Scipio

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: OK, now test this out. First, you need a cite to account for your claim of the accuracy of the 88 (version whatever). Like: Johnson and Hammersmith said this in this book. Maybe your cite will be no good, maybe it will be good, but we need to see it to see how you figured out that third shot hits where norm at x meters range. Then you can use CM to test your theory. Line up a bunch of Shermans with no ammo on one side of the board, and bog them in swamp. Line up a bunch of 88s on the other. Put them in level 4 trenches so they cannot shoot at each other. Make sure you have at least twenty guns and twenty targets. Play a first turn 5 times, and figure out in those 100 gun/turns what your average hit rate is. Compare with your citation (and for giggles save your file so others can play with it also by varying range, etc). Now, if they are different, come up with a theory on why they are different, and present your theory. Expect to defend your source, your test model, and your findings, but if you have done it right it should be no problem.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Check this for the data: The 8,8 Test results will follow

If anybody should once again grumble about my stupid questions/comments in my threats, I will refer him to this threat [ 07-18-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Can you name your citation on the long range hit or miss rate of large antitank weapons? I am curious to look at your figures a bit more carefully to see how they really compare to CM. Your current comment is rather vague, just a request that big guns fire more accurately without any facts to back up the request.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry - I was talking bull****, I wanted to request something different, but was inattentive for the moment - I received a turn Okay - an AT gun can shot 'relativ' excact, also on longer ranges (up to 2000 meters?). What I have noticed in my battles (and tests) is this (example). Shot one - far away. That's normal Shot two - just somewhere else Shot three - again Shot four - a hit (ricochet) shot five - far away shot six - again shot seven - hit Okay, I'm no AT expert, but I remember something I've read about the 88 (I'm not sure if it's the right terms, so please excuse, I hope you get what I mean): Shot one - take distance, shot goes behind target Shot two - again, goes to short Shot three - hit. If the target wasn't killed Shot four - hit and over (cause it wasn't necessary to adjust again) I assume this was meant for non or slow moving vehicels. In CM, the 'later' shots doesn't show a higher tendency to hit the target then the first shot, also if the target was already hit once. Of course, that may depent on the quality of the gun/tank crew, so I made the test with Elite forces. It is maybe also influenced by low quality ammo(?). But I think the 88 (for example) hasn't the reputation as the best AT gun of WWII if it was so unreliable. [ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mensch: Hey Scipo , kuhl bleiben. Da sind ein Paar gute Bucher ich habe gekauft bei Amazon.de oder Buch.de. Ich wolte nicht so stark über kommen, tut mir leid. Ich war in ein Panzergruppe in Kanada. In krieg wir hatten gelernt wenn man kann es nicht zurück tragen; stüren es. Fragt mal Andreas "Germanboy" er hat bestimmt ein paar gute Bücher in Deutsch zu opfern..hehe.. nein.. aber ein liste von was hat gute information von. Grego (aka mensch)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No problemo :cool: . I started to read 'Stalingrad' by Antony Beevor just two days ago (German translation). What I really seek are (German) books about Tank tactics and also AT. Well, I see that the common sense is : this idea is bull**** . Nevertheless, I learned a few more things. Now to something completly different - I assume this has been dicussed already, but I love to hear old storys again How about the hit rate of - especially heavy - AT guns over long ranges? The German 88 (AA) was known as a relativ big, easy to spot gun, so it's greatest 'defense' was the ability to fire and destroy tanks over long ranges (I currently don't find details about it). But in a running battle, we fire over 2000m with those guns (Jacksons vs Elephant and Jagdpanthers, not moving) and hit nearly nothing. Is it only lack of luck in this battle, or is it normal & correct?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mensch: Scipio where you ever in the army??? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, and you will laugh - I was in a 120mm mortar unit. No, we were never teached to destroy our weapons or how to do so. I guess now you can imagine why I think that the German Bundeswehr is one of the most useless armys in the world. (Ten years ago - I don't know if it's better now, but I don't think so). Anyway - it's not necessary to talk to me as if I'm a child or a moron or both. And please excuse that I didn't made it to read all the books about war - the most of them are unavailable in German, and my Englisch isn't good.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: That makes it a bit difficult to answer your questions and c), since the answer is (you guessed it) 'coding'. Maybe it will be changed, and Steve (IIRC) has acknowledged it is not realistic, but it is fundamentally coding related, so how can you not discuss this? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I meant, we should not discuss if something is worth to be coded, but of cause we should discuss if a 'problem' is caused by the coding. Abandoned/Knocked out - thanks for the clarification. In this case, maybe the word 'abandoned' is not the best choice to describe the state of the weapon - or this word has a deeper meaning then my dictionary told me :confused: Yes, when I think about it you're right, I guess it was usual to make a gun unusable before abandon it, even to avoid capturing.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dalem: In my opinion this is really the key to accepting most of the abstractions in the game. "Killed" also = hiding = ran away = carrying buddies to the rear = done for the day, for some reason. This does not help the issue of lone MG gunners staying in place to be killed, but as has been noted, that's a coding thing, and in the end probably not that important in game terms. -dale<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> About this point, I absulotly do NOT agree to you and Slapdragon. Remember the discussion about bayling crews - they are (mostly) also useless on the battlefield, but if they are killed, they count for the endresult. So, a machinegun can be knocked out, but that doesn't mean that I loose a crew, too. Slapdragon, you are partially right, but just keep in mind what I've written: a) Experience of the 'new' crew would matter very much. A veteran or better crew may have already experience with the capture weapon. The crew works with lower efficiency, also depending on the grade of experience. c) A mortar crew may be able to use another mortar, but surely not to use a fieldgun. d) The necessary preparations you list can be easy simulated by a longer 'unlimber' period. Well so much about captured enemy weapons. About own abandoned weapons, I really don't see a reason why a crew can't return to their weapon when they abandoned it once. Maybe they need an 'unlimber' phase after returning, but then... About the coding : I propose we don't discuss this. I start this and other threats to deliver and discuss ideas. If some of them find the way into CM2, great, but that is an decision of BTS anyway, so we can spare us the time - agree? [ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

