German tank optics seem lacking. Just a gripe

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wilhammer:

Looks like we got a game!

I will gladly set up one for you both, just ask.

I will have some time late tonight.

You can send me the movies and I can write the AAR.

I will design the parameters, you will make your purchase, and maybe can have some fun with the "Slappy and ThickHeidman Show"!

Gotta laugh. Serious leads to a heart attack.

[This message has been edited by Wilhammer (edited 10-05-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would be a very funny show! Not a fun game (I can always play my nephew if I want that sort of game) but the show would be extremely funny .

[Hakko Ichiu]

It was getting a little chilly down in the 'Pool, so I thought I'd come and warm myself by the crackling flames.

There are a number of issues flying around in this theater of operations, and I will look at them one at a time to see if that helps lend any clarity.

First, the "Infantry Experience" issue. BTS quantified base-level infantry firepower on weight of metal at a given range. No one has objected to this method, AFAIK. Furthermore, they posited a continuum of experience from Green to Elite; these categories are necessarily arbitrary, but because they are identical for all sides, no one has objected to this abstraction. The only reason to draw these distinctions is to affect unit performance. They then went to historical sources and to beta-testers w/military experience to determine what these effects might be. Again, these effects, while based on evidence, were necessarily arbitrary; they were also equal for both sides and therefore had no impact on play-balance. Put another way, if they hadn't made these arbitrary distinctions, there would be no experience level for units and, IMO, the game would have suffered as a result.

Next, the "Gyro Issue". BTS had incontrovertible evidence that gyros existed and that they were used in combat. They also had countervailing evidence to the effect that gyros were often disconnected by crews. Furthermore, they had the Aberdeen test results which indicated that, controlling for other significant variables, gyros markedly improved the ability of Allied tanks to hit targets while on the move. While this improvement is difficult (and perhaps impossible) to quantify, it is clearly non-zero

BTS clearly faced a dilemma with this. They could not quantify the advantage, but to exclude it would render the performance of Allied armor less realistic. IMO, they had to include some factor, but because of the evidence that not all crews used their gyrostabilizers, they reduced that (already small) factor slightly.

Finally, the "Superior German Optics" issue. I will stipulate that German sights were better than pre-43 Allied sights. The question remains: how much better? Does the advantage outweigh the documented disadvantages in other parts of the weapon system, e.g., crew vision and crew comfort? Does it confer an advantage above and beyond the better physical characteristics of Axis AT guns? There are all sorts of variables that have yet to be isolated in determining whether the optics advantage is significant. Most importantly, does the advantage even exist at distances sub-1000 meters, at which the vast majority of engagements occur in CMBO?

Until these questions can be answered, and IMO, they haven't, there is no point altering the play balance of the game. I know that some think this is an unmeetable standard of proof, and perhaps for this issue it is. It wasn't unmeetable for the gyro issue precisely because there existed a controlled test that demonstrated superior results from gyros even when accounting for all other significant variables.

------------------

Ethan

-----------

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[Vanir]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>PzKpfw 1:

I will add again since my post from yesterday is gone, that IMO useing BTS's criteria here their should be no German optical advantages in their Afrika or EastFront games as the same anecdotal data is all we have to use for a basis.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Steve posted this here on 8/31/00:

Hey gents...

We just wanted to let you know that we will be looking at this issue in detail for CM2. I mean, what with Soviet tanks using polished Coke bottle bottoms for optics, there is bound to be some difference

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Being that it is generally acknowledged that the type of quantifiable "exact numbers" data that is being asked for to justify optics in CM1 is simply non-existant, I too wonder what this means for CM2 and 3. The non-inclusion of optics in CM1 is of no great concern to me from a gameplay standpoint, as the ranges at which engagements take place (less than 1000m) is too close for optics to be of much concern. On the East Front and in North Africa, however, engagments at 1000-3000 meters were common. At these ranges optics would be as important as gun performance and crew expirience, as has been pointed out by Fionn in a post reprinted here earlier.

