Vanir Ausf B

This is a terrific map to convert to use for QBs. I had to laugh at seeing your name in the wheat field

Depends on the ammunition being fired. APCBC should indeed be very accurate. APDS ,on the other hand, should be lucky to hit the broad side of a barn at 1000m.

There are two types of smoke munitions in the game: white phosphorus and hexachloroethane. The white phosphorus should be much more dangerous to soldiers than the HC smoke, but I don't know what the real in-game differences are. EDIT: ninjaed by YD

Unfortunately, no. It appears to have been inadvertently omitted. It's only available in the scenario editor

I just ran 2 tests. First test is 2 Tiger Is (late) on dirt from a standing start, one going backwards with a Reverse order and the other forwards with a Fast order. 2nd test is the same except on pavement. Distance traveled in 60 seconds Test 1 (dirt) * 205m in reverse. 12.3 kph/7.6 mph * 425m forward (Fast). 25.5 kph/15.8 mph Test 2 (pavement) * 205m in reverse. 12.3 kph/7.6 mph * 540m forward (Fast). 32.4 kph/20 mph I have seen various top speeds listed for the Tiger I, from 35 kph to 45 kph. If I had timed it from a running start it would probably have been in that range. I only have one source for a reverse speed, which is 9.2 kph/5.7 mph. So the Tiger in the game does seem to go faster in reverse than it should (and road surface does not seem to affect reverse speed for some reason), but not by a very large degree, and it certainly doesn't go anywhere near as fast as it does forward. I have no idea how you got your result and I frankly wonder if you really did the test.

Looks like you're right about the 3x. The 12° FOV appears to be correct.

I very much doubt that it was left out of QBs intentionally.

Confirmed. HMGs appear to be deploying instantly. Test is one MG42 team given a Quick move order. End point is selected and given first a Deploy order and then a area target order. Team arrives. Time: ~.56 Instant deploy. Time: .53 Firing. Time: .50

This was written a few years back by a guy who used to post here years ago. I don't know where he got his numbers from, but he is very knowledgeable on the subject: *** Up until the late 1930s the standard way to make lenses employed a series of concave and convex mirrors usually two back to back pairs.Each lens lost ~ 10% clarity with the limit being around 40% reduction before clarity became seriously impinged. Also the more lenses the more restricted the field of view. In 1938 the Ziess company pioneered a technique for introducing Argon gass coating over the lenses that cut this per less loss to about 3-4%. What that meant was that german sighting systems with 4 lenses were as clear as western sights with 1-2 lenses. You can see it in the comparison between maginfication and field of view. For the same magnification they achieved twice the field of view...thus making it much easier to detect and acquire the targets in the first place. No other country did this until after the war. The germans shared this technology with the Japanese who turned around after the war to make such bloody good camaras -- Paul Lakowski

You always have to take first-hand accounts with a grain of salt. But his observation seems to match others I have read. ... German tank sights are definitely superior to American sights. These, combined with the flat trajectory of the guns, give great accuracy. -- Brigadier General J. H. Collier, 2nd US Armored Division The matter of tank gun sights has caused us much concern. I have looked through and worked with sights in German Mk V and VI tanks as well as our own. I find that the German sight has more magnifying power and clearness than our own, which is a big advantage to a gunner. -- Lt. Col. Wilson M. Hawkins, 3rd Battalion, 67th Armored Regiment

Badgerdog would be the person to ask. But the few personal accounts I have read indicate there was a significant difference. * There was always a lot of talk about the effectiveness of the German tank guns against us. It is true that they had to stop to fire, but they started firing from 1,200 to 1,500 yards (1,096 to 1,371 meters). Their first shot was always a hit. We, on the other hand, had to get within 500 to 600 yards (457 to 548 meters) to be within effective firing distance, and even our best gunners needed at least two shots before they could score a hit. Our CO (commanding officer), Captain Jimmy Leach, sent the platoon sergeant down to my tank during one of the lulls between German artillery barrages, and he hollered up, 'Hey Sator, you speak German?' 'Yeah, why?' I answered. 'The radio in that abandoned German tank (Pz.Kpfw.IV) back there is alive. Captain wants you to listen and see what they are talking about'. So, I went with him. Sure enough, when we got there, you could hear the radio squawking. I climbed in and put the gunner's earphones on. It was difficult to hear, and because the guy was talking in a strange dialect, I could understand only a few words here and there. Then I saw the gun-sight and I figured I might as well look through it while I was there, and as soon as I did, almost immediately, the realization came to me why the German tank gunners were so accurate. 'Shyte, I wanna go home' is the only thing I could think of at the moment. Their sights were so far superior to ours that we didn't stand a chance." -- Tom Sator, US 4th Armored Division

I'll look into it.

