jshandorf

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: Even more important is the total area over which the force is applied, known domestically as foot-pounds, probably meter/kilos for the metrically inclined. If you apply 20 pounds of force to a one foot square, there will be a slight pressure. If you apply that same pressure to a one-millimeter square, you will poke a hole in a person. A tank has 30 tons of inertia (not to mention damping buffers of various kinds) to absorb recoil. Take that same energy and apply it to a 75mm circle (actually far less area, thus higher focused pressure, at the hardened tip of the projectile before it collapses) and you poke holes in tanks. Some of them, anyway. I just haven't had that many gun hits in CM. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But wouldn't THAT be a penetration? Therefore it is excluded from what we are talking about. We are talking about bounces, therefore it is of more concern how the kenetic energy is dispersed through the vehicle. Jeff [This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-13-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables: What a specious argument, not to many people note how the traverse mechanism of the panther was so weak that at inclines greater than 20 degs the turret would swing towards gravity. So does the lack of discussion indicate that this problem never existed? Or the Nafgwhatsathing never existed because there is not a large amount of literature detailing it. The same thing could be said for the American rifle grenade. Or how about this British during the desert war did not tumble until onto the Germans use of Face-hardened armour and therefore blamed their ‘poor’ tank gunnery. Therefore FH herded armoured did not exist for the British for 12 months their shells were not shattering on measly 30mm armour no they were just poor shots. Or how about this when the many people considered the earth flat, did it in fact make the earth flat? I mean I’ve always liked the Hindu mendala system of representing the world universe. Globes just aren’t chic. You’ve driven me to blithering idiocy how can you make such specious argument. And yes I do have a passing knowledge of Karl Poppers critique of positivism. Look to my signature, your words and embrace them! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh come on, Bastables. I wan't literally trying to prove my point with that, but the fact remains niether of us have come up with much as for factual documentation. In this day and age of information and data I would have to be inclined that if there isn't some sort of research or proof on something then I wouldn't tout it as fact. Are you just trying to be silly about the world being flat thing? I could point you to a few references that show it is spherical if you want. Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: Man.. one has to wonder why the Germans even lost... sounds like they were supermen and invincible. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Go read and learn. http://www.anyboard.net/plaboard/posts/233333.shtml Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: Of course this fails to accound for how the force of the bullet leaving a firearm is spred out through the weapon's frame, absorbed by the body and even by the gas of the propelent and is not concentrated like the bullet into a much smaller area. Much as apply force to a wall with your finger and nothing happens but when you apply the same force with a tack it is pushed into the wall. Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No it doesn't. The bullet leaves the gun. It is in your hand. If the bullet has enough force to knock a person off it's feet it would knock YOU off your feet. Period. Man, go back to school on this. You are wrong. Your tack analogy is flaw. The tack has no inherient energy. It has only the energy/force you put into it by pushing. A gun and bullet works diferently. Think about it. I typoed on the percent thing. I meant say that the mantle around the barrel (where the barrel extends from) makes up 10% of the overall front mantle. Sorry about the missunderstanding. Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: Ummm... "a tank AP shell striking the mantel would have the same effect as a shell leaving the mantel" makes no sense. Are you trying to say firing a gun is as dangerous as being hot with the same gun? This is simply asinine. That's like claiming a bullet strinking the hand has the same effect as firing the same bullet from a handgun in your hand... Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No No No... It am taking about the kenetic energy. When you shoot a handgun the same amount of energy/force is put into the gun as that is sent into the bullet. Therefore IF the bullet you fired could knock someone off thier feet therefore YOU would be knocked off your feet firing it. Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: /sarcasm on That's right! Germans should never miss! /sarcasm off Saying "German tanks were always know for thier superior accurracy," is far too ambiguous. Are you saying no American in a Sherman could out shoot a German in a German tank? That's silly. Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Geezus.. Have you EVER read anything about the German tanks on the East front?? They would pulverize russian tanks at 3km. Don't EVEN tell me the American Sherman could do that. I will laugh at you. Jeff

