Vanir Ausf B

The "weapon mount" is what the game calls the mantlet. The circled area is called the breech ring, which is bolted to the mantlet. The mantlet itself is a single plate that covers virtually the entire front turret area. The mantlet varies in thickness, but is only thin enough to be penetrated by US 76mm APCBC around the edges. But those edges are backed by a second plate 100mm thick that is the "front turret" armor proper. For a hit to penetrate the mantlet into the interior of the tank would require a direct hit on either the machine gun port or the gunner's sight. To hit the turret armor without going through the mantlet edge first (assuming equal elevation and 0° offset) would mean hitting the extreme outer edge of the front turret armor plate which would tend to deflect the projectile outward due to edge effect, or to hit the turret ring which would be hard to do without a ricochet given than it is deeply recessed. IMO the proportion of hits on the front turret area of the Tiger that hit the "front turret" armor rather than the mantlet is much too high, particularly when the Tiger is hull down (and why being hull down so dramatically affects this proportion is a mystery in itself). BTW, where the game graphically shows the round impacting on the tank is not reliably accurate as shown here.

:eek: Not unless you're into self-flagellation.

Scenario and save game: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/eb29rftquo7e84o/6q36x_hLD7 The Tigers are slightly offset in this test to match the parameters of my earlier shatter gap test, which I did not want to repeat.

When I first glimpsed this pic I thought "hit decals!" Alas.

Testing done. Here is the results from my shatter gap testing done on Tiger I mid Sherman76 vs Tiger mid at 500m and 10° horizontal offset Hits on driver plate: 105 No damage: 6 (6%) Spalling: 47 (45%) Partial Penetration: 50 (48%) Penetration: 2 (2%) And here are the results of the test I just did which was identical except for the Tigers were late models: Sherman76 vs Tiger late at 500m and 10° horizontal offset Hits on driver plate: 146 No damage: 11 (8%) Spalling: 45 (31%) Partial Penetration: 83 (57%) Full Penetration: 7 (5%) Not a dramatic difference, but a significant one, which is about what I would expect.

Are you one of those guys who carries around a backup gun on his ankle?

I'm a gun owner and I have no problem with some gun control. I am not an absolutist who thinks buying a gun should be as easy as buying a loaf of bread. I also seriously question the utility of high-capacity magazines for any purpose other than shooting a lot of people in as short a time as possible.

Yes. You just raise the ground in front of the tank by 1 meter to create a berm. I may go ahead and run this test later tonight since I already did it for the Tiger mid when testing shatter gap. I just have to swap in Tiger lates and run it again.

Apparently the next patch will add the Movie Mode feature.

Assuming the graphics settings are identical it appears the AMD has a longer draw distance, which surprises me since I thought that was controlled by the game. The open field in the background has varied grass length in the AMD shot while the Nvidia is uniform. Nvidia self-shadowing is noticeably softer in both sets of pics. This is most evident in the first pair of shots where the 2 barrels on the tank each cast a distinct shadow in the AMD shot but are blurred together in the Nvidia shot.

I'm not going to touch on the reasons why, but Jason's point that homicide in the US is demographically very clumpy is correct. This is something that I think a lot of people outside the US don't understand. One of the biggest reasons most Americans are a bit meh on gun control is because for most of them gun violence is something they only see on TV. For example, I happen to live in the US state with the highest per-capita gun ownership rate in the US at nearly 60%. Yes, there are more people around me who own guns than do not. Yet our homicide rate is 1.4 per 100,000, less than a third the national average and about on-par with most European nations. By way of comparison, Maryland has a homicide rate of 7.3 per 100g with a gun ownership rate of 21%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Feasibility depends on the size of the dam and number of fingers. The continued availability of cocaine and heroin is suggestive.

That a particular weapon type is more prevalent in areas where that particular weapon type is more often used should not be controversial. How much that really says about the larger issue of crime is far less clear. The results of these studies always come down to how you define "use". The ones I have seen that come to the above conclusion almost invariably define "use" of a gun to thwart a crime to mean shooting the criminal. Other studies that have a more broad definition unsurprisingly come to other conclusions, as pointed out by this Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report: Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year (Kleck, 2001a) in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook at al., 1997). A different issue is whether defensive use of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive gun uses... have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared to victims who use other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and Delone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004) Very.

The catch is that the instances in which you really need to shoot someone are the ones most likely to result in serious bodily harm to yourself or a loved one if you don't or can't, so the cost/benefit is not altogether clear. I only own one gun: a bolt action hunting rifle that is not ideal for self defense to say the least, but I figure that if I ever pointed it at someone that would probably be enough. And I could shoot it if I had to. I just have to not miss...

Or an unloaded gun, in most cases, yes. Large edges weapons also work well.

You're right, I misread your post. To really test this you need to test a specific plate on both Tiger I models at a range where about 50% of hits would be expected to penetrate. The driver plate -- called the "superstructure front hull" in-game -- would work well for this at 500 meters against US 76mm APCBC.

This doesn't have much to do with modern gun laws, but whenever I read about the evils we committed to build our country I wonder: would the world be a better place if the United States of America did not exist? Or alternatively, if it had never territorially expanded beyond the original 13 colonies? Or is it the case that Manifest Destiny was morally wrong but ironically had mostly positive consequences?

Tiger I armor is rolled homogeneous.

That's about a 12-13% difference. That could be the flaw showing up or it could be random variation. We would need more information, such as range, total number of hits, how many penetrated, what type of penetration, ect. From Charles's comments CMx2 seems to model flawed armor as a % decrease in effective resistance. We don't know what the % decrease used for the Tiger is, but 10-15% would be similar to other tanks with known armor flaws such as the early Sherman and late Panther.

Keep in mind that for a gun, or any other weapon, to be successfully used in self defense it does not necessarily have to injure anyone. In fact, there is strong evidence that in most self-defense uses the gun is not fired. The mere sight of a gun is usually all that is required to make a person with hostile intent have a change of heart.

I suggested doing exactly this several pages ago, but for some reason no one seemed to think much of it. :confused:

Yes, that's normal. On the first turn all you do is enter your password. As stated above, the first file should be in your Outgoing Email folder. When you start up H2HH it should automatically copy that file to the Dropbox folder you are sharing with your opponent (which must also have the identical name as your saved game).

I have not heard that rumor before. But I have Win 7 and the PBEM folders are in the main CMBN directory by default. E:\CMBN\Game Files\Incoming Email on my comp

Sure. And immediately after that he thought to himself "Hmm, 4 terrain objectives. One on Ken's side of the map, 3 on mine. MUHAHAHAH!"

This is something I pointed out in Ken's thread. I think there was only one guy who seemed to be much bothered by it, but that's all it takes to spark a controversy