dieseltaylor

Crew conduct seems broken. I killed two crew members of a Sherman, the TC standing in the turret , and then another who stuck his head out of the turret, and during this minute the tank kept firing and nailed an 88mm. So we have the physical impossibility of firing with two dead bodies in the turret and the morale effect apparently of no effect. It wa version 1.01 but I have seen nothing suggesting it has been changed - though possibly ....

Kind of interesting and with figures and even proof! I strongly suggest reading the whole article but a few snippets to whet the appetite: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/03/how-your-cat-is-making-you-crazy/8873 P.S.I suppose whilst at it something very less developed but possibly interesting Study suggests mobile phone use during pregnancy may cause ADHD in offspring http://www.gizmag.com/mobile-phone-radiation-effects-fetus/21879

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/new-ipad-feature-dictation-sendsstores-private-data-to-apple-servers/71841 It seems quite bizarre that businesses are rolling out iPads for staff without perhaps appreciating how much of their business may be revealed with Dictation. Imagine the benefits for those of a roguish tendency with access to data using it for making money.

17 pdr APCBC on Panther Exposure .....Success % .....0º ....45º ....90º ....135º ......180º Full view ...........90 % .......- .......- .....1200 .....1250 .....1200 .......................50 % ......50 ....1750 ...2350 .....2350 .....2250 .......................30 % .....100... 2550 ...2900 .....2850..... 2850 Hull down .........90 % ......- .....- ..........400 .......500 ......450 .......................50 % .....300 ....550 ....1100..... 1200 ....1100

The War Office carried out trials for first shot kills on all the German tanks and effectively front on this did not happen with Panthers at all using APCBC or AP. There was no APDS in this 1943 test. WW2 hit probability figures Source: PRO document WO291/171, OR report on effectiveness of British anti-tank guns, 1943. "Comments and corrections" from J D Salt The tables above are extracted from a set of polar diagrams plotted to show the 30%, 50% and 90% contours for the chance of success from all angles around the target vehicle. The tables therefore omit much of the information in the original diagrams, which was calculated using 15º intervals from head-on (0º) to rear-on (180º). There is a noticeable tendency for many of the polar plots to form "clover-leaves", and these are especially clear on the Panther and Tiger. The original document emphatically stresses the approximate nature of these results, and cautions that they should be treated as comparative rather than absolute figures. It details the definitions used, simplifying assumptions made, and in some cases assesses the distortion these may cause. "Chance of success", as used here, means the probability of hitting and killing with a single shot. There is assumed to be a systematic error of 35 yards in range and zero in line. The gun layer is assumed to lay with the same accuracy as the 90% zone of the gun. This will tend to overestimate effectiveness at long range. All targets are assumed to be static. The damage criterion for a kill is taken to be complete perforation of the armoured box, through which the whole length of the projectile passes. All tank components outside the armoured box, such as running gear, are ignored. Behind-armour effects are ignored, although it is noted that tanks are very unlikely to survive penetrations by projectiles of 6-pdr size and greater. Shots that strike the target are assumed to be uniformly, not normally, distributed over the target areas presented. This may tend to overestimate the amount of "invulnerable" side-armour presented in fine front quarter shots, and neglects the possibility of the gunner choosing to aim at a specific vulnerable point on the target tank. Hull-down targets have been treated as being bounded below by the turret ring. Armour quality has been treated as falling into three categories. German machineable-quality (MQ) armour on the Panther and Tiger has been treated as equivalent to British MQ. The MQ armour on the Panzer III and Panzer IV has been treated as equivalent to a 10% greater thickness of British MQ. The face-hardened (FH) plate has been taken as having a critical impact velocity for penetration 500 feet per second greater than British MQ with respect to AP projectiles, 200 feet per second greater with respect to APCBC. The first assumption is regarded as reasonable; the second as rough, possibly tending to overestimate the German armour; and the final assumption is thought to be very doubtful. The original document does not state whether the Panzer III and IV targets were considered to be using Schürzen. It is hard to see how some diagrams, for example that for the 17 pounder vs Panther, can show a better performance from some aspects against a hull-down target than a fully exposed one." I disagree with JD on the last paragraph as the turret is more likely to give a kill rather than the glacis. As to a Panther standing still for several hits by a 17pdr that is unusual as it would well know that a turret or track hit would probably be fatal. The WO figures are purely first round/hit kills andtherefore do not provide much guidance on 10 hits on a Panther.