Cav, If you look at the Panther the gun mantlet comprises over 90% of the front turret. A front turret therefore is almost always going to be a front mantlet hit. Man... I agreed with you before that direct hits on the barrel would obviously damage it. Can we just drop that part? I am talking about mantlet hits only. From the design and slop of the front mantlet of the panther a round hitting the mantlet and then bouncing BACK into the gun would be VERY VERY rare. It is POSSIBLE, it could happen from the shell breaking up, BUT remember that the barrel on a Panther is quite thick considering the velocity and power behind the gun. Shrapnel fragments I would argue would not be able to penetrate the barrel. Also keep in mind that a bouncing shell has retained a significant amount of it kenetic energy (see newtowns from ealier post). I believe so far I have given VERY good arguments as to why gun damaged (sans direct barrel) hits to the mantlet were very rare, while all you can do is repeat yourself. Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: It may be an "isolated incident" but so far has been the only thing offered up by either side. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmm... How about this... Since so far there have been NO nurmerous accounts of the optics being vulnerable to mantlet hits then can't you say that it isn't an issue? The shot trap, the weak transmision, and the boggie wheels locking up on the Panther A is documented on almost every web site talking about the Panther, so if the optics were an issue don't ya think SOMEONE would mention it? Jeff

One more thing I forgot that just struck me... Look at the barrel on the Panther. Does anybody see a recoil system? Tell me if I am wrong but it looks like the mantle is built into the barrel. I don't see any recoil absorbtion like on the Tiger with the 88. With that in mine... If the optics were as fragil as some people would like to point out that means the optics have a chance of being damaged EVERYTIME the gun is fired. This is simple Newtons law here. Thus a tank AP shell striking the mantel would have the same effect as a shell leaving the mantel. Roughly the same amount of energy, and thus roughly the same kenetic energy effect. Jeff [This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-12-2000).]

How, about a picture and some common sense? http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5abe.jpg or check this one out http://storm.webvis.net/pantherbreech.html Notice that VERY small hole to the right in the first picture? That is the sight for the gun. It is behind 13cm of armor and recessed back quite far. No look at the mantel picture... I don't see how the optics would be vulnerable in that picture. The shock or kenetic energy from a shell, ask any mechanical engineer, (my best friend is one) spreads throughout the mass of the item struck. Therefore a front mantle hit would be spread throughout the mantel, the turret, and then finally the hull, in that order. In no case would it be directed inward and only around the front turret. It would SPREAD throughout the mass. Therefore the bigger the mass the more the energy spreads and dissapates. Can you say 44 tons? Now I don't see where this sudden kenetic shock to the optics comes into play. If it does happen it is rare, i.e. a direct hit on the sighthole. I have been reading dozens for pages on the Panther and it's mantle and I have yet to read one source that points out any sort of weakness about the mantle (other than the shot trap on the A) from shell hits. I HAVE read numerous statements about the transmission and the boggie wheels but zip, zero, nadda on the optics, that the gun is supseptable to damage, outside the norm, which since it is never mentioned.. well, means it is rare. Jeff

Rune, Good post. I see the numbers crunch out to be around 8%. Which says to me that CM has too many Gun Damaged results. In the games I have played I know that I am batting ALOT more than 8% for my Gun Damaged hits. If I had to guess I would put it at %15 or so of all the tanks I have had. Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JoePrivate: This is from a thread a few weeks ago: So the Sherman scored one gun damage out of 116 hits on the Tiger. Does that seem too high?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> First off... What range are you doing this from? Range matters greatly. With a longer range you get more of spread across the target. Also, I think people mostly have complained about the Panther not the Tiger but I am not sure. Second, why the heck is that damn Sherman so more accurate??? German tanks were always know for thier superior accurracy. That is ANOTHER thing that really bugs me. But that is another topic all together. If I get time between laying tile tonight and CM I will run a simulation of my own with a Panther and a Sherman 76. Jeff