Folks, because my other threat was locked for some people who starts an absolutly off topic discussion, let's restart it here. SO, I guess my doubts about the vulnerability of tanks is solved, that leaves us with the minefields... And here's another thing I've noticed : a) a gun or mortar (on-map) can be 'knocked-out' or 'abandoned'. Okay, when it's knocked out, it's kaput, the crew brews coffee and eat some Butterbrot (=sandwich). But what is an abandoned gun? I guess it's still operable, but the crew has run for cover, cause the situation was a little bit to hot. Why can't they return to the gun later when the situation has cooled down? I noticed that crews of support weapons usually try to flee with their heavy weapons. That's very unrealistic, IMO, especially when they are in open country. The first thing they would do is to throw away the mortar/gun/machinegun etcetera and run for their lives, maybe to try later to man their abandoned guns. c) why can a machinegun not be knocked out with a surviving crew? Is a MG not so vulnerable like a 60mm mortar? d) Maybe a surviving crew would be able to man the weapon of another - maybe killed or routed - crew? Maybe they could even man an abandoned enemy gun? I guess if you once have learned to use a fieldgun, mortar, MG, you can use also a captured weapon of this type - maybe with smaller effeciency (depending on the 'new' crews quality). I could imagine this has happend often, especially on the level of a CM game. Capturing enemy equipment could also improve the endresult - the enemy hasn't only lost that gun, it will be also used against him in another battle! This could open some new horizons...

