Scipio

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael emrys: Ah, Scipio, you chastise people for not reading your posts, but here you are misreading mine. In the excerpt you were replying to, I was pointedly not referring to abandoned tanks, but tanks driven by their crews into safer ground whence they refrained from further combat. Michael<hr></blockquote> Sorry, indeed I missunderstand you. Bad Scipio

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf: I understood that, however your example is a single event. We need to discuss knockout chance and we can only do that only with a higher number of hits observed.<hr></blockquote> Sorry, this is a missunderstanding. Indeed I see this regular. I haven't run a test to count the chances, but it's surely not happened a single time or very rarly. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>No, it is so deadly because of the extremly high hit chance (which needs further discussion, IMHO).<hr></blockquote> I guess the high hit chanced is cause by the high muzzel velocity combined with the high fire rate. Because : the muzzle velocity is one of the most important parameters CM uses to calculate the hit probability, and the more hits, the higher the chance for a penetration, and penetrations in CM means in 95% knocked out or abandoned. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>No, real tank has big guns not to raise the knockout chance on penetration, but to raise the penetration chance as tanks went fatter (and the accuracy).<hr></blockquote> Okay, but the result is the same. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>And without any historical evidence of what size of round penetration cause what damage the whole point is moot anyway.<hr></blockquote> I agree. I'm desperatly seeking for sources and material about that. I find material like 'this tank has been penetarted several times'. But not if or how long he was operational after one or several penetrations.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Germanboy: So, if three 20mm AA rounds, or three-five .50 bullets penetrate, would you want to stay in the tank to wait for the next one? <hr></blockquote> If the crew not want to stay in the tank, they bail. Have I understood this right? So what are talking about is 'Abandon', or am I wrong here? <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Germanboy: Shouting and abusing people is the lowest form of discussion, and you do not deserve any reasoned answers from anyone. Arschloch.<hr></blockquote> GB, when I must repeat the same thing three or four times in a threat, I'm getting a bit tired. I find it interesting that you, if you have no arguments, blame people that they a)have generally no idea what they are talking about b)are not able to discuss as adults. To call me an ashole was indeed an intelligent answer to my question. I assume you read to much Schopenhauer: if you are going to loose a discussion, start to be personal insulting. [ 11-01-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael emrys: It might well be the case that for game purposes the crew would refuse for the rest of the game to voluntarily partake in any further combat, but for purposes of counting up the score, they should not be counted as destroyed. Michael<hr></blockquote> I don't agree 100% here. If an abandoned tank is still operational - maybe after a repair - then they winner of the battle could in princip count all abandoned enemy tanks as captured. Captured enemy equipment was used in most armys. Only - CM doesn't care about the strategic situation outside of the battle.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Germanboy: The way I understand it, a 'shot' by a 20mm AA gun, or a .50 is really a burst, with multiple rounds. So, if three 20mm AA rounds, or three-five .50 bullets penetrate, would you want to stay in the tank to wait for the next one? Discuss.<hr></blockquote> The tank was - how often must I repeat? - KNOCKET OUT and not ABANDONED. READ AND THINK BEFORE YOU WRITE. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>If three rounds penetrate, what are the odds one is hitting something vital in the tank? Discuss.<hr></blockquote> Have you ever used an automatic weapon? Shot one of a salvo will penetrate fine. Shot two not so perfect. And the more shots, the more inaccurate is the gun because of the recoil. So, what's the chance that all bullets penetrate? THINK! <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Note, this could also be an abstraction for a non-penetrating hit on the turret ring, which leads to the tank becoming inoperable; this was a way how the German 37mm AT gun could deal with heavy tanks.<hr></blockquote> Why is a tank after a hit on the turret ring inoperable? A hit on the turret ring would result in a 'Gun damaged'. THINK. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Gyrene, as to why the crews bail, I suggest you re-read Blackhorse's comment - he is a RL tanker.<hr></blockquote> The crew has - once again - NOT abandoned the tank. The tank was KNOCKED OUT. [ 11-01-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]</p>