pictograms - ah yes I remember them. Of course keyboards were a bugger .... PS. congrats to bugged. And though it saddens me to see another man down it is probably a good thing : )

I think currently CMx2 is too demanding on micro-management to be fun. I do question BF's decision to do Normandy first for WW2 as it is a very fiddly arena to fight in with bocage being the most likely to be micromanaged. Why the Western desert/Tunisia [which is similar to Italy] was not used first to acquaint people with the system and get rid of the gremlins I really do not understand. Possibly the armour system would have been more obviously wrong BUT the micro-management aspects of infantyr fighting could have been more easily seen. Gaming the game clock in human vs. human might occur but at the moment I have not seen enough reported battles.

If you stretch your imagination a tad. http://cloudappreciationsociety.org/cloud-tags/cloudalikes

Interesting article. Does not give any figures but that I suppose is variable for each male. Interestingly in those days when we used to worry about the possibility of VIP's being blackmailable for homosexual activity this may have been a sneaky method of checking persuasion .... though this test did not explore this avenue. On a more serious note it might help lads not to be in co-ed schools. http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/science-scope/what-turns-a-mans-mind-to-mush-a-female-observer/12389?tag=nl.e660

And at least you can discuss it afterwards : ) Incidentally this is really a re-hash of what occurred in CMx1 with scenario design. The idea that variable time is fair is actually untrue of attack defence as time is a great resource. The attacker almost always will have greater resources so the more carefully he moves the greater chance of conserving troops and identifying enemy positions. The rationale I make solidly for a timed cut-off is that as an attacker you are tasked with reporting in at whatever the end point is 30,45, 60 minutes to advise your HQ where you have got to. HQ is dependent on your progress to decide whether to launch a second phase - or decide whether your attack has bled enough resource for the major attack to occur elsewhere. Therefore any attack scenario be it for solo or dual play should be to a fixed time. Only battles where all VP's are available can use variable time limit fairly.

This War Office research is very interesting as to hits on briefly seen target at close range. I have quoted the original as provided by the well-respected J D Salt who is the researcher who extracted the data that I have quoted in the thread WO 291/473 Performance of bullet weapons. On the matter of relative rate-of-fire of the Bren and MG-42, this paper says "...the advantages of the German gun over the Bren are due almost entirely to the belt feed rather than to the cyclic rate." A trial was conducted to find out, for closely-spaced standing targets, whether "traversing fire" – traversing the gun over an arc without aiming at individual targets – was superior to "service bursts", that is, firing short aimed bursts at individual targets, with the Bren gun. The results tabulated here show the expected number of casualties per 30 seconds' firing: Range (yds) Spacing in feet Service bursts Traversing fire 100................. 4 ...................9 .................16 100 .................8 ...................5 ..................8 200 .................4................... 8 .................12 200 .................8 ...................5.................. 7 Another trial concerned the relative accuracy of the Bren fired from the hip using ball and tracer ammunition. Firing at fixed targets at 35 yds and moving targets at 17 yds, an improvement averaging 24% was found firing tracer rather than ball. Yet another trial involved comparing the Sten gun against the service pistol. At a range averaging 10 yards, the following average results were obtained on targets exposed for an average of 5 seconds and moving across the line of fire at 10 feet per second: Type of fire.............Hits per shot ...Hits per engagement ...Shots per engagement Sten from the hip .....0.12 ..................1.86 ..............................16 Pistol from the hip ....0.08 ..................0.48 ................................5 Pistol, aimed ...........0.14 ...................0.71 ................................5

