dieseltaylor

The answer surely would be either the PIAT operator hands over the weapon or the squad hand over the ammo. In both cases the object of uniting weaponless ammo and ammo-less weapon is accomplished. And that criteria could form the basis of a rule within the coding.

Just the commander would have the ability to spot other than frontwards in the majority of tanks. Whether the ability of guns to depress vertically extends to the TC vision is unknown to me however generally speaking if you got very close to a tank they could not see you.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/04/invention-jaywalking/1837/ An interesting article. Particularly on the setting up of traffic awareness for kids ... get them young enough etc.

I think assertion 1) has been proven by reference to the numerous videos showing minimal rocking when firing for tanks apart from the Shermans when over-gunned with HV weapons. And even in that case it is less than game. And by the same video sources that rocking when halting is also exaggerated. Whilst checking movement and dipping, and firing Badgers Dog remark on HV and firing made me look at the respective rates of fire of the Shermans and both 75mm and the HV guns are firing at the same rate of approximately 6 rounds per minute. As I understand it the HV armed tanks because of room and relaying the gun fired at roughly half the rate of the 75mm armed Shermans. Now I was using HE in the test at 400 metres and have no idea if there is a special logarithm for AP and or rate of fire/range of fire but my gut instinct is not. In CMx1 this had the effect of making HV armed Sherman far more potent than in reality. This was aggravated by the tactical AI being stupid and shooting closer vanilla 75mm Shermans rather than the dangerous HV gun armed tanks. **PS. As someone posted here part of the "cure" might be not to view the action from anything other than a longer range. There is a strong element of truth to that but then when so much has gone into the graphical side so you can enjoy it close too it seems weird not to look closely.

Actually it is an option User CP Options Thread Display Mode: Number of Posts to Show Per PageUse this option to set the number of posts to show in a thread before splitting the display into multiple pages. Number of Posts to Show Per Page And you can chose between 5,10, 20, or 40 AFAIR

M1 live firing in case the other video is presumed blanks Childress - on my screen this is page two. Perhaps you need to make longer pages : )

Great little movies. Thanks

Very impressive. Execellent map and foundation of the battle. And thoughtfully demonstrated by the jpgs. I look forward to the future instalments. It should be possible by Dropbox for you to give players the battle turns so that at some future date all can experience the action first hand. Might be a nice gift to the community to see the way it can play. ; ) I am hopefully sitting in a ringside seat for a WeBoB final about to kick off. Strictly not to comment just become a war film watcher!! : )

Perhaps the +2 system is as simple as CMx1 and that basically the troops fight two levels up and respond more quickly to orders. So nothing too sophisticated and perhaps a useful rule of thumb.

Looks like a bit of duff info on Wkipedia! Time to edit : )

From the benefit of Mr Salt's work. Extracted information not all of which is readily comprehensible to me! WO 291/472 Performance and handling of HE grenades. A trial of grenade-throwing accuracy was conducted using the 36 grenade (Mills bomb), taking the average of 18 throws (3 throws by 6 men). The average errors, in feet, at different ranges were: _______________15 yds 20 yds 30 yds 40 yds Guards Range_____ 5_____11____ 14 ____12 ____Line________________4 _____10 ____10 Devons Range – ___-______26 ____11 ___14 Line _____________– _____9 ______8____ 11 For stick grenades, "the stick does not seem to increase the maximum accurate throw, but it does prevent rolling". Average errors and length of roll, in feet, are given as: ________________Range Line Roll Mills 36 ___________ 15_ 8__ 9 Time-fuzed stick ____ 8_ 8___3 Chances of incapacitation, at different distances from different grenades, are given as: Distance--------- 36 grenade---- USA grenade ---------------German stick grenade (feet) -----------------------Normal filling TNT filling ----------On base As thrown 3 ________________________________________________________-97%___ 83% 6 _________________________________________________________92%___ 75% 9 _________________________________________________________70% ___45% 10 _______________45%______ 20%______ 40% 20 _______________17% _______7% ______18% 30 _______________13% _______2%________10% 40 _______________10% ______0.5% _______5% 50 – 60 ________________3.0% 70 ________________1.4% 80_________________0.7% The USA grenade was given an experimental TNT filling for these tests. Only one German grenade was available, so this was fragmented on its base and the results used to calculate the expected results "as thrown", the orientation of a thrown grenade being significant in affecting its burst pattern. The 36 grenade, it is stated. "has a very irregular burst". The lethal area of the 36 grenade is given as 1550 sq ft on meadow land, and that of the USA grenade 350 sq ft. The lethal area of the 36 grenade is calculated as 2000 sq ft on perfectly flat ground, which would correspond to 1500 sq ft on normal ground. On perfectly smooth ground, incapacitation probabilities are stated as being 84% at 10 feet, falling to 14% at 30 feet. Maximum throws, in yards, for different types of British grenade: Grenade Standing Lying 70 _______33 ____31 71_______ 28 ____23 36 _______30 ____26 "The conclusions with regard to the 69 grenade were:– (i) A direct hit would be lethal (ii) Apart from the concussive effect and flying stones there seems to be little probability of injury Length of throw, in yards, for British and US grenades: A Standing behind cover B In the open C Crouching behind cover D Lying in the open British 36 A31 C21 US fragmentation A31 C21 British 69 B32 D26 US offensive B28 D26 Average length of throw, in yards, for different British grenades: AGrenade Standing behind cover BCrouching behind cover C Lying ___A_B__C 70 29 24 23 71 25 22 22 36 30 25 24 69 26 23 24 (segmented jacket) 69 28 23 22 (plain jacket) Screen test results giving percentage chance of incapacitation at different ranges: Grenade 4 feet 8 feet 12 feet 70 85 39 20 71 98 63 36 36 73 29 14 69 (segmented jacket) 96 56 31 69 (plain jacket) 91 44 23 Finally, the average percentage chances of incapacitation at 10 to 20 feet are given as 33% for the 36 grenade, 25% for the US rifle grenade M9A1, an anti-tank grenade, but with good anti-personnel characteristics. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx All very interesting stuff. Inaccuracies in throwing, the benefit of not rolling, the lethality etc all very interesting. Note that these range experiments show up some inefficient grenades justifying the value of the work. Thanks to JD Salt for letting these War Office extracts become more widely known.

