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).]

1) I haven't seen this. 2) I thought that this is the way that it is supposed to work. The HQs can only give indirect fire instructions. HQ + mortar ~ artillery mortar spotter 3) I haven't seen this either, but often a mortar will fire its next shot before the first one lands i.e. I hear them go pop-pop then those few shots land before they send some more. Theron

The tests look good. I beleive them, but I am suprised that the 1000m test didn't show that it is an advantage to be hull down. Given Steve's aiming explanation the 500m results make sense. Thanks to the members who did the tests. My computer is close to the minimal system so it takes a while to crank out a tank battle, especially when I need to do it repeatedly Theron

Rex, I simply have to disagree and here is my reasoning from your arguement. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rex_Bellator: When a tank is under fire IN CM the round will hit some part of the facing armour, probably the Hull. Say the incoming round can penetrate the Turret but not the Hull. As the tank has strong Hull armour a probable hit there will be deflected. If by chance it is hit on it's relatively weak Turret armour it will be killed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So we all agree that the non hull down tank can kill the "target" tank if it hits in the right place. The "target" tank is the one which may or may not be hull down. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Now that same tank moves into Hull Down IN CM, and gains a small defensive penalty on the incoming fire. Bear in mind that this incoming fire would not be able to penetrate it's hull we're it in the open. The round is guaranteed to hit the turret and the tank will die. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The round is not guaranteed to hit the turret, it could miss! In fact it is more likely to miss now than it was before when the tank was not hull down. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> What we have seen in some tests and in the game, is that IN CM some tanks will be better simply letting themselves get hit slightly more often out in the open and relying on the fact that the round will probably bounce off the stronger Hull armour. They will be worse off being slightly less likely to be hit in Hull Down, because they will be hit on the turret and they will die. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What was the "target" tank doing all this time while you were shooting at it? I hope that it was firing back, otherwise it should go into reverse and hide behind the slope. If it was a King Tiger or Panzer IV it could cetainly kill most American tanks from 1000 meters. I beleive that in most tank vs tank fights the tank that hits first wins. Of course a king tiger VS a sherman 75 is a different story, since a Sherman 75 is lucky to penetrate any of the KT frontal armor. The comparison is between a KT and a Sherman 76 with tungsten or a Pz IV against a sherman 75. In both cases we all agree that the German tank is vulnerable. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I can't think of a better way to try to explain this and it will be my last attempt. This situation will only ever occur IN CM when the attacker cannot penetrate the defenders hull but can penetrate it's turret. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I totally agree with your explanation, IF the "target" tank has no ammo like in M. Hofbauer's test. If the target tank can shoot back your analysis fails. No one has shown that in a tank vs tank fight (i.e. they both shoot) that being in the hull down position is a disadvantage. In a true fight is where the hull down position matters. If all you have is a firing range then it doesn't really matter. Theron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MichaelU: With the KT the hull armour can stop 76mm tungsten at 500 metres most of the time, whereas the turret armour can't. So a hull down KT is worse off in a straight shooting match in these circumstances if it is hull down, without looking at the other benefits of hull down such as ease of switching positions. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually if you look at M. Hofbauer results he says the following. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> My results are that after 3 to 4 volleys usually the last KT is gone. However, to a statistically significant degree, the last surviving KT is from the non - hulldown group (!). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Therefore after 3-4 volleys the King Tiger is dead no mater what. I would not say that being in the open makes you that much more likely to survive. M. Hofbauer says that it is statistically significant, but doesn't give any data or statistical numbers to back this up. I'm trying to point out that without an analysis or data you can't tell how "significant" it is. I would like to point out that the King Tigers have no ammmo in the test that M. Hofbauer does. This make his experiment a test of the armor of the King Tiger and not a test of the advatage of being hull down. If two tanks are able to kill each other the one who hits first is most likely to win. Therefore being hull down is a tremendous advatage in that the hull down tank is more likely to hit first and win the tank duel i.e. it is less likely for his non hull down opponent to hit first. Theron [This message has been edited by Theron (edited 12-15-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Juardis: I didn't say LOS. I said LOF. To me, the two are different for the reason I outlined. Yes, knocked out vehicles do not block LOS. But you can target them. Which implies that you can shoot at them. Which implies that you can hit them. Which implies that they do indeed block LOF. Same with pillboxes and bunkers (although I really think that you can hide behind a pillbox or bunker which means they block LOS to some extent). That is what I experienced in the Elsdorf scenario anyway. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have had my tanks shoot through an enemy tank and hit the tank behind it. Therefore the "magic" bullet passed through the lead tank. My own tanks have also shot through my lead tank to take out enemy tanks. In CM if you have LOS to something this is the same thing as being able to shoot it for all direct fire weapons i.e. LOS=LOF. I interpret Line of Fire (LOF) to mean that you can target/shoot the enemy troops. The only weapon system where LOS=LOF is not the case is artillery. Both onboard and off board artillery can fire without LOS. If the artillery is onboard then an HQ must provide the LOS. I have not tried shooting through a working pillbox, but I remember reading that BTS models them like vehicles. I have had troops shot at through knocked out vehicles. Do a search on Method1 for discussions on how the shots are calculated. The following threads provide info for LOS: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/002266.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004083.html Firing Calculations: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004048-2.html The real in depth explanation from BTS is on the 2nd page of the firing Calculations thread. Theron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Juardis: Huh? You can certainly fire at a bunker or pillbox. So if you can hit it, why would it not block LOF? Same with a knocked out vehicle. You can certainly target it. I never have of course, but you can do it nonetheless. So, if you can hit them when firing at them, why would they not block LOF? Maybe in the case of a knocked out vehicle if you target it, it is treated as area fire. But certainly not the case for pillboxes and bunkers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Tom is correct on this issue. Bunkers, pillboxes and vechicles do not block LOS. I have had tanks and troops shoot through other vehicles and pilboxes many times. Yes, you can target pilboxes, tanks, and knocked out tanks, but you can also shoot through them. Targeting something has nothing to do with being able to see through it. If you don't want to do the search that Tom suggested, here is what I remember as the gist of answer from BTS. It is too computationally intensive to deal with moving obsticals that block LOS. It is also my understanding that the short cuts that BTS uses to compute the LOS make it difficult to deal with a moving object that blocks LOS. Also in the way that they have done the programming pilboxes and bunkers are just special cases of vehicles (speed =0mph), not special cases of buildings. Theron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bruno Weiss: Hmm, dunno. Was it in Lappland? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As we know from a previous discussion, Bruno, if it wasn't in Lappland then it isn't worth modeling. On Topic: I wonder how those tanks with multiple guns will work. Will you be able to target with both of them? Or will it be more like the lesser gun fires when the TAC AI feels like it? Like a bow machine gun firing when the main gun is told to target something else. Theron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Maybe the problem is where you place your ambushes - try going a bit deeper into the woods and setting the ambush just outside of them. Ideally the enemy will die so fast that their firepower does not come t play at all, making the distance pretty much irrelevant. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thats a good idea. It takes advantage of the fact that the Tac AI likes to run for the trees, which will bring panic squads running towards you to die or surrender. If they do deside to run to the "trees" on the other side your troops can eliminate them in the open. Theron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: I have heard that Enema tanks and 300mm Rickets are going to be outlawed by the Geneva Convention soon. And a good thing that is! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In the MG malfunction model thread Dr. Brian made another comment about enema's "... when I hit an enema AFV (or hit myself) I see the message "Gun Damaged." " I have this mental picture of what an enema AFV must be and agree that after hitting one of those or getting hit by one I would feel "Gun Damage". No offense to Dr. Brian, but you leave yourself open with a spelling mistake like that twice in one day.

Talenn, I know that you said that you tried it, but this is what ambush is for. I have sucessfully hidden troops that don't open fire until the enemy is ~30m away even though they can see them from a further distance. I usually have to set the marker closer than, where I want the ambush. This is because my troops always pop up and fire before the enemy gets to the marker if they can seem them. If you just hide your troops you are taking your chances. I've tried to keep my troops permanently hidden i.e. let the halftracks pass so I can take out the tanks with fausts. To do this I set the ambush marker away from the passing vechicles. The problem was that they decided to shoot anayways no matter what I did. It is my experience that when your troops can see a target that is 20-30m away they can't stay hidden no matter what you tell them. These troops were regulars and vets so more experinced troops might be able to pull it off. Theron