I don't agree with everything Jeff has said here, but he did point out something important. By default, BTS has picked a number to model German optical advantage: 0. No biggie in CM1. But if in CM2 the advantage of German optics against Russian coke bottles (using Steve's words) at 2000m is still 0, I think that will be very unfortunate.

As it stands however, I see no way to avoid this, unless there is body of evidence concerning East Front and North African combat optics that greatly surpasses that available for the West Front. Or unless the criteria is relaxed somewhat.

------------------

So maybe you should listen to this Vanir guy instead of ignoring him -- he has the best take on the whole thing. - Combatboy

[This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 10-05-2000).]

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hakko Ichiu:

It was getting a little chilly down in the 'Pool, so I thought I'd come and warm myself by the crackling flames.

There are a number of issues flying around in this theater of operations, and I will look at them one at a time to see if that helps lend any clarity.

First, the "Infantry Experience" issue. BTS quantified base-level infantry firepower on weight of metal at a given range. No one has objected to this method, AFAIK. Furthermore, they posited a continuum of experience from Green to Elite; these categories are necessarily arbitrary, but because they are identical for all sides, no one has objected to this abstraction. The only reason to draw these distinctions is to affect unit performance. They then went to historical sources and to beta-testers w/military experience to determine what these effects might be. Again, these effects, while based on evidence, were necessarily arbitrary; they were also equal for both sides and therefore had no impact on play-balance. Put another way, if they hadn't made these arbitrary distinctions, there would be no experience level for units and, IMO, the game would have suffered as a result.

Next, the "Gyro Issue". BTS had incontrovertible evidence that gyros existed and that they were used in combat. They also had countervailing evidence to the effect that gyros were often disconnected by crews. Furthermore, they had the Aberdeen test results which indicated that, controlling for other significant variables, gyros markedly improved the ability of Allied tanks to hit targets while on the move. While this improvement is difficult (and perhaps impossible) to quantify, it is clearly non-zero

BTS clearly faced a dilemma with this. They could not quantify the advantage, but to exclude it would render the performance of Allied armor less realistic. IMO, they had to include some factor, but because of the evidence that not all crews used their gyrostabilizers, they reduced that (already small) factor slightly.

Finally, the "Superior German Optics" issue. I will stipulate that German sights were better than pre-43 Allied sights. The question remains: how much better? Does the advantage outweigh the documented disadvantages in other parts of the weapon system, e.g., crew vision and crew comfort? Does it confer an advantage above and beyond the better physical characteristics of Axis AT guns? There are all sorts of variables that have yet to be isolated in determining whether the optics advantage is significant. Most importantly, does the advantage even exist at distances sub-1000 meters, at which the vast majority of engagements occur in CMBO?

Until these questions can be answered, and IMO, they haven't, there is no point altering the play balance of the game. I know that some think this is an unmeetable standard of proof, and perhaps for this issue it is. It wasn't unmeetable for the gyro issue precisely because there existed a controlled test that demonstrated superior results from gyros even when accounting for all other significant variables.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just wanted to commend Hakko for coming in and restating the current situation in a manner that is easy to read and fills in a lot of the details. A regular reposting of this comment is in order to help direct the discussion away from flames and back to the topic at hand and the standards needed to meet. If you skipped this one, reread it because it is well written and correct.

Is there no chance that optics will get proven to cause a measured change? Nope - MkIV and Tom are working hard at it, and may do it. Will it be solved with flames? In some ways yes, because drowning out the cooler heads who may actually come up with pay data will leave the arguement at the status quo.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir:

Being that it is generally acknowledged that the type of quantifiable "exact numbers" data that is being asked for to justify optics in CM1 is simply non-existant, I too wonder what this means for CM2 and 3. The non-inclusion of optics in CM1 is of no great concern to me from a gameplay standpoint, as the ranges at which engagements take place (less than 1000m) is too close for optics to be of much concern. On the East Front and in North Africa, however, engagments at 1000-3000 meters were common. At these ranges optics would be as important as gun performance and crew expirience, as has been pointed out by Fionn in a post reprinted here earlier.

