my Churchill (95mm) got into a shooting dual with a Hetzer. To make a long story short, I hit that thing three shots in a row without expending a single shaped charged round, and yes I do have some. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It is interesting that you are having problems. I have used the Churchill VIII with the 95mm and found that it is an excellent Tiger and Panther killer when it has the shaped charge. It seems like the crew needs to be at least Veteran to use the shells consistently. This is just my observation and could be incorrect. I have also found that when the Churchill got really close to the Panther, ~150m, it was less likely to use the shaped charge round. I guess that it thinks it can kill the Panther with the HE rounds. I have not seen one fighting Hetzers. I would like to add that these results were with the first beta demo. I haven't tried them with the newest beta demo. Theron [This message has been edited by Theron (edited 12-17-2000).]