Having read the thread it seems to me that essentially the problem is that the AI cannot be scripted to be anywhere near as effective as an average player. Secondly that I think designers have a far better appreciation of the game engine than the players have at this stage. So to a designer the timings may not seem tight because they know what should happen optimally. Over time people may catch up with the designers. Thirdly, the effects of unforeseen consequences. In this case scenarios early in the cycle probably were working on the cover of the original game, such as buildings and foxholes, which has now been modified in patch 1.10. This process of refinement of the game engine needs to continue of course and may yet alter the way older scenarios play out. Personally I think playing humans in PBEM is the ONLY way to play. The opponent has more brain power than any scripted AI. Some people enjoy playing the AI however to my mind that , like sex, is not as satisfying as when two humans are involved. As for playing RTS - I cannot really comprehend anything beyond a skirmish being believable or satisfactory. Still each to their own.

Well said Amizaur. I agree. The whole armour module in the game has been a disappointment with what lloks like CMSF coding just imported into WW2. That is why in version !.0 we had Panthers moving at speeding firing broadside and hitting. Things are improving but my faith in BF's design has taken a huge knock. It borders on the insulting to its audience to claim for realism with tanks acting in such a way. It reminds me of the first Churchill tanks which came out of Vauxhall's factory. They had the balls to explain it was the best tank they could make currently after one years development:

Where is this killer ap? Is it like Siri but for Android?

Infantry Weapons and Their Effects 1943 Part 1 of 2 Infantry Weapons and their Effects 1943 Part 2 of 2 I can see where BF got their ideas of shooting through walls and other effects. The films seem to err on the side of optimism. I was impressed by the 105mm blowing away roadblocks 4 ft thick and wondering why it was not used in the bocage - perhaps 10 shells per breach ..... or possibly the roadblock destroyed was quite lightweight in comparison. Anyway very interesting as to effects.

German automatics at 1.25 in. Good sounds good fim

We kind of guessed that when you said she was a girlfriend! : ) only kidding

SOme info here

Nice to have a good news type feature: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/03/12/20120312goodyear-resident-brings-wwii-pilots-movie-life.html

There are plenty of videos on the net showing WW2 vehicles moving and they certainly are not as sprung as in game. I cannot say I have checked every vehicle but certainly the Tiger does not rock when firing or stopping. BF have claimed for realism, and spent plenty of time on wallpaper and milestones to add a believability factor. You would think vehicle movement would have been more important. Can I recommend Bovington Tankfest for plenty of tank movement action for those who require their own eye evidence http://www.tankmuseum.org/ixbin/indexplus?record=ART3153 Regarding your point about infantry injuries, valid point but more to do within front of the muzzle : ). APDS could be lethal for hundreds of yards and had a dispersion factor of 6 degrees. Going deaf could also be a drawback for an infantry man.

I think there is evidence that the US cadged around 130,000 rounds of HE from the UK for the 57mm. The 6pdr was more effective than the US 57mm because of the British ammo - APCR and APDS with were around 25% and 50% higher velocity than the US shells.

Actually I only went to 5 a page for a laugh - normally I use the max 40 to a page, I think the default is 10 or 20

http://www.cruisecritic.co.uk/ports/newport.cfm?ID=73 Useful site with plenty of currentish info. One thing I did on my last cruise was to nick off the Web all the great pictures of where I was going. This meant: A if the weather was crappy I still had some good pics : 0 B did not have to worry about photographs all the time and could be more relaxed C Camera batteries run out so less pressure to take all the shots leads to longer camera life Last trip I bought a new Olympus compact with a 36x zoom and a wide angle of round 60 degrees. The zoom is the equivalent of an 842mm at full stretch which is asti=onishgly good. The whole camera about 250euro and weighs less than my old 105mm zoom lens

Get you two - I am now on page 8 : )

* proper suspension antics for the vehicles - so Tigers do not rock around like 2000 MTB's