Get a second computer and get the little lady hook on computer games also. That is the ONLY solution that ends with boths sides feeling good and not with someone feeling like they are always giving up something. But I wanna ask something... Why does it always seem like women don't EVER have a hobby that is so self-absorbing as much as men do, huh? Women always sit around and claim they are bored or this or that. Sometimes (I am not married...yet...) I feel like some freakin' entertainer. "Anything I can do to pass the time for you, honey? Juggle? Have you paint my toe nails? Look at fashion magazines with you? Loose my self deep inside while I hear you drone on about your silly girlfriends, who I don't like anways? Okay.. Rant over.... I just need to blow off some steam here... Just do your best. If it isn't enough you will find enevitably. Jeff

Cav, Give me a break. You actually are going to compare a person being hit with a baseball bat with a tank being hit by a shell? Get real... These are the kind of analogies that are really pointless and only server to misguide. HESH ammo??? Huh??? What are you talking about?? We are talking about WWII not modern tanks and ammunition. Bringing this up is utterly useless. I for one would like the source material that supports all these guns hits. Let me ask.. What makes you think that the current model is correct other than your feelings? You have none. Heck, lets look at from a mathematical standpoint. Take the entire surface area that the mantlet takes up on a Panther. I would estimate it occupies probably around 10% of the surface are from a straight on perspective. Now that means on avergae that 1 out of every 12 hits or so will strike it. Now lets just guess at how many of those hits will actually cause any damage? Well, it won't be ALL of them and it won't be NONE. So, obviously it is in the middle. Hmmm.... Lets just hit it in the middle with 50%. That seem fair? OKay... Want to geuss the number of gun hits that actually damaged the main gun now??? The answer is 4%. That's it. Now do you think that is close to what you have seen in the game. Nope. I don't think so. So, there.... I have made an argument that is NOT based off of "I feels" and "I believes". Now tell me why I should adjust my numbers and then we can crunch the formula again and come up with a new percentage. Until then I stand by my claim that Gun Damage hits happen WAY too often. Jeff [This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-12-2000).]

Someone posted earlier and stated that Gun Damaged hits are hits that do not penetrate the armor. Therefore, how can internal components be damaged to leave the gun inoperable? They can't. Thus a gun damaged hit actually hits the gun. What I am saying is that the gun is hit WAY too often and even if it is nicked, glanced, or even brushed with a bounced shell it gets damaged. I find this unrealistic. Most of you have been saying that most of our arguments have been a "feeling" or "I believe", well then, why is the hit modeling done they way it is? Where is the data that backs up all these gun hits? So far I have seen NOTHING from anybody to refute anything argument put forth on this discussion. It would be really nice if we could collect all the statements put forth by Steve and Charles into a FAQ fact sheet that can be referenced for times such as these. I would like an explaination as to WHY there are so many guns hits. This thing about comparing real life to the modeling in the game is silly at best. I would like percentages, or some tables, or something..anything that backs up the current modeling. Jeff

So basically there is a descrepency between what we can "see" in the game and what is there. Therefore, more than not you can get burned when trying to use terrain as cover. Right? Jeff

Yes, I think it is time we got this thread locked up and packed away neatly. This thread has been more addicting than crack. I gotta kick. I gotta... Later, Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: Jeff, It is, of course, good to see how respectful you've become now that you realize the gravity of the situation. Your forces aren't merely in peril, they're all ready dead. The logic eluded you, of course, as you're the epitome of a by-the-books commander. I only wish I was at home so that I may continue butchering your forces. Oh, and Croda, you twit, there is no "us" until you send me a godforsaken turn! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> (Cackle) Ahhh... We shall see... We shall see... I have two opponents tonight, you and the cracked tiles in my shower. At this present moment I dread more the grouting I will be doing tonight than the crushing of your troops beneath my heal. "Now you will pay for your lack of vision!" Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IntelWeenie: If the optics of a tank are hit, it makes it nearly impossible to see anything. I have looked through lots of damaged tank periscopes, sights, etc. and it's generally like looking in a shattered mirror. I don't know how well optics were armored in WWII, but all would take is one bullet/fragment/76mm AP shell in the right place to ruin a sight. If you think a TC could direct fire adequately from his position, try going to a shooting range and remotely aim a rifle (even in a shooting vise) from 3 feet away. Oh, remember, you only have about 30-40 rds to hit something with and your target moves when shot at. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Okay, the main gun might be a stretch but the Coax MG shouldn't be too difficult. Anyways, on the German Panther for instance the Gun Optics, if I am correct, consist of a sight in the front turret along side the main gun. This sight is recessed into the turret. Therefore a fragment, bullet or what ever will have an extremely small chance of hitting it. As I have said before, other than an actual barrel hit I don't really see a Main Gun damage hit happening very often if at all. Jeff [This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-11-2000).]

