dieseltaylor

I am sure he would like to but you cannot edit an entry after 15 minutes!

I think that Jaws is perhaps not seeing this in the same way I do. I cannot design scenarios, I cannot reliably speak one other language so have a huge affection for those who do make scenarios and do work in a language not their own. In CM it is fortunate that it is a military context and most of us know what we talk about. However do we want people from Sri Lanka, Australia or Chad unfamiliar with military matters reading a scenario with incorrect English and thinking that is a correct spelling.? As to how long a spell/grammar check would delay a scenario? Well I read at several hundred words a minute so I would think five minutes tops. If BF were banning scenario designers from having their text checked then I can understand Jaws being peeved. As I have said I have checked rules for Les Grogs - I am not interested in being paid I just like things error free and am pleased to help. On a general note English is a primary language in more than one country, and funnily enough India probably is one of the countries with the most correct usage. Overall it is around the third most commonly used language. It does raise the question as to whether you wish that everyone should spell English in their own way - or that we should tend towards a correct spelling. With around one million English words misspellings of common words can actually also be proper words.

Merged into CMBN thread on tank accuracy there was murmurs on speed of target acquisition and how good is spotting. I have been looking at vision in general and have discovered some things of interest from " A Natural History of Ourselves" by Hannah Holmes. Humans actually have quite good all round abilities. But to put it into context: Colour Vision excellent Humans have three colour receptors and can manage to differentiate around 7 million colours In mammals two cones give the colours, apart from us primates, therefore their vision is washed out. Birds. lizards and fish have 5 cones tuned. Perhaps the most interesting from a military point of view was that colour blind men [ 1 in 18 , women 1 in 200] are peculiarly gifted in identifying khaki because of the muted colour vision they have. A British experiment with swatches with two shades of khaki the colour blind could find 15 shades. The theory being that on a savannah these people were far better and distinguishing camouflaged animals. Night Vision poor Night vision comes from the rods which are a thousand times more able in picking up faint light than the cones which give colour and are used for focussing. Humans have about 17 rods to every cone The Australian bobtail lizard has roughly 80 cones to the rod which means it is essentially blind at night Nocturnal animals tend to be primarily rods - the cave roosting oilbird has 123 rods to cones A crow 2 rods to a cone and is therefore very hampered at night. The important lesson for humans is to use the sides of your eyes when viewing at night. Depth of Vision As a hunter humans have good depth of vision - it works for 120 degrees of the 180 degree area of vision. Incidentally some birds have 360 degrees of vision! Interestingly as some animals have fixed eyes and not necessarily good stereoscopic vision they bob their heads which means those objects close to them appear to move more than more distant objects - pigeon vision. Processing speed - well humans do around 20 per second, flies around 200 - so now you know why they fly away so fast!

: ) With Giggs and Rooney both in shot the temptation to think of something saucier is nagging at me. Great match BTW- or is that masterclass. "Tell me - do you use Twitter? " " Is it true you two sponsor a law firm each!!?"

Maggie is not writing for posterity here so perhaps should be given a little leeway ... but is obviously overly possessive about typo. : ).

Ouch. that can really mess up the smoke orders. Definitely needs flagging up for a V. 1.01 scenario.

I picked a scenario at random to read one sides brief and there where three typos and some English usage that was just a tad off. And research shows a non-native speaker. So I have offered my assistance for the future. : ) It only takes moments to read a section.

From is the UK english common usage. I do think typos are a turn-off as it does sow the seeds of doubt. I did some rule-book checking for Les Grognards and if given scenarios I would have done those also for the love of the game.

Of which you speak has been done in Les Grognards. You can play God, or the general, or a divisional commander. Messages by riders allow for delay and capture. And you see from where you are ... and worry about the smoke. I come from a chess background so the idea of being a grunt does not appeal in the slightest. Making games more complex is a huge danger to game publishers. The boardgame Campaign for North Afrika went to the detail of rextra water for the Italian troops pasta. It needed a least ac ouple of teams of three and would have lasted longer than the actual campaign. Well unless a huge hole in the rules allowed for the capture of Egypt : 0 Fun is more important than fidelity in wargaming. Otherwise you will be selling to a smaller and smaller market and the opportunity to deter the mildly interested grows. I do actually have fears that CMSF series including CMBN has actually taken that first step.