I don't agree with everything Jeff has said here, but he did point out something important. By default, BTS has picked a number to model German optical advantage: 0. No biggie in CM1. But if in CM2 the advantage of German optics against Russian coke bottles (using Steve's words) at 2000m is still 0, I think that will be very unfortunate.

As it stands however, I see no way to avoid this, unless there is body of evidence concerning East Front and North African combat optics that greatly surpasses that available for the West Front. Or unless the criteria is relaxed somewhat.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It may actually be easier to quantify than we think. Captured Soviet T-34/85s were tested during the Korean conflict and the Arab / Isreali wars, equipment that represents the top of what the Soviet system could produce. If it turns out to be substandard to US optics in the E8 and UK optics in the Centurion, both using end of war optics technology which faced the T-34 in combat, then we can build a number at least for the upper end difference (ie -- 1944/45). That would be a good start for quantifying difference. This is of course assuming the tests pass muster when examined, that they can actually be found, and that the tests actually looked at optics.

[This message has been edited by Slapdragon (edited 10-05-2000).]

[Wilhammer]

Hakko,

Thanks.

I was just getting ready to summarize the thread to get us back on track, and you showed us the way.

[Vanir]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

It may actually be easier to quantify than we think. Captured Soviet T-34/85s were tested during the Korean conflict and the Arab / Isreali wars, equipment that represents the top of what the Soviet system could produce. If it turns out to be substandard to US optics in the E8 and UK optics in the Centurion, both using end of war optics technology which faced the T-34 in combat, then we can build a number at least for the upper end difference (ie -- 1944/45). That would be a good start for quantifying difference. This is of course assuming the tests pass muster when examined, that they can actually be found, and that the tests actually looked at optics.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dunno. The French did extensive testing on Panthers after the war (they were using them in their own army after all) and nothing concrete has come of it. We get the usual comments such as "the optics were very good" and "the optimal engagement range for the Panther is 2000m" but there are still no comparative numbers.

The only way we will get hard numbers is if actual gunnery tests were done with the same tank and the same crew using different sights.

------------------

So maybe you should listen to this Vanir guy instead of ignoring him -- he has the best take on the whole thing. - Combatboy

[This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 10-05-2000).]

[Guest rune]

Lets get some facts into this...

1. We are only talking about 10% of battles that went past 2200 yards. Source:

WO 291/1212 Ranges of engagement in the ATk battle.

This report is dated December 1951. It was prepared by E. Benn and R. W. Shephard; readers of "Applied Operations Research" (Plenum Press, New York, 1988) by Shephard, Hartley, Haysman, Thorpe and Bathe, will recognise it as the original source of one of the exercise problems contained in that excellent book.

As a result of analysis of a number of tank engagements in NW Europe, it was concluded that

P = 1 – exp (–R/K)

is a good expression for the proportion, P, of engagements that occur at ranges of less than R yards.

For NW Europe, K is about 950 yards.

90% of engagements occur at less than 2200 yards;

80% of engagements occur at less than 1500 yards;

50% of engagements occur at less than 650 yards.

2. If someone is telling me a German 5X sight is BETTER then a 6X American sight or a British 6X sight, i refuse to believe it. Magnification and field of view are actually better on the Allied scopes. Source:

WO 185/195 New type sighting for tanks

3. No range finder in Allied Sights. OK, but standard doctrine was to use bracketing anyway, and units TRAINED to bracket and fire. Souce:

WO 291/882 Bracketing drills in tank gunnery.

This report is an attempt to standardise bracket distances for tank guns. A short bracket should be 1½ to 3 times the 50% zone of the gun.

4. Westinghouse Gyroscopes. The British also admit there was a gain in firing on the move using the gyro stabilized gun. They also admit crews would prefer to stop and fire from a stationary posistion. Source:

WO 291/1202 Tank armament stabilisation: User experience and the present situation.

It gave slightly better results when shooting on the move than could be obtained with a shoulder-controlled gun; but the chances of hitting when using it on the move were so small, compared with firing from the halt, that users preferred to engage their targets from the halt rather than on the move with the stabiliser working."

There is ALSO a source showing the effectiveness of veterans against average and new troops using rifle and bren. As soon as I find it, will post.