SO, I guess my doubts about the vulnerability of tanks is solved, that leaves us with the minefields... BTW, here's another thing I've noticed : a) a gun or mortar (on-map) can be 'knocked-out' or 'abandoned'. Okay, when it's knocked out, it's kaput, the crew leaves to brew coffee and eat some Butterbrot (=sandwich). But what is an abandoned gun? I guess it's still operable, but the crew has run for cover, cause the situation was a little bit to hot. Why can't they return to the gun later when situations has cooled down? I noticed that crews of support weapons usually try to flee with their heavy weapons. That's very unrealistic, IMO, especially when they are in open country. The first thing they would do is to throw away the mortar/gun/machinegun etcetra and run for their lives, maybe to try later to man their abandoned guns. c) why can a machinegun not be knocked out with a surviving crew? Is a mg not so vulnerable like a 60mm mortar? d) Maybe that surviving crew would be able to man the gun of a - maybe killed or routed crew? This could open some new horizons in the game... Mh, that's appears to be somehow realeted to the bailing tank crew problem. [ 07-16-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

I don't know what most Germans think about it - but I as German say : YES, I'm sick to be acused for 12 years in the history of my loved country. But I guess this goes a little bit of topic. BTW - everyone seems to forget that Germany, beneath the extermination of 50.000.000 innocent people, did the same job like the US a few years later in Korea and Vietnam : fight against the communists. Of cause, it's much more honrable when the US do so. But this goes really off topic, and I suggest you continue this elsewhere, before this threat is locked. Thank you. [ 07-16-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Interesting - where did you read that? I thought it was the other way round?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> SORRY - I was wrong here. Correct is this: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Units are worth what they cost, except arty spotters (30 points). Crewmembers are worth 6 points regular, 8 veteran. squads are computed by men, all worth the same, HQ alike. Capture is twice. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It was a post by Redwolf in this threat

I paid 120 Deutschmark, including shipping to Europe. To bring it to an international formula - 120 DM is ~120 cans of beer (0.5 liter). I never regret the purchase - also because I haven't the time to drink the beer, anyway. I need it (and my neurons) for the game... [ 07-16-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

Manx, your modsite is the best I know, IMO even better then the CMHQ. If somebody don't like a mod - hell, who cares? Nobody is forced to install it!!!

Yo, we are not the biggest ladder - but we are just only 1 1/2 month online. Maybe you take a look at WarfareHQ

Back at the front Well, when I read all the messages, they have all one common sense : the tank crews (and also the gun crews ??) were much valuable to be wasted to fight in more or less damaged tanks. It's good and realistic that the bail out, survive and man another tank. Correct? But now I think on something I've read just two or three days ago about the CM victory conditions and the points you gain for destroyed/killed enemy units. It said something like, for example, a normal infantry soldier counts 3 points, a crewman 2 points. Is that right? If so, then it would be a very big error, a tanker (gunner?) should be at least double so valuable like a normal soldier.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Good point - you could e.g. see the 'Gun damage' message as an indication of a turret-ring hit. While the gun would still be functional, it would also be aimed at one point only, so it is technically not correct, but the effect of either would be that you retire and draw a new tank.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I guess this could be solved relativ easy with more detailed damage messages - of course, this would be against my other opinion about to detailed infos about the enemy units - or not? Do the AT crew know what they hit? I mean, in battle conditions?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: No problem about the books, glad to be of service. Light AT guns essentially depend on being able to get flankshots. Flank armour on Panthers was weak (Tigers were much better). The Germans did that with their light AT guns (37mm and 50mm) against the KV-1 and the T34 when these appeared. They also used Tungsten rounds, and special aim at the turret ring. A non-penetrating, but disabling kill, since it would make the turret jam, and the 'wuss-tankers' would then retire from the field. This bit of info I got from a 37mm AT gun operator who was trained on it later in the war. I specifically asked him how they thought they could kill a T34 with the 'Heeresanklopfgeraet' (Army door knocker), as the 37mm was fondly known, and turret ring was his immediate answer. They were apparently trained to fire at that spot specifically.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> An interesting point - it seems to me that the guns in CM are able to fire a special spot, it looks more like lottery what they hit. Of course, that could be a problem with the - often and easy forgotten - game abstraction. [ 07-15-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

