dieseltaylor

http://www.panther-elmito.de/panther%20a/articulos/informe-le_panther_1947.html From a Spanish site and Google translated. However it is quite explicit what the problem seems to be for the French. When moving the gunner is blind and therefore is seriously behind the game compared to a tank gunner with his set of sights who can actually be spotting. More eyes make better tank awareness.

Not being in a tank must improve visibility immensely TrailApe : ) Now to be fair we only have Bastables assertion that Panthers would use max revs for speedy traversing. It would not surprise me if Panther drivers did not play silly buggers and driving about is a very important attribute for a tank. Therefore max revs for traversing was not the default, conserving the engine was possibly the most important aim. And I do think there is an element of truth that idling was the preferred option both to reduce fuel usage and to reduce tell-tale signs like vibrating camouflage!. To max up the revs would possibly make the Panthers lair much more obvious to as yet unseen Allied tanks and planes so that might also tend to towards playing it safe with revs. Being used to low light levels , as we are in the UK, I am not totally impressed with the Panther /T-34 litany - which may work perfectly well on the Uktranian steppes but may be not so effective in a cluttered Western European landscape. I have been fooled in wooden terrain missing someone in dappled sunshine at 30ft standing by a tree. In good sunshine I have ssen cars and trucks at over 5 miles range in the UK. However having 5 miles of sea inbetween did make it very easy. :0 Just suppose the target is not moving and camouflaged does the Sherman sight allow a speedier acquisition than a Panther momocular sight. Unless we can lay hands on the French work and they give greater detail we are a bit stuffed. However I am not going to call it nonsense.

You got to be careful with those Somali pirates about

Given Argies four halftracks killed with one shell, and the passengers pretty much all killed it would seem that the hits text is definitely wrong and the hit area is actually higher. In his film three of the hits are lower hull which would mean the thick bits of a halftrack - such as engine ,chassis etc. The fact the shell kills men and goes through 8 pieces of armour does tend to indicate it was the upper hull.

Lets not get too animated on other posters views. Its not helping the thread . As to the relevance of peoples experience I am afraid that only a Panther crewmans view would be of true interest. Modern armies are significantly different in both equipment, threats, and knowledge. And let me declare I have never served or been in a modern tank even a WW2 one. I have been inside a WW1 one though - surely highly relevant : )

I think the thing thta probably riled them was the fact that the same people had already been in several US ports and through the process already - so you would think that the people on-board might already been "pre-vetted" by the time they got to Los Angeles. SO its the illogic that is galling. However to be fair California des seem to excel in bureacracy. The Economist has an article about a small artisan yoghurt maker who was raided for making yoghurt that did not meet code from 1947. Basically she contravened the 1947 treatment requirements for the milk. She pointed out that the regulations pre-dated the arrival of pasteurisation and what they required was met by using pasteurised milk that she was buying in. They required her to basically build a factory to suit the 1947 guidelines for her lbs of weekly produce. The kicker is that she is not allowed to buy pateurised milk and meet the requirements by pasteurising again as that would also be against a law. Land of the free? Incidentally I see that various states have requirments before you can practice your trade. In one state it is required for inrterior designers to be licensed!! WTF. A NY ethnic hair-braider went out to Nevada AFAIR and in order to practice hairbraiding she was required to study to be a beautician and pay for a 2000$ course to be licensed. The course did not actually cover hairbraiding anyway. WTF! It is kind of sad.

So it is not an absolute rule. Spinoza thats quite deep - but what is your view in terms of action?

I did wonder if this was a traversing issue. However I think if it were simply traversing it would have been stated explicitly - a periscope is irrelevant. I am not familiar with the internal sighting systems of the two vehicles but I can easily understand why having a wider view quickly may be advantageous when picking out distant or obscured targets following a bearing from a commander. However without knowing the exact circumstances that lead to the comment I have to accept that perhaps it is a meld of traversing small amounnts and actually lining up the gun. The Panther II project, according to Chambers and Ellis, "was to have abuilt-in stereoscopic rangefinder, and a a gyrostabiliser for both the sight and the gun based on that fitted in American tanks. As part of the experimental work for this a standard Panther was fitted with a gyrostabiliser for firing trials and proved to have its accuracy and effectiveness doubled." Interesting stuff - though my first reaction is it is a German engineers wet dream to have even more complicated kit to add. The second thought is that operationally how robust would it have been. Third and most significant is the concept that the accuracy was doubled!!! Que? All the bumf we see suggest the Panther was 100% accurate pretty much up to 1000 metre so doubling seems an inadequately brief claim. The stereoscopic viewfinder does indicate the Germans thought it advantageous - quicker target acquisition springs to mind.