Redwolf, you have missed the point. The tank isn't abandoned - what could be explained with panic etc - the tank is KNOCKED OUT, so it's destroyed, finished, killed, kaput. JasonC : thank you, that's excactly what I meant. And I totally agree, the damage caused by small arms with high fire rates is generally oversized. That's the reason why the 3.7AA is such a deadly tankkiller, while it was in reality AFAIK never used as AT weapon. Possibly if nothing else was available, and I assume it wasn't very successfull. That's why tanks were equipped with BIG calibers, not with small fast firing guns. IMO, this is an very important issue. It is abolutly unrealistic, and in a very important aspect of the game.

Please send one set to scipio@scipio-net.de [ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]</p>

Boys, am I talking chinese or what??? If someone shoot on a tank, and the tank explodes, then I CAN ****ING SEE THIS IN THE GAME AND WILL BE HAPPY. But this doesn't happen. The tank is hit by a 2cm and knocked out. Damage a hydraulic line - okay, 'Gun damaged'. USTANKER : I know that they are more vulnerable, but that doesn't explain the lethal damage by one hit. MACHINEMAN - HEAT ammo is something completly different and can't be compared with a 2cm shell, even if both makes only a small hole. And again, the tank is NOT BURNING!!!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JonS: LOL, good point. i wish I'd thought of it when we were discussing how non-fragile ammo is the other week. :cool: <hr></blockquote> Hehe, I learned the lesson that Phantom teached . Anyway, I won't discuss the ammo issue again. Even if the ammo or the fuel would be ignited by a 2cm, we would see the tank burn or explode. But when we are already using this analogy - I wonder what in the tank is so vulnerable when it's NOT the ammo - or the crew, cause the crew had left the tank without casualties after the hit. Another riddle for me.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MikeyD: And how does a thin skinned vehicle shrug off a penetration? Well, a solid shot mg round penetrating an empty M3 halftrack body will just bounce around for awhile (with luck). Something penetrating a Sherman is likely to have enough energy to set off stored gun rounds.<hr></blockquote> As I said, the ammo is not so explosive as people believe. You can take a 1000kg barrel of TNT and drop it from an aircraft from 1000 meter or more. It will hit the ground with enough power to walk through a building and disappear a few meters below the cellar. But if the detonator not ignite the TNT, the bomb don't explode. That's the reason why we still find those things in our cities. Okay, I mean, the 20mm will do some damage and cause casualties, but again - why knock out the whole tank? And this happens often, not sometimes. BTW, I don't speak about HTs, I mean real tanks like the Hellcat. [ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Maastrictian: I think the analogy works a bit better if you are in car filled with gasoline and high explosives. Not only should you get out of there, but enough small bullets will hit something flamible. --Chris<hr></blockquote> I don't think so. The ammo is not so explosive as you may think, and AFAIK the most tanks don't drive with high inflammable benzin, more with diesel. And BTW, if this would happen ,you could see it.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Vergeltungswaffe: Thin skinned AFV's also often shrug off low caliber hits. But think of it this way: .22 bullet is not very likely to penetrate all the way through your car to the passenger compartment, but if you're in a car getting hit by them and one or two do get through, are you staying in there?<hr></blockquote> You talking about a bailing crew - but the tank was 'Knocked-Out', not 'Abandoned'. Don't ask me a question I can't answer. I will tell you when someone shoots on me with a .22 while I'm sitting in car . But counter question - if I would leave the car, would this rise my chance to survive? I had a better chance if I try to DRIVE away as fast as possible! [ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]</p>