Bottom Line: Do I go with gut feeling, or with studies done at the time and later. Hmm, think I'll stick with studies for now. Enough with flames, lets talk facts.

Rune

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Is there no chance that optics will get proven to cause a measured change? Nope - MkIV

and Tom are working hard at it, and may do it. Will it be solved with flames? In some ways

yes, because drowning out the cooler heads who may actually come up with pay data will

leave the arguement at the status quo.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have not given up but as it has been pointed out I have not yet provided one single datum, fact or study that shows that German Optics were this or that much more effective at targeting.

I wonder if that info is available in some German sources or documents, I wonder about this because I cannot read german. I am of British descent and not pro-Nazi as perhaps some here might suspect because of my stance on this issue.

I'm just trying to offer suggestions to make the game more historically correct and accurate.

This is NOT a big huge re-codeing programing thing like relative spotting (huge fundamental coding change required) and it is not a big thing like Method 2 LOS determination. (instead of the much more CPU intensive Method 1 determination)

If we can find the numbers that are more accurate than what are in the game now I assume (maybe I'm wrong here, but I doubt it) that Charles can quite easily patch or re-program the targeting aquisition algorythyms for the weapons and tanks that require tweaking for their optics bonus.

The fundamental question is, if a optics advantage is to be coded, exactly how much sould it be?

It is a fair question and as I mentioned already I have been frustrated in my serch so far for a study or test or historical document that we can base this long range optics advantage on.

It is a fair position to take and I don't blame them. But so far I have been at a loss to come up with compelling, accurate, historical refenerences to say that this or that German weapon and optics combination are exactly this or that much more effective than, this or that weapon or site at this specific range.

Without those data, or historical references or field tests, I don't really blame Steve and

Charles for holding off on this one.

UNLESS a strong case can be made for modeling it as an abstraction, because there are other abstractions in the the game, then why not the long range German optics bonus as an abstraction as well?

That is the only logical (?) (slippery yes) position we could advance and it too does not hold much weight because they will say if they model the German optics bonus as an abstraction then some other group of players will DEMAND to know exactly how and why this feature made it into the game, when they have NO historically accurate facts figures or data to even base their abstraction of modeling this bonus on.

I don't blame them for refusing to model the German optics bonus on another game's (PE)

idea's, data or information. I think that is a good decision.

I'm still a little frustrated on this one because I don't know where to look to find information to help them model this proposed german optics bonus into the game?

Thanks

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-05-2000).]

[Guest machineman]

I'm sure there has to be hard numbers for hit percentage at various ranges using the various German tanks compared to the Allied. I'm surprised nothing has shown up here yet, but all I think that that shows is no one, either for or against, has the material at hand. As pointed out way before, the combined effectiveness of the gun/sight/turrent/etc is what makes the ultimate difference, although I think a lot of people have had good points about all the other factors involved, including the various ways in which the sight and the other designs of the tank can affect gunnery, target aquisition etc in ways that may not show up on the range.

That is what I'm here for, to learn from others knowledge and throw in my own 2 bits every so often.

BTW, Slapdragon, if you wouldn't be here I think the thread would be just a bunch of people throwing ideas, opinions, and data around, with the idea to finding an answer to this, rather than the flamefest it keeps turning into. Half the post's here are yours, usually calling someone who's just posted some info or an opinion an idiot! No one here is forcing BTS to change anything, it's their game, they can sit back and pick and chose what info they want out of here. That's the whole idea of them setting this up, I thought.

So why, exactly, do you have to be so superior and abrasive? Do you realize how consistently insulting you are to people who don't happen to share your views on everything?

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME::

Well Generally you wont shoot at what you cant identify. If a tank is to your front, but you cant identify it, or its owners nationality even, or its facing in respect to you, then you will generally hold your fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Riigghhhttt.... just as those Scouts and Bradleys who wacked by M1s in the Gulf...

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME::

He must remember that those that cant do teach, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is your problem? First you say BTS can't talk military because they are civilans and now attack SD for being a teacher. Let's just avoid any wasted time here, who do you think can have an opinion? Please inform us peons so we won't "waste" your time...