Same points! Absolutely not. Terrain can make a huge difference. As can timing of reinforcements. Forinstance: 1. Force A has less points but does have the benefit of a good view of Force Bs deployment and movement. Alternatively has the means to interdict an approach. Or a river/feature that protects an attack in a sector but Force B has no such benefit. 2. Force A starts with a small light force and recieves more late whilst Force B starts with not as much overall but has everything on-board. Fortunately RoW's allowed for unbalanced games where the points results were modified by the difficulty for each side. Warfare has always been about both sides trying to make it an unequal fight. Game engines/designers working the other way round : )

Realism is a touch awry with my HMG crew shooting two my men in the back 37 metres in front them. Ok fixed point firing but without any enemy visible to any of my men - having become deceased just previously it did seem fairly stupid to nail them - and in separate bursts

Pak 40 Ambrose , the liar and plagiarist, has a lengthy thread here. You will note that despite plenty of evidence he has never altered the errors in his books. Nice guy. Never let truth interfere with a story. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=97219

Lately there was a thread on target acquisition times. I thought this seemed very interesting. http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?135850-Was-it-the-right-decision-of-Germany-in-WW2-to-build-high-quality-tanks/page14

Just goes to show how the " essential" relationship with the UK works in practice. Incidentally the idea that a terrorist would want to infiltrate a cruise ship in order to enter the US is rather fanciful given the age profile of most cruise passengers.

Well the Iraquis have been beaten we better go after the Iranians. Like we are not going to upset the Russians or Chinese are we! Pisses me off slightly. The graphics are spectacular but the resemblance to real war I suspect is slight. And the whole shoot-em up genre I feel dumbs down violence. BTW since I read programmers manipulate the AI to always present a challenge it make me think that these games are like hamster wheels with humans scurrying inside believing they are actually in control of their own fate. Laughable ain't it.

If the burster failed then .....multiple penetrations of thinnish metal may be possible -- add a few limbs ... I have no idea if sonic shock comes into this. I know it was lethal to satnd to the front of a 17pdr - especially if it fired : )

That is one brilliant piece of film!

Shot going through tank turrets has been reported in WW2 reports - AFAIK only the British used solid shot consistently - so it is entirely possible that HE filler did not reliable explode on contact/sudden deceleration.

It seems that actually there is a consensus of sorts here. The funny one is noxnoctum being the liberterian he is wanting freedom to take whatever he wants. Be it food or drugs. On the face of it that seems fair enough especially if wrapped with a "you do not have to pay for me health" philosophy. My problem comes from my caring instinct - or social instinct. For instance I know that bad foods, bad drugs, bad environment can hurt people badly. I also now that many people do not understand, cannot comprehend or do not care about such things. Or possibly do care but are unable to do anything about it. I also believe the deck is stacked against Joe Soap as given the limited amount each day people can assimilate in information the odds are any messages to him are lost in static, fudged information or outright lies. Now this could be messages about what value foods have, or the legal drugs will sort you out, or the need to have plastic surgery, or new stereo etc. As from a previous post it appears that chemicals are dumbing down IQ levels in the US so perhaps subsiding into happy apathy is OK. However the US leads the way .... As a social animal I want everyone to be happy and have fulfilled happy lives. That is the Utopia I strive towards. I therefore view corporations who seduce people into unhealthy and unrewarding lifestyles as enemies. They make use of the animal nature of humans - greed , sex, stupidity [as discovered by extensive psychological research] - to get people into a certain lifestyle. As a liberterian I would of course feel inhibited in suggesting anyone should stop being a gullible fool and wise-up. Well I might suggest it, feel smarter than the pack and observe the decline of civilisation from afar. Unfortunately for me I do actually think a just society is worth striving for. Therefore: 1. As we already have numerous drugs in society the addition of soft drugs and in a limited form hard drugs is hard to resist on logic or in terms of what it does for diminishing gang power. And structured correctly provides income for the state. 2. Health schemes should be very basic and people pay extra for higher levels of cover. And also can join specific do-good ventures like IVF if they believe it is womens right. Its a depressing mess.