The tanks involved are 75mm Shermans, and MkIV's, so they are designed for the gun size. At 1800m there were AFAIR no first round hits. The IV's are immobilised and the Shermans have a history of only one moving in 19 instances so rocking via movement does not have any bearing. Bizarrely one Sherman hit 3 times consecutively on the front hull - not seeing the firer at all - did not move or pop smoke. : )

All praise to scenario designers who allow troops to depart the board. Little is more ridiculous than broken troops fleeing a barrage bouncing off the map edge to run back into the shells they are fleeing. Also having lorries/trucks parked up waiting to be shot rather than driving them away from danger also seems bizarrely unreal.

Given depression and elevation are not modelled on the tank gun I would be surprised if the rocking motion did have any gameplay effect other than spoil the immersive feel. However it may be that there is a general fudge factor involved as I have seen stationary tanks open fire on my test range and hit hugely short and over on targets - though at 1800 metres.

At least it isn't a brain taxing reasoned response.

BD So that explains why the 17pdr and the 76mm had a lower rate of fire than the 75mm in RL - other than just loading times. Designing out this reaction was a good thing for accuracy in tanks. Not just Shermans. Churchills and the 57mm? Ok so the Churchill only weighs about 40 tons and the recoil from 57mm would be something fierce and will all those bogies holding the tracks flat to the earth it was just so it did not go backwards aswell as rock about. Lucky that. BTW you know that blobby thing on the end of the gun? Called a muzzle brake. On a Tiger it would take 70% of the recoil force, the hydraulic buffer 25%, and 5% would be taken by the hydro-pneumatic recuperator to put the gun back into position. Clever stuff. However I cannot see how they used to rock the tank in any book - is the modelling wrong!? BD. While I appreciate you may not think it a big problem some like claimed realism to be in the game. Perhaps in your experience with tanks you can say how fast in reverse they were. And what difficulties arise when reversing. It is nice to have someone with some experience.

Perhaps those who mind actually have an idea what is correct and those that don't mind really don't know or care. However if you claim that your game is realistic down to wallpaper and milestones you might hope that inaccurate motion of tanks like rocking like a jelly just from stopping and starting let alone firing was dealt with. Now it may be that CMSF armour was re-skinned and loaded into CMBN and that is why when it first came out we had daft accuracy and firing on the move and rocking and everything else. And reversing as fast as forwards. And some of this has been made better. But seeing it wrong every time I play really makes me peeved.

You must have a hell of a photo archive wo

I was writing at WeBoB on this type of set-up for a Tournament as I think CMBN makes scenario balancing very hard. So bite the bullet and make it very simple like a Knockout with a Plate. The way I view it you end up with an Allied and German winner - and if it were desired those two have a final battle and the Plate competition run simultaneously will provide a par score and the player who exceeds the par by most wins overall. The way scenarios are constructed needs to be given some thought in terms of trying to more finely graduate the scores. The WeBoB database shows a very high number of extreme scores recorded - about 50% or more are 80/20 or better/worse. My pet theory is that the loony provision of invisible walls around small maps means that artillery is made stronger as units bounce of the walls and run back into fire, vehicles cannot leave the map, and units simply do not retire even when all is lost. I am not quite sure what aspect of realism the invisible walls represent but scenario designers are really going to have to appreciate this aspect of design needs to be corrected from the default. However an WEBoB annual tourney is on the cards and its the results from the early tourneys that has provided the data which is giving pause for thought about how it is constructed. I am a great fan of NABLA but given the huge variability in spotting times for tanks [and possibly for other troops] it would seem to be giving too much precision to games where generally good players should succeed but luck will have a big role.

You can probably calculate what an HMG need do for the task.

I think its Market Garden because these Touch phones are really thin and the Dutch landscape being so flat fits inside better.

When his carrier pigeon died : )

I suppose odourless to humans might be more likely way to follow that thought - if it were true. : ) Fortunately I have now the detail. Union Oil Company of California had noticed in the 1930s that turkey vultures attracted to leaks in their natural gas pipleine. This was so useful they actually added more mercaptan to the pipes.

Good stuff Amizaur. Whether by game design or accident it is very hard to get consistent testing. I have restarted a battle three times to see the variability in spotting from the identical tank and positions. Curiously the crew were re-named each trial but the most bizarre points were: A. Sherman hit on front hull upper three times in successsion and the commander stayed unbuttoned whilst they ricochetted past him. Regardless of this he failed to see the enemy tank for a full 90 seconds under fire. He also did not seek to move the tank. B. One pair of tanks did not see each other for two trials so that was 4 minutes of spotting. The third reloaded battle the Sherman saw the enemy after a few seconds. I am wondering if this is because of how the game places them in the 8*8 each loading of the battle. C. Not relevant particularly to what I was trying to find out: In one trial 50% of the MkIVs [3] died within two minutes at 1800metres. The 75mm was a good gun but I believe its ability to accurately fire at range was compromised by poor sights. The two minute of action on the other two occasions lead to a dead Sherman. The reason for playing around like this was that in club tournaments are fun and having the same battle fought by many players means everyone can relate to it in the AARs. I was wondering if spotting changing by significant amounts from ostensibly the same tank and same crew and same position could adversely affect the gaming experience.

Good link John 1966