Cav

[Wilhammer]

Won't shoot what you can't identify?

Dead wrong.

Friendly fire is more prevalent, I feel, than what we are told.

I read just recently (was it on this board?) a story about some GIs manning an ATG that got shelled, bugged out to a covered entrenchment, and when they lifted the lid, the GIs inside (Engineers, if memory serves me), riddled them with bullets, killing the whole crew.

You are in a battle, you are scared to death, and someone you can't identify is coming at you from the enemy's approach. NOT pulling the trigger would be VERY difficult to do.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Ok, let me first address the issue of flaming here...

First of all, it is not Slapdragon's fault. If he wasn't in this thread, it would still be hot. Reason? Our logic, arguments, data, and rational thought has been CONSTANTLY and CONSISTENTLY ignored, insulted, trashed, and did I mention ignored? It even caused me to walk away from this thread for a couple of days. Slapdragon has simply cut to the chase and identified the BS being tossed at us and, in the process, obviously pushed some people over the edge (which is no surprise in this type of senseless "debate"). Now maybe he shouldn't word things so strongly, but his observations are not off the mark. The ballistic response to his positions has underscored that.

Ethan has stated the positions very well. Let me clarify...

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of unquantifiable things in CM. Jeff seems to think that we are trying to duck the optics issue because we don't want to have one more such abstraction. I have said this before, but it has been ignored, so I will say it again in BOLD print:

IF something can be proved to be in need of simulation, in a QUALITATIVE way (not QUANTITATIVE), then we go about trying to figure out what numbers we should use and how they should interact with the rest of the simulation. But if we do not feel there is a QUALITATIVE reason to include something, it is not.

This, in spite of all the flames, out of context and unqualified anecdotal "evidence", we are utterly and thoroughly convinced that having NO optics bonus for the Germans (in the context of CM1 specifically) is more correct than having one. Funny enough, we were more in doubt of this position BEFORE this thread. In other words, this debate has not only reinforced our opinion that we are doing the more right thing, but it has actually made us even MORE sure.

Trying to confuse issues by bringing Gyros and unit experience into this is just clouding up the debate with useless and utterly irrelevant garbage that has NOTHING to do with the issue at hand. It actually looks like an act of desperation when logic, rational thought, and research have failed to get us to change our position. Quick hint... we do not change things in CM based on how loud people scream and the degree that their faces turn red. Not a good way to make a game, trust me.

Let us once again examine the difference between Experience and Optics. If anybody wishes to be taken seriously from this point on, they MUST NOT find a flaw with what follows unless it is backed up by a logical and rational counter point that has bearing on how we are evaluating Optics. If they can not, they should just zip it. So... answer the following questions to see if you can understand simple logic....

1. Do you not agree that different units in WWII had different levels of training and battlefield experience? Can this be proven beyond an reasonable doubt?

2. Do you not agree that more experienced units generally have a better ability to fight? Can this be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

3. Do you not agree that things like accuracy, stamina, coolness under pressure, etc. increase/decrease based on how much better/worse the unit is from the norm? Can this be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

Ok, if you answered Yes to all three of these questions, then answer this one:

4. Would CM be more or less accurate if units were treated differently, in terms of combat effectiveness, depending on Experience?

Note that not once did I ask if these differences could be QUANTIFIED. We are not at that stage yet. This is simply to see if we should have Experience levels and, if we do, what GENERAL trends the differences in Experience would have on the game. Everybody with me so far? I hope to God the answer is yes, but I suspect I have already lost some people...

Anyhoo... the next thing to do is to identify different Experience levels. This is arbitrary, but in general keeping to rather standard military classifications of unit quality. After that we need to figure out what elements in the simulation are going to be affected by Experience. And finally, to what degree. This is *all* guess work. We play and play and play the game to see if the feeling is "right", and that is as good as it is going to get. It might not be perfect, but the logic is airtight, the implementation rational, and the end results wind up with a historically correct feel (this is subjective, but so far we have received only positive feedback on this aspect of CM, so we must have got it more right than wrong).