I do really like this story

Irfanview is highly capable, free, and 50 million plus downloads http://www.irfanview.com/ Slightly different from Fraps and deals with most file types.

As some of you know PBEMHelper is a program by a clever Finn Harri Personen to take the faff out of PBEMing. In the CM*1 series it was a huge benefit in keeping track of multiple games and whose turn it was to send a file. As I scroll through my five pages of incoming e-mails I recall fondly how Helper took away and filed the old turns in their own battle folder and just left the current turns live. Now if I were really smart , and if I knew .VBS I might be able to to do something. However clever readers will note I am deficient in the two things required in the previous sentence. : ) I have managed to boot the game from Helper but that really does not make it very useful. Is there some bright spark who can save us hundreds of manhours in the future by converting one of the three scripts that come with Helper, or write a new script? http://www.nic.fi/~fuerte/ where you can download the program from the alt. site.

The changes in the flooring I think indicate "rooms". Therefore the firing at the German may be seen as panicky firing in the direction of a room known to contain an enemy soldier. Not very elegant in the way it plays out on screen.

Affy - lots of people feel better for marijuana. MS sufferers for one group. Significant withdrawals Drug name Withdrawn Remarks Thalidomide 1950s–1960s Withdrawn because of risk of teratogenicity; returned to market for use in leprosy and multiple myeloma under FDA orphan drug rules Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) 1950s–1960s Marketed as a psychiatric cure-all; withdrawn after it became widely used recreationally Diethylstilbestrol 1970s Withdrawn because of risk of teratogenicity Phenformin and Buformin 1978 Withdrawn because of risk of lactic acidosis Ticrynafen 1982 Withdrawn because of risk of hepatitis Zimelidine 1983 Withdrawn worldwide because of risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome Phenacetin 1983 An ingredient in "A.P.C." tablet; withdrawn because of risk of cancer and kidney disease Methaqualone 1984 Withdrawn because of risk of addiction and overdose Nomifensine (Merital) 1986 Withdrawn because of risk of hemolytic anemia Triazolam 1991 Withdrawn in the United Kingdom because of risk of psychiatric adverse drug reactions. This drug continues to be available in the U.S. Terodiline (Micturin) 1991 Prolonged QT interval Temafloxacin 1992 Withdrawn in the United States because of allergic reactions and cases of hemolytic anemia, leading to three patient deaths.[1] Flosequinan (Manoplax) 1993 Withdrawn in the United States because of an increased risk of hospitalization or death Alpidem (Ananxyl) 1996 Withdrawn because of rare but serious hepatotoxicity. Chlormezanone (Trancopal) 1996 Withdrawn because of rare but serious cases of toxic epidermal necrolysis Fen-phen (popular combination of fenfluramine and phentermine) 1997 Phentermine remains on the market, dexfenfluramine and fenfluramine – later withdrawn as caused heart valve disorder Tolrestat (Alredase) 1997 Withdrawn because of risk of severe hepatotoxicity Terfenadine (Seldane, Triludan) 1998 Withdrawn because of risk of cardiac arrhythmias; superseded by fexofenadine Mibefradil (Posicor) 1998 Withdrawn because of dangerous interactions with other drugs Etretinate 1990s Risk of birth defects; narrow therapeutic index Tolcapone (Tasmar) 1998 Hepatotoxicity Temazepam (Restoril, Euhypnos, Normison, Remestan, Tenox, Norkotral) 1999 Withdrawn in Sweden and Norway because of diversion, abuse, and a relatively high rate of overdose deaths in comparison to other drugs of its group. This drug continues to be available in most of the world including the U.S., but under strict controls. Astemizole (Hismanal) 1999 Arrhythmias because of interactions with other drugs Grepafloxacin (Raxar) 1999 Prolonged QT interval Troglitazone (Rezulin) 2000 Withdrawn because of risk of hepatotoxicity; superseded by pioglitazone and rosiglitazone Alosetron (Lotronex) 2000 Withdrawn because of risk of fatal complications of