Yes, it apperas there is nothing more dangerous than an wounded Elijah Meeks backed into a corner. He has become aaaagitated. He is now more vicious than an African Black Mamba. Jeff [This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-11-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran: I think that Intelweenie has probably hit the nail on the head. More than likely those are the reasons for the crests as cover issues. While there are good reasons that have been put forth as to why crests should give a cover benefit, strident demands are not likely to get a 'positive' reaction from BTS. State your case, assume that BTS has taken notice (because either they, or a beta tester, probably have), take a deep breath and move on. If this one issue makes the game unplayable for some individuals, then stick to scenarios with no crest lines - or don't play anymore. Strident demands for change will accomplish very little and will only cause the eruption of flame wars that nobody benefits from. For now, just adapt your tactics to match the way the game does crest lines until a correction is made (if one is made). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It only took one game for me to figure that out, unfortunately it was with Fionn. Needless to say he devastated those troops. From now on the hills are for the tanks. Jeff [This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-11-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri: Ho boy!...I'm not sure how long it takes to change the shell in the gun, but it must be close to 30 seconds. Talk about a rectum-tightening situation TC:Panther ahead! Loader...change to AP round...FAST! Loader: Removing HE shell, sir... Gunner: Git a move on! That Panther is traversing!...C'mon, c'mon.. TC: Gunner, suhaddup and aim the gun!... Gunner: Yeah yeah, it's aimed...ouch, ya dropped that HE shell on my foot, ya idiot!... Loader: Oops, sorry Jack, I wuz tryin' to hurry...OK, there ya go, Now...****... that shell is stuck..OK, got it...(puff, puff...) TC: C'mon...c'mon..c'mon... Gunner: AP loaded!... TC: Fi...BOOOOM!!!... (Panther TC: Mein Gott, I thought ve vere done for, he had his cannon pointed right at the mittel of our Panzer - und vith a side shot too...I vonder vhy he didn't fire?...) Henri [This message has been edited by Henri (edited 09-11-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, no, no. I said have the AP round in all the while and then load a HE round when you know there are no Armored vehicles present. [This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-11-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Der Unbekannte Jäger: Can it be true? Can the cesspool have actually begun its ineluctable overflow into the rest of the board? Say it ain't so Lassie! Quick get the ducktape and lots of it, well patch this little mess up! Hmmm okay maybe not little, MORE DUCKTAPE!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmm.... It appears I have been consorting with cesspoolians. Excuse me while I flog myself and then shower. Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: I'm not very clear on exactly what is being discussed here. It's not like hill crests are a terrain object - they're just ground. Either ground blocks fire, or it doesn't. If a squad behind a hill crest is taking fire, that's fine - it makes no difference whether they're behind a hill crest or not. But the problem seems to be that fire can wrap over the hill crest, and hit units who should be concealed on the reverse slope. David <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Your exactly right. Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: Jeff, You will eat, I repeat, eat those words. I make a solemn vow, on my honor, that you will wish this battle never happened. You will need to spend 6 months in a sanitarium after I am done with you. You will curse the day you ever ordered a virtual soldier into combat when I am finished. Your forces will be so terribly defeated that you will never play another PBEM game with me again. Your pathetic, leaderless forces are marching into a meat grinder, my friend, and when I'm finished, I will feed them to you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ahhhh.. I have roused the sleeping tiger. I sense a fire in that belly of yours. Good... Yes, good. Can I know assume I can put my "No-Doze" pills back in the medicine cabinet where they belong? Jeff