Well, that sucks. :confused:

The sources I have seen say: Sherman M70 F telescopic sight: * 1.8 magnification * 12° FOV Pz IV TZF 5f telescopic sight: * 2.5 magnification * 25° FOV I disagree that there should be no difference in spotting due to optics. In addition to higher magnification and wider field of view the German lenses were Argon treated to make them more clear at the same magnification compared to those in Allied tanks. It will be interesting to see if there is any difference when they are buttoned.

It has to be July or August. They are in the Heavy Panzer Battalion.

One of the first things I'm going to test is the accuracy of APDS rounds. WW2-era APDS was very inaccurate (and also tended to do less damage per penetration than APCBC), and I've had this gnawing worry for a while now that CW would model it as having the same accuracy as APCBC.

Yes, adjustable LOD would be divine.

First of all I would like to say thanks to you and anyone else who contributed. I play QBs almost exclusively so it's fair to say I probably wouldn't even be playing CMBN without your efforts. I do have one question because I don't have the game yet. Has there been any change in how urban maps are designed? As you know, the onus for making urban battlefields in CMBN play somewhat realistically (rather than the nirvana for armor that they often are) has been placed onto the shoulders of the map makers. I personally think it's more of a gameplay issue, but it is what it is for now so I'm wondering how things are progressing on that end.

Sherman M70 F telescopic sight: * 1.8 magnification * 12° FOV Pz IV TZF 5f telescopic sight: * 2.5 magnification * 25° FOV I won't even get into the Argon coating the Germans did on their lenses to make them less blurry at the same magnification compared to allied lenses.

Now if I were going to look for something wrong this is where I would concentrate. There is no reason why the Sherman should be spotting faster. It should in fact be the other way around. The Pz IV's superior optics should give it a significant spotting advantage at that range. There was always a lot of talk about the effectiveness of the German tank guns against us. It is true that they had to stop to fire, but they started firing from 1,200 to 1,500 yards (1,096 to 1,371 meters). Their first shot was always a hit. We, on the other hand, had to get within 500 to 600 yards (457 to 548 meters) to be within effective firing distance, and even our best gunners needed at least two shots before they could score a hit. Our CO (commanding officer), Captain Jimmy Leach, sent the platoon sergeant down to my tank during one of the lulls between German artillery barrages, and he hollered up, 'Hey Sator, you speak German?' 'Yeah, why?' I answered. 'The radio in that abandoned German tank (Pz.Kpfw.IV) back there is alive. Captain wants you to listen and see what they are talking about'. So, I went with him. Sure enough, when we got there, you could hear the radio squawking. I climbed in and put the gunner's earphones on. It was difficult to hear, and because the guy was talking in a strange dialect, I could understand only a few words here and there. Then I saw the gun-sight and I figured I might as well look through it while I was there, and as soon as I did, almost immediately, the realization came to me why the German tank gunners were so accurate. 'Shyte, I wanna go home' is the only thing I could think of at the moment. Their sights were so far superior to ours that we didn't stand a chance."

I wonder if they did this to stagger the load on their server, as opposed to watching their server stagger.

dieseltaylor will be along shortly to express his outrage

Good luck to you guys. If we don't see you on the forum again we'll know what happened.

Downloading in 36 hours here, apparently.

I'm going to guess that CM does not consider how much other stuff there is to look at other than the enemy when doing spotting calculations. I would be surprised if any wargame ever made did. Rather, it probably assumes typical combat conditions. If you run a test in atypical conditions then you will likely get results that are unrealistic for those conditions. The minute+ spotting times you are making a big deal out of are statistical outliers at the extreme end of the bell curve, NOT typical results. In fact, according to noob the average spotting time for the Sherman is 28 seconds, which is pretty close to the 20 seconds you quote above. The Pz IV's times would be even closer. As to any notion that minute+ spotting times are impossible in real world combat situations, I have already proven that to be untrue.