I hope someone can explain me that - I confess that I really don't know if it's realistic or not. I often see light armored vehicels killed by relativ small calibers like the .50 or 20mm. For example - Hellcats, cause I have seen this last. A Hellcat got a front turret penetration by a 20mm gun (distance ~250 meters). The Hellcat was knocket out. Why this? How much damage can be done by even several hits of this caliber - assuming that each shot of a salvo hits and is a perfect penetration? I would understand that it can damage the gun and kill the gunner/commander, or hit the engine (or the driver) and make it immobile. But a single salvo, and the whole tank is kaput - isn't it a bit overpowered?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Doug Williams: I agree. But it's BTS, not Nvidia or Microsoft, who will suffer if this problem isn't fixed.<hr></blockquote> Really? I tell every CM player that I know that CM don't run on XP. Because of this, they don't purchase XP. Well, even if this won't make Billy sleepless nights... <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> If demanding a registration is part of the contract for purchasing and installing the software, then you clicking "I Accept" gives them the right. <hr></blockquote> For me it's a simple question with a simple answer : I don't accept. Doug, if you don't like MS, why do you defend them? If the problem is caused by XP or NVidia, why do you expect from BTS that they solve this problem for them? [ 10-29-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Doug Williams: How often do we actually upgrade six pieces of hardware at once?<hr></blockquote> Who gives Microsoft the right to demand a registration ONCE from me? I'm ashamed to be a Microsoft customer - I won't let anyone know about it! Who gives Microsoft the right to observe my Computer for upgrades? As I understand EULA, I buy the right to use the XP on one Computer. What if I purchase/build a complete new computer and want to install XP on my new PC? Will they say, sorry, purchase a new copy for your new computer!? For me this are to much questions about XP.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Spook: A good slug of new computer users, however, just buy into what they think their options are. So, the majority of new computer purchases will be loaded with Win XP alone, for better or worse.<hr></blockquote> Well, that's the problem. a) Most computer users have no idea what they purchase, or they just don't care. And even if they know - they don't have an alternative, except they are able to build a PC from the scratch and purchase and install an OS of their choice. I don't think that their are much PCs to purchase with, for example, Linux as OS. c) Even if you could purchase a complete PC with Linux - most programms only support Windows. Because Windows is the most used OS. Because is nearly impossible to get a PC without it. The snake is eating it's own tail.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Linda WarChest: I did the right thing and uninstalled CM1. <hr></blockquote> What tells us everything about you we need to know... After reading about this 'lock/unlock' bull**** and some other 'new features' of XP, I only want to say : no thanks!!!! <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Doug Williams: ...because it's based on the W2K kernel instead of the W9X kernel, is much more stable than W9X/ME. What this means is no more "blue screen of death" reboots. It's also more networking friendly. It has built in zip support, so you don't need Winzip. It's media player can play DVDs, so you don't need 3rd party software for that. You can read all about it on the web...<hr></blockquote> What's wrong with third party software - a minor company could make money with it? What would be CM without all the third party stuff??? Stability - I have already learned several years ago to live with the windows instability. Windows wasn't, isn't and IMO will never be the best or even a good OS. Bill Gates is a wise bussiness man, he made some deals that make it to the most used OS, so most sofware companies are forced to support it if they will sell their products. If CMBB would run on Linux, I would be the first to throw my Windows in the trashcan.

A pal of me is unable to run CM on W2000 with his new Hercules 3D Prophet 4000 card, even with the latest drivers. He will return the card - not his CM disk.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Bluefish: Hey Scip, where do I get that face? And helmet, for that matter.<hr></blockquote> I can't remember, but I have them on my drive for a very long time - I guess it's from Mad Matt's Combat Mission HQ

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Shatter: Could you either fix it ... <hr></blockquote> Done. Thanx for the message.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Shatter: Scipio you just keep doing what your doing, some of us like enjoy your mods alot. <hr></blockquote> You can be sure. :cool: I guess Michaels post is only a missunderstanding - I have written this is a historic camo. a) This camo pattern was worn by US forces in WWII. But mostly on the pacific theatre. So it is a historic US WWII camo. It is NOT the historic camo for the US paratroopers. [ 10-28-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]</p>

The Priest The Pershing

Michael, I give a damn on that You will note that most of my Uniform mods are unhistoric. [ 10-26-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]</p>

Time to dress the early US Paras: This is the historic US camouflage, mostly worn in the Pacific. With 101st Airborn sleeve insignia

I guess that's what Captain Miller attempted when he fired with his .45 on a Tiger...