Yes. A space filled with letters follows to meet BF's posting requirements. hviasghsdibiuihdibuso : )

You mistake my point. I am not talking of modern combat I am talking of the generalisation that tunnel vision is bad that you made. Ditto auditory inhibition. The refined argument that eventually tunnel vision will get you killed is a fair point. The question passed over in all the items presented so far is : Does the greater concentration - on either sound or vision actually improve someones performance for the very short-term objective. Bringing forth details of what police officers /survivors remember is irrelevant to a high degree as humans generally have evolved not to waste time on the inconsequential when in a life/death situation. Not being able to recall the detail is not surely the same as not registering it at all. [incidentally at squad level I assume that flank protection is a specific role to cover the way humans tend to react.] In my time I have driven home and cannot recall a single element of the trip however I have driven without incident or accident in a potentially lethal environment. What does that prove? If anything the conscious brain is actually not the master we think it is. In relation to the thread it was really how armour is over-modelled for speed of spotting and accuracy firing particularly with regard to moving tanks. If at all : ) We are still without any gems on how good are people at spotting in a hostile environment - though I would settle for any information on acuity. AFAIR the Metropolitan police found those members of the force with the most accidents had poor peripheral vision.

Your example of tunnel vision is only focussing on short range examples it seems. I have no problem of the hand to hand fight example you give but hand to hand combat was hardly typical fighting in WW2 Europe. Police actions also tend to be very personal. I do believe evolution has pretty much selected the right traits for man so I would favour a more general theory then it is always "bad". I am sure there are techniques for improving tasks where we use the senses - such as using peripheral vision, half closing eyes etc. Or indeed checking peoples peripheral vision at the get go. The phrase auditory exclusion sounds all-encompassing but it is actually a useful ability - as any long marries man knows : ). You can distinguish general chatter and important items and I think this must be very similar to ancient man knowing background sounds to important alert inducing noise. I have no knowledge of modern warfars other than puff pieces on the electronic warrior with this and that comms. stuff. I do feel for the modern soldier where extraneous information may be delivered which has no immediate value. Given the research on how poorly drivers perform during and after mobile calls one does wonder if there is a flaw in the idea of supplying too much information. Possiblythe military feel that they can train out the way human brains have evolved to an acceptable level. Anyway back to the point. If at range then I do wonder whether studies have shown heightened alert levels also provide greater spotting ability and faster processing of importnat noise cues. Close range is a differnt kettle of fish.

AFAIK - eight to twelve inches is not thick for stone buildings. They may taper to that for the roof plates or wooden second floor structure. http://www.world-housing.net/uploads/stone_masonry.pdf mentions 400-700mm for normal house

Near Glasgow not in. But then by the same token Edinburgh is near Glasgow : ). I am not sure he sounds like my kind of guy. Knocking the Sgt unconcious might have been sufficient. The attributions to Ambrose make me reach for the salt cellar though they could be true.

HMG .303 to cut down medium size tree 450 rounds. With carefully aiming and reasonably close - say 50-100metres. : ) Howevver in game it would be random MG shots.

Hysterical!

JonS without seeing the definitions of tunnel vision and diminished sounds its rather hard to consider the use of these self-reported items from 141 police officers. For instance tunnel vision may not be "bad". If I am trying to pick out someone firing at me from a section of hedgerow my peripheral vision may be very unimportant to my brain and therefore it ignores the input. So yes I can report tunnel vision - is it relevant? Diminished sound. Similar reasoning. I am trying to pick out a particular sound. Most of us have travelled in a car trying to identify an odd sound from the vehicle and guess what - you tune out whatever is on the radio or outside noise. Very logical body response and not necessarily bad. What may be bad is if soldiers/officers are required to give detailed reports of what went on which means they are mentally being inhibited from running on total response. I really have a gut instinct that this information, though true, is actually relevant to WW2 battlefield. Lets be honest if I knew I had to see a "health professional" and face a lot of serious paperwork if I killed someone I would be highly inhibited. If I have the OK to kill those demon Nazis I can get on with the job. [ In this current age killing the warmongering politicians actually seems a smarter more civilised idea : )] Regarding the tactical training of US police officers, its an industry, its good to dress it up, I am sure it is effective, and the requirements on police officers to avoid collateral damage is huge. I think its a very nasty situation to be in.

From the link I gave earlier perhaps the idea that penetration figures are the be all and end all of effectiveness should be considered in the light of this: I now confidently look forward to BF providing details of the armour brittleness of each tank so players can pick and choose which tank to use.

I think the point is that liars must not be allowed to peddle crap/lies from the grave. Something that is called history that is lies and dubious should be rooted out. After all: http://hnn.us/articles/541.html I see it as a duty that all amateur and professional historians should have is to eradicate deliberate falsehoods otherwise we might aswell rely on Hollywood to re-write all history for the population. Bemoaning how gullible/stupid the general population then is becomes hypocritical on our part.

I cannot answer for BF so these are my views only. A. 1. Anyone who has studied penetration data for shells knows that it is a very complicated subject AFAIR the figures vary even when the same guns are being compared as it depends whose firing what capped shell at what type armour. The definitions of penetration differ between countries and could be something like 50% of the shots at a range penetrate then that is chosen as THE penetration figure for that range. Now of course to help everyone out these figures will be in metres and yards, and they will be at vertical and a couple of slope angles. Which makes you wonder what the figures are for intermediate angles and intermediate ranges. And what effect being angled AND sloped has for penetration chances. So its an approximation. 2. AFAIR shells are also variable in quality. 3. Tank armour is also variable, particularly for the Germans where Panther armour became very iffy. Also when firing at an enemy tank choosing a precise point to fire at in a battle situation is remarkably fortunate. So whilst giving millimetre figures may provide some comfort if you look under the hood to see how penetration figures are derived you would not be prepared to bet on an outcome as being a certainty. Fortunately the subject has been discussed exhaustively on the Web so you can check it all out. This is a very very good explanation: http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/weapons/introduction.html#Gun_Accuracy_Data B. I have been refreshing my memory reading broadly lately and AFAIR it is Operational Research that the tanks who fires first generally wins. I assume this will be covered on the Web somewhere. I believe I read it in Armoured Firepower: The Development of Tank Armour 13939-1945 by Peter Gudgin.

Knowing the exact figure is irrelevant as armour quality is variable and the actual point you are going to hit is not within your control. Reading the accounts essentially he who fired first won when it was short range - call it 500yards. I am sure that once it became longer range then perhaps the Allied tankers became more circumspect if it were a face on kitty. Off hand I probably know all I need to know about the precise millimetre thickness of tank armour, and even what the armour slope is like but it really means sod all in these engagements.

When I weigh my manual I think I will have an idea : )

http://www.101airborneww2.com/bandofbrothers2.html

JS- I would agree with you but he actually states he dropped a rope down and then started to climb up before deciding it was a bad idea. That is absolute crap. From his book adapted to the Web http://www.worldwar2history.info/D-Day/cliff.html 1] It was a nearly 100-meter-high cliff, 2] but also providing an eight-meter buildup at the base of the cliff that gave the rangers something of a head start in climbing the forty-meter cliff. http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/smallunit/smallunit-pdh.htm It helps that the army call it Pointe du Hoe to make it easier[!] to find. Nice photos where it seems much less than 100 ft. A lot less than 330 ft.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9c9ez7HnXg Point du Hoc 100 ft not 100metres something one might think you would remember if you had tried to climb it.