OK, so what does this have to do with Optics and Gyros? Everything. The logic is the same.

We CAN, beyond any reasonable doubt, show that Gyros did in fact have a positive effect on firing on the move. We have backed this up with scientific documentation, historical reports, cross comparisons (i.e. Gyros are today used on everything, including hand held cameras, to give a more steady "aim"), and even veteran reports. NOT on *how* effective the Gyros are, but that they were in fact effective when used for firing on the move. So, just like Experience, since we have identified something SPECIFIC in a QUALITATIVE way, to NOT include it would be inherently less right than including it. Because we have our doubts about how effective it really was on the battlefield, we made the benefit of the device quite minimal so as to err on the side of it being less effective rather than more effective then it was in WWII combat.

Unfortunately, inspite of all the name calling, trashing of logic, disregarding science, weakly constructed arguments, and utterly shameless diversions from the main point, the superiority of German optics vs. US/UK optics during this time period has NOT been demonstrated in a QUALITATIVE way. So the entire discussion about QUANTIFYING an optics bonus is not even relevant since it flunks the first all important test.

The problem with the pro-optics bonus crowd is that they have presented weak and rather easily refutable evidence. Our logical, rational, and scientific approach to picking apart arguments based on this flimsy evidence has been torn into instead of coming up with a better set of reasons for its inclusion. And at the same time, documentation presented by anti-optics bonus crowd has been ignored and flamed instead of looked at logically, rationally, and scientifically.

As I said above, before this thread Charles and I were more willing to believe that there *might* have been some minor benefit of German optics at longer ranges vs. the Allied ones of this time period. But now... we are more convinced than ever that there is no evidence to support this claim. Therefore, the chances of us adding such a bonus into CM1 is nil. It is simply not going to happen until someone can produce a better counter argument. Flaming doesn't count

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 10-05-2000).]

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hakko Ichiu:

It was getting a little chilly down in the 'Pool, so I thought I'd come and warm myself by the crackling flames.

(SNIP)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent post.

Cav

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Ok, let me first address the issue of flaming here...

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 10-05-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd say that states BTS's position pretty clearly concerning optics issues & who's allowed to flame & who isn't .

As well as optics & their place in CM's future games, but as in CM it realy shouldn't make a diference at CMs map scale unless CM 2 maps are going to cover 2 - 5km, long range engagements will equate what they do now.

As to SD's assertion that due to captured T-34's etc their should be a way to look into the issue, I would point out that the US have had examples of every German tank, as well as the T-34-76 & T-34-85 and it has solved anything, to date, 1 report on the T-34-76 sight puts it's sight as 'adequate' useing a copy of the British MK 4 site with the T-34-85 useing a copy of the German monocular sight as described in Gudgin's text concerning Soviet optics. While a Soviet report dated 1944 detailing the advantages of the M4A2 Sherman over the T-34 states the Sherman had better optics but doesn't quantify the statement.

The French extensevly tested the Panther in 1947 & I have posted the quotes concerning optics here before but i'll repost the parts on optics; even though it is irrelevent to this discussion as their is no quantification:

'The gunsight with two magnification stages is remarkably clear and has its feild of veiw clear in the center. The gunsight enables observation of a target and shells out to 3000 meters.'

'In all cases the great range of the gun should be exploited to the fullest. Fire can commence at 2000 meteres with considerable accuracy. The majority of hits were accomplished at a range of 1400 to 2000 meters. The ammunition expenditure was reletively low; on the average the fourth or fith shot found its mark, even when useing HE shells'

Now this realy means nothing to this discussion as they don't do a comparison to the Sherman or any other tank so theirs nothing again other then anecdotal evidence from the report & from Allied crews who as some pointed out suffered from an inherent inferiority complex. Runes quote from the British report is interesting as was Simons take on it.

Regards, John Waters

------------------

Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-05-2000).]

[Spook]

De-lurking for a moment (shame on me!), BTS, I would nominate this specific thread for a padlock. If & when new documentation surfaces that helps to indeed QUALIFY the German optics aspect, then we can just start it up again in a new topic.

