Diceman

Try these out: http://users.pandora.be/aneric/index8.htm http://www.afv-uk.net/cmoutpost/ http://members.home.net/jagdcarcajou/ http://www.combatmission.com/ http://www.dragonlair.net/combatmission/ http://nav.webring.org/cgi-bin/navcgi?ring=combatmission;list http://smilecwm.tripod.com/cwm2/ http://www.rugged-defense.nl/cm/cm.htm http://www.tournamenthouse.com/ http://home.nexgo.de/tcmhq/International.html http://www.combat-mission.com/ There are other good ones as well, but these made it to my favorites list. No such thing as a best CM site IMHO. Cheers Eric

All very interesting. Are there any charts available that show the dispersion of shot for Soviet weapons at specific ranges, like is available for German weapons? I'm not yet convinced that Soviet armor can be treated as being inherently as acurate as German equipment. Shot dispersion tables would give us a clear benchmark of the accuracy of the entire weapon system. Good optics can not make up for other faults such as the weapon not being properly boresighted, nor does good sights mean that other components were made in a manner which fasilitates accurate fireing. It may be that Soviet optics have received a bad rap by association: the true culprets in poor performance being poor quality of gun components, gun platform components, poor maintenance, poor training, or a combination of all of the above.

This has got a lot of potential; however, the rear side pannel of the turret is over shadowed, and the top of the turret, the mantle, and the barrel are a bad contrast to the almost washed off look to the rest of the vehicle. Very clever and unique of you to go for the "early spring" look, but it'll look better when its consistant for the whole vehicle. Cheers Eric

Beutiful Tiger. I might just use as a reference for painting the 1/35 scale model I've been working on.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: What's that great-looking building mod in your pic, Juju? Is it on your site? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yea, got a link?

Are they done yet, are they done yet?

Also, as infered, there are many replacement .wav files out there on the web

I in no way can speak for BTS, but I got this funny feeling they've got more feedback than they know what to do with already, and don't want to generate any more right now by giving us a bone. You should have seen the feedback they got on those screenshots. Of course they could prove me wrong. I wouldn't mind a bit.

Well, when you can't win, its always easy to blame your equipment. If you can't blame the equipment, its easy to blame the system. There is no bias. If your friend can't appreciate his unit's and equipment's strengths and weaknesses, well that's his problem when his Panther gets blown up.

The URL for "The Fallen One" is here: it.http://www.geocities.com/coolcolj/ Does beutiful work, a bit impetuous though. BTW. His sight seems to be in a stage of rework. Didn't see a link for the Linx. You may try e-mailing him. Refering him to CoolColJ will wield better results than "the fallen one". Edited to correct most blatant spelling errors. [ 10-08-2001: Message edited by: Diceman ]

I almost hate to push this thread back to the top, as it seems to have run its course but I'm dieing to know one thing. How is the remodeling of gunnery coming along in CMII? Can BTS or one of the beta testers give us a clue? Just a taste. Pretty please with sugar on top? I know you're afraid of adding fuel to fires but can you give us a hint? [ 10-08-2001: Message edited by: Diceman ]

You've been surfing the net again, haven't you.

BOOM Baby! They're beutiful. Makes me want to put down the Panther A I'm working on now, and put together the 1/35 scall M18 I've got waiting for my attention. So many WWII vehicles, so little time.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PeterNZer: Reading grog-porn I bet. PeterNZ<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Mmmm, grog-porn - in the imortal words of Hakko Ichiu aka Ethan: Swinging his manly bulk over the shot-trap, SS-Oberspankführer Großeier mounted his Pzkw V Ausf. D with tight-fitting Zimmerit coating and anti-rocket corsets. Lovingly he stroked the long, hardened steel barrel of the 75L48 cannon. His piercing gaze fell upon the naked torso of his driver, Gefreiter Schaffevögeln, rhythmically swabbing out the barrel. Although he could feel in the core of his being that his commander was giving him the eye, Schaffevögeln suddenly started to slack. "Ram harder, damn you!" screamed Großeier as he saw his driver's long tool begin to droop. "Give that barrel a damn good reaming out!" Schaffevögeln redoubled his efforts; sweat began to drip down his chest onto his shiny leather boots. The force of it made the Panzer's barrel quiver. "That's more like it!" screamed Großeier, "Harder, harder, harder! Yes, that's it!" Completely satisfied with his driver's reaming, Großeier turned his attention to the ammo cart that was being pulled by a team of strapping, sweaty horses... Well, I hope that's cleared the air a bit. Sure made me feel manly. ------ ------------------ Ethan Link: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=011566&p=20 Who sais the search function doesn't work? [ 10-06-2001: Message edited by: Diceman ]

I think under mosr circumstances, the cictorious gunner should be able to see the crew bail out.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: Diceman This information is available in firing tables for specific weapon type and ammunition employed. Typically WWII firing tables for armored piercing ammunition will detail: <UL TYPE=SQUARE>1)Range (entfornung…in the case of German firing tables) 2)Projectile velocity at range (endgeschwindigkeit) 3)Probable error at range…this is typically subdivided into lateral and vertical spread of the dispersion pattern at range (breite, hohe) 4)Projectile trajectory is also typically somewhat laid out in the form of max height of trajectory as well as angles of decent. If you return to page 4 of this thread and look at Rexford’s postings he has laid out a series of hit percentages relative to range. These are based upon modeling of projectile trajectory as well as probable error (round dispersion relative to range) and is based upon information derived from firing tables. In addition, he has taken the process a step further and introduced the effect of range estimation error on the part of the crew and introduce this critical factor into the “to hit” function. The increasing “to hit” percentage relative to multiple shots reflects the bracketing process, and a diminishing range estimation error as a gunner “walks” his fire onto a target. [ 10-02-2001: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thank you for pointing that out. I missed that particular post. So the data is available to establish benchmark accuracies. This gives me a better feeling of the possibility to accuratly model long range engagements in CM. I still wonder which nations at what times drilled bracketing into the minds of gunners. For instance, the German Army was not impressed by the performance of it's tank gunners in France 1940, and took steps to improve gunner performance. Whether that was the beginning of the practice of "bracketing" in the German Army, or a reinforcement of that principle I have no clue. When and which crews would be allowed to effectively adjust fire via bracketing, and therefore get better consecutive to hit chances than crews who did not use the bracketing technique, is a legitimate gaming question. I would sugest (to keep things simple) that only "regular" or better crews be allowed to be modeled as practicing "bracketing". Too many examples of gunners not using methodical targeting technique to make substancial increased concecutive shot bonuses universal. Cheers Eric