constipation; reintroduced 2002 on a restricted basis Cisapride (Propulsid) 2000s Withdrawn in many countries because of risk of cardiac arrhythmias Amineptine (Survector) 2000 Withdrawn because of hepatotoxicity, dermatological side effects, and abuse potential. Phenylpropanolamine (Propagest, Dexatrim) 2000 Withdrawn because of risk of stroke in women under 50 years of age when taken at high doses (75 mg twice daily) for weight loss. Trovafloxacin (Trovan) 2001 Withdrawn because of risk of liver failure Cerivastatin (Baycol, Lipobay) 2001 Withdrawn because of risk of rhabdomyolysis Rapacuronium (Raplon) 2001 Withdrawn in many countries because of risk of fatal bronchospasm Rofecoxib (Vioxx) 2004 Withdrawn because of risk of myocardial infarction Co-proxamol (Distalgesic) 2004 Withdrawn in the UK due to overdose dangers. mixed amphetamine salts (Adderall XR) 2005 Withdrawn in Canada because of risk of stroke. See Health Canada press release . The ban was later lifted because the death rate among those taking Adderall XR was determined to be no greater than those not taking Adderall. hydromorphone extended-release (Palladone) 2005 Withdrawn because of a high risk of accidental overdose when administered with alcohol Thioridazine (Melleril) 2005 Withdrawn from U.K. market because of cardiotoxicity Pemoline (Cylert) 2005 Withdrawn from U.S. market because of hepatotoxicity Natalizumab (Tysabri) 2005–2006 Voluntarily withdrawn from U.S. market because of risk of Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML). Returned to market July, 2006. Ximelagatran (Exanta) 2006 Withdrawn because of risk of hepatotoxicity (liver damage). Pergolide (Permax) 2007 Voluntarily withdrawn in the U.S. because of the risk of heart valve damage. Still available elsewhere. Tegaserod (Zelnorm) 2007 Withdrawn because of imbalance of cardiovascular ischemic events, including heart attack and stroke. Was available through a restricted access program until April 2008. Aprotinin (Trasylol) 2007 Withdrawn because of increased risk of complications or death; permanently withdrawn in 2008 except for research use Inhaled insulin (Exubera) 2007 Withdrawn in the UK due to poor sales caused by national restrictions on prescribing, doubts over long term safety and too high a cost Lumiracoxib (Prexige) 2007–2008 Progressively withdrawn around the world because of serious side effects, mainly liver damage Rimonabant (Acomplia) 2008 Withdrawn around the world because of risk of severe depression and suicide Efalizumab (Raptiva) 2009 Withdrawn because of increased risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy; to be completely withdrawn from market by June 2009 Sibutramine (Reductil) 2010 Withdrawn in Europe, Australasia, and the U.S. because of increased cardiovascular risk Gemtuzumab ozogamicin (Mylotarg) 2010 Withdrawn in the U.S. due to increased risks of veno-occlusive disease and based on results of a clinical trial in which it showed no benefit in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) Rosiglitazone (Avandia) 2010 Withdrawn in Europe because of increased risk of heart attacks and death. This drug continues to be available in the U.S. And we know that highly addictive legal drugs are being used for complaints that they were not designed for. I have a sneaky suspicion that research into plants for curative potions is neglected deliberately as the product may not be patentable. With a lot of opposition there is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sativex On-line I saw 12 doses at £480. Seems quite a laugh that a legalised sativa plant extract is now benefitting from patent protection and can be used whereas people who grow their own can be prosecuted. Fortunately not in all States and countries. Also I should mention the placebo effect and rigged trials, suppressed evidence etc should not be forgotten when considering the mess we are in in treatment and prescribing medicines.

Oh no not the MkIV hulldown argument again!!! I am sure overtime the question will get resolved incidentally as we play. My own feeling is that rarely will I have my tanks and my enemies tanks llined up square on and level ever - so it is academic. : )