HEY, Germanboy, Dunee - if you want to see a locked threat, start your own for your private quarrel, don't let my dicussion be locked for your problem. IST DAS JETZT KLAR??? [ 07-15-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matthew_Ridgeway: First Artillery, now mines? Your certainly determined to find some earth shattering flaw in CM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Matthew, I only want to help to make a (very) good game better. Perfection is a neverending way!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Regarding tank hits and crews bailing, I very strongly recommend reading 'Tank!' by Ken Tout. Tout was a TC in 2nd Northants Yeo, the original Recce Rgt of 11th Uk Armoured. He participated in operation TOTALIZE, the prelude to breakthrough south of Caen. A first class look into the way a tank crew fights by someone who was there. All will be revealed in that book. Another good read is '64 Days of a Normandy Summer', forgotten the author, but he was a tanker too. Also, 'Tank Tracks - 9th RTR at war'. I have been told that 'Death Traps' is also a good read. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for the hints, I guess I can improve my english with this books, too . Anyway, I guess we go a little of topic. Okay, when I think about your arguments, I can accept that a crew tends to bail out. But I still ask myself if the - especially light - AT guns are not a bit to powerful? Maybe I'm wrong with this, cause I think the normal AT gun wasn't used for infight, more on distances of 1000m and above. On close distance like in CM they are much more lethal.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fishu: Why would turret penetration kill the crew? If you get turret penetration with 75mm, that has some HE content in it, to make it explode in the tank, you're going to have a mess with those shrapnels. Should be fairly true with german vs. allied tanks. (I heard that germans had AP rounds with small content of HE working better than any other had)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My question was - why does it kill the tank? You have a good point, a tank with a dead crew is a dead tank - but I usually see an escaping Crew after a turret penetration, so that can't be the answer. Germanboy - okay, that's good arguments about the escaping crews, also that players cause casualties with their tactic and not the engine. But I still think that tanks die to fast. An 88 shell could walk through the hole tank, but that doesn't necessary mean the dead of the tank. Place a small 50/57mm AT gun vs any tank (except the Jagttiger), and it's simple math that the tank will be killed. IMO, that's not realistic - the factor 'luck' is here much to oversized. I've read that the 88 AA gun was in early war the only weapon that could save kill a T-34. The 75mm AT could also from closer distance. The 50mm was abolutly unable. Well, I can take out Panthers and Tigers with 57mm ATs - I'm not sure if it's correct. How much damage can a 57mm cause a Tiger?

a) Why does a tank don't detonate AP mines? Maybe they don't cause trouble to the tank, but the minefield would be uncovered. IMO, damage on tanks/HT isn't modeled very good (maybe that's only a problem of the damage messages). I think tanks die much to fast - for example, why means a turret penetration the death of the tank? The casualties of a typical large CM battle would be in reality a medium catastrophe - a German tank division for example was equipted with 'only' 150 - 200 tanks and ~100 HTs. And also the escaping Crew. I don't know it about Alied tanks, but it was possible to remove the onboard MGs of some German tanks/HTs very fast, so even an escaping Crew (if not paniced) could be a usefull unit with a MG. FOW - Generally, I think we get to much information about enemy units. I can't even say if I fight with Regular or Elite troops if it wouldn't be shown in the display, so how should I know it about the enemy troops? Maybe I can say how many men an enemy troop has NOW, but how should I know how much it was originally? How should I know if I face a group of Panzergrenadiere or another infantry formation? Also damgages - I don't think that we can always be sure if we have destroyed an enemy unit, especially from greater distance. Is this gun/tank destroyed, or does it looks only like it's destroyed? Maybe we need an additional stage of FOW? Well, that's enough for the moment

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by russellmz: click the yellow capitalized italicized faq in my sig :Þ<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ah, now I've found it. Sorry, I'm a Windows user. I don't expect easy solutions for easy problems.

Whatever you have smoked this evening, can you send me a taste?

I ask myself how long it will take til BTS get trouble with the DEA. They're selling one of the strongest (and best) drugs I ever tested