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

I'd say that states BTS's position pretty clearly concerning optics issues & CM & who's allowed to flame & who isn't

Regards, John Waters

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No doubt.

John says it nicely, but I am not so inclined to pull punches.

It is disturbing that Steve would abuse his position to declare by fiat that those who agree with him are blameless, and those who disagree are all morons.

Gee, what a coincidence that those who tell Steve how smart and brilliant he is are all totally free of blame for flaming, while those unwilling to presume that CM is the perfect game, and actually hold them to their own standards are the total cause for all this negative.

Steve should run for office. He has all the markings of a politician.

Jeff Heidman

[Hakko Ichiu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook:

De-lurking for a moment (shame on me!), BTS, I would nominate this specific thread for a padlock. If & when new documentation surfaces that helps to indeed QUALIFY the German optics aspect, then we can just start it up again in a new topic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I respectfully disagree. Better to have one live thread on the subject, assuming it doesn't achieve total melt-down, than to have the whole thing be re-hashed as soon as the current thread drops off page 1.

------------------

Ethan

-----------

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[L.Tankersley]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Steve should run for office. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And Jeff and SlapDragon should both take a long walk off a short pier and let things cool off a bit.

------------------

Leland J. Tankersley

[Spook]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hakko Ichiu:

I respectfully disagree. Better to have one live thread on the subject, assuming it doesn't achieve total melt-down, than to have the whole thing be re-hashed as soon as the current thread drops off page 1.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's just the point. IMO, this topic has reached 98% meltdown. And for the last 100 posts, not nearly enough was provided for BTS to reconsider the "optics" issue for CMBO.

Now with the latest statement that Steve (BTS) should be regarded as a "politician", it's approached 99% meltdown; again, IMHO.

When someone does find enough of that elusive, substantiative, comparative "optics data", then rest assured, it'll get discussed in the CM forum.

Well, it's BTS's discretion what to do here anyway.

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

No doubt.

John says it nicely, but I am not so inclined to pull punches.

It is disturbing that Steve would abuse his position to declare by fiat that those who agree with him are blameless, and those who disagree are all morons.

Gee, what a coincidence that those who tell Steve how smart and brilliant he is are all totally free of blame for flaming, while those unwilling to presume that CM is the perfect game, and actually hold them to their own standards are the total cause for all this negative.

Steve should run for office. He has all the markings of a politician.

Jeff Heidman

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your new sig should be:

"I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me." -Dave Barry

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook:

Now with the latest statement that Steve (BTS) should be regarded as a "politician", it's approached 99% meltdown; again, IMHO.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you are right. Unfortuantly as they saying goes, "He who establishes his argument by noise and command shows that his reason is weak." Now that one side can't seem to get their way they want to flame. Sad.

Cav

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

(snip)

......As I said above, before this thread Charles and I were more willing to believe that there *might* have been some minor benefit of German optics at longer ranges vs. the Allied ones of this time period. But now... we are more convinced than ever that there is no evidence to support this claim. Therefore, the chances of us adding such a bonus into CM1 is nil.

It is simply not going to happen until someone can produce a better counter argument. Flaming doesn't count

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 10-05-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, that pretty much puts me out of business.

That sounds pretty firm in my opinion.

Its shame that all we have managed to do is lead them to the conclusion that they were correct the first time around to not model any longer range German optics targeting bonus.

I don't think there is much left here to discuss other than the silly personal attacks on each other.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-05-2000).]

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-05-2000).]

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-05-2000).]

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

I think you are right. Unfortuantly as they saying goes, "He who establishes his argument by noise and command shows that his reason is weak." Now that one side can't seem to get their way they want to flame. Sad.

Cav

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ayup, thats one of the problems of establishing sides to an argument, one side is always right one is always wrong, even when searching for the same answer. Both sides will flame & both sides will claim their flameing is justified by the other sides actions, then both sides deny the others claim of justification. Then the discussion degenerates into personel attacks etc, se la vie.

Regards, John Waters

------------------

Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-05-2000).]