Stupid question. Is their any data for any WWII tank gun, for the gun's minute of angle (MOA)? I.e. Is there any data available which shows the shot spread of a tank gun at a specific distance. If you had that, you could calculate the expected spread of a shot at any distance. Adjust the bench test moa (to use a rifle sighting term) by various factors such as windage, human error, fatuige, stress, training, movement, experience,etc, and calculate for the distance of the shot - you've got yourself a shot spread. Adjust the shot spread by distance calculation error - valued by experience, sight capability, fatuige, training, etc, you can adjust the shot spread on the verticle plane. Devide the surface area of the tank which falls in the shot plane (after verticle adjustment)by the area of the shot spread, and you've got yourself a % chance to hit. Simple geometry, well except the part about knowing the moa of the gun in question, and determining the ruleset for error adjustment, but those are just details.

I agree almost completely with Jason C's comments but would make some qualifying remarks regarding the impact of superior equipment. The equipping of units with superior weaponry does indeed have an operational impact. It's a term commonly referred to as force multiplier. All else being equal, a platoon armed with M14s and M60s might be expected to accomplish a task that would otherwise require a company of troops with bolt action rifles for example. The modern weaponry allows the M14 equipped platoon to operate with as much lethal effect as the WWI bolt action company. This reality has a ripple effect all the way up the planning phase. It is very much taken into account when the question is asked "what resources are going to be required to accomplish objective "A", etc. It is also true however, that the technology factor is only one slice of the pie. It doesn't matter that a platoon is equipped with assault rifles, if when they run into the company with bolt action rifles, do not have the training, experience and discipline to bring that technology to bear on the enemy in an effective manner. In this example the quality factor is really a matter of quantity. The assault rifle can spit out more lead faster than a bolt action rifle, but quality also has its impact on the battlefield. You can see this in CM. A few Panthers can be expected to deal with three or more times its number of Shermans. Therefore, if the primary function of Panthers was to deal with Shermans, you could accomplish the task with a fraction of the # of Shermans to be faced (all other things being equal). The logistical, and by implication, operational impact is significant. Having said that, if the Panthers are miss-handled, or the technology quality factor is otherwise breached, that is to say the Shermans get into range, out flank the Panthers, or the Panthers are crewed by people who don't know how to use them, the Panther becomes just another tank. The logistical theory of doing "more with less" burning right along with them. This not to argue Jason's points on the quality of German armor. He is correct, overall the Germans didn't have much of an armor advantage technologically. German Uber tanks were a small fraction of the fleet, and there were as many tin cans produced or aquired as the uber tanks. It is also true that solid logistical, and operational planning, along with well trained troops and support able to make those plans reality carry more weight on the outcome of wars than technology. But technology does have an operational impact.

From "Tank Versus Tank": In 1959 they bought from Britain Centurion tanks with 105mm guns and in November 1960 used them to engage two old German PzKpfW IVs which were dug in to support operations by Syrian patrols at Nukheila. Opening fire at about 1500 m, the Israelis shot off 89 rounds in 1 ½ hours, to raise clouds of dust and smoke but without hitting either PzKpfW IV, which shot back with equal ineffectiveness. Henceforward, the Israelis under General Israel Tal concentrated upon tightening up discipline, above all gunnery discipline and techniques. With methods similar to those already worked out by the British, the Israeli Centurions began knocking out PzKpfW IVs and T34/85s at ranges up to 3000 m without themselves suffering much harm. Moral of the story: training and gunnery discipline make a huge difference of how effective a weapon is, even the superb British 105mm gun. Can't wait to see how well this is modeled in CM2.

Four hours? Wow! I missed a lot. Can't wait to see the pictures. One of you buggers needs to drop me a challenge (with the understanding that right now I'm returning turns at the speed of Ping). When are we going to do this again?

Best entertainment investment I ever made. BTW Dad, one of the few computer games out there that motivate people to think. Not only will you get one of the best games available, (no wories you'll get it if you order) you may be plesantly suprised to see your son read a history book or two, or three, or four...

Grunt..uhhh...push as hard as I can it just doesn't budge. Maybe if I gave it a little bump right here.

Quick question. Will one be able to abandon guns and vehicles in CMII? I'm nearing the end of a quick battle where I need to withdraw. I have a couple of problems in doing this. Firstly my surviving armor is immobilized in soft ground. Secondly, my MMG and HMG crews are taking their sweet time, when they should just abandon their weapons and retreat just to hope to survive to fight another day. I realize there will be no patch to allow crews to abandond their weapons in CM 1, but will it be in CM2?

I ordered the HBO package just for this.

Might be able to make it. I live on the other side of the beltway, but if I can get a kitchen pass, I'd love to come.