German tank optics seem lacking. Just a gripe

[Slapdragon]

Actually Phillistine, there are no exagerated attacks-- I am just sick of reading really whiny anecedote thrown out then someone saying to BTS - "prove me wrong". Example of 88L71 argument:

88L71- "I have a test done by Snoopy that says the 88L71 shoots throw 39 feet of steel at 27 miles."

BTS- "We don't use test data in out figures."

88L71- "You are not listening, the tests says it so!"

BTS- "We don't use test data in our figures"

88L71- "I waiting for an answer, answer me!"

BTS- "We don't use test data in our figures"

88L71- "Well then I have this other test..."

And endless repetition of the above. Same with this thread -- 6 times BTS lined up its argument, and 6 times were ignored or flamed by who I have now dubbed the "anti-science" group. Then one flames too hard and they leave the forum. Great way to get the game changed. When I present a system of argument that could be used to convince BTS -- I am betting that if worked out well it would, everyone runs for cover or repeats the same old. "everyone knows German optics are best".

Worse, as soon as someone tries to pin someone down on what they are saying, make them come up with numbers -- they start a flame war because they can't. The read some history books on German tanks and that is the extent of what they know, or they say to BTS "I don't have to prove why German Optics are great, you have to prove why they do not provide automatic hits!." And BTS rightly quits listening.

So -- if you want to present a clear argument to BTS you can take my advice on source credibility and scientific argument -- OR you can label your posts as idle chatter / beer hall conversation and pure WAG and then it wont change the game and people can just throw popcorn at each other.

Also realize that anyone who disagrees with the Deutschland über Alles crowd is facing a tough uphill battle, even when like me they don't really disagree they just want to see real evidence. I watched CavScout use some reasonable argument and I watched the frustrated Deutschland über Alles gang start to get set for a flame war.

Finally, I hear this silly, "I am really disapointed that BTS wont listen" stuff when BTS listened, posted, then was flamed off the list. The problem is people who fire off their posts without reading anything that has gone before. BTS listened, found crap here becuase no one will be systematic and move past subjective data, and moved on. Note also that I do not think the "Deutschland über Alles" crowd is one and the same with the "Anti-Science" group, they just have a number of members who belong to both groups hurting the "Deutschland über Alles" arguments.

Now in response to my desire for some sort of systematic look at optics including a mathematical way of doing what people propose there will be 40 flames by people who just cannot get there mind around systematic thinking, but until Steve and Charles throw me off this board I will be a champion of systematic thinking in all parts of this game, rather science in the ballistics section or historical method in the color of uniforms.

[CavScout]

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

How can a game I love so much result in so damn much frustration?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because they haven't made the Germans invincible?

[Slapdragon]

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

What crap. There are literally DOZENS of examples where BTS fudged numbers when they designed the formuals for this game. This is not a bad thing, it is an inevitable thing. Why are they holding this optics issue to a higher standard than the standard they hold gyrostabilizers to?

A veteran infantry squad produces about 10% more firepower at 100m than a regular infantry squad in CM. Where did they get that number? How do they know it is ~10% and not ~5% or ~15% or ~50%? What "objective", "quantifiable" source did they use to determine that?

In CM, there is some chance that your air support will attack your own units. They came up with some formula to determine how often that occurred. Did they have "objective, quantifiable" data to determine the odds of that happening?

CM has decided that at night, there is some chance that your troops will get confused and fire on their own guys. How exactly did they obtian the quantifiable data to decide how often that happened?

I could go on and on with these kinds of examples. The point is that it is necessary to fudge numbers, simply because the hard data just plain does not exist. So you fudge the numbers, test the result, and see if you get results that are realistic. If you do not, you adjust them and try again.

The mark of a great game is one that is able to take all those fudges, add them together, and come up with something that actually resembles reality. CM does this extremely well.

I, for one, am rather dissapointed that despite the anecdotal evidence, despite the rather clear explanation of precisely why the Zeiss sight was superior, etc., etc., BTS has chosen to take the low road and just accuse everyone who has made an argument for change as German loving morons. Then, to top it off, you have Slappy accusing anyone who disagrees with him of being "anti-science". What the hell does that mean?

I am going to come right out and say it. I think the objections to the idea that optics could/should be modelled in CM are 95% based on the "CM is prefection incarnate" attitude that is extremely prevalent on this board, despite protestations to the contrary. This is a perfect example of that attitude, but hardly the first example, and probably not the last.

How can a game I love so much result in so damn much frustration?

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeff, try not to be any sillier than you have to be here. The way BTS handles the infantry is the wrong example because it is basically correct -- at least in how you would model something like that. The terms Green - Regular - and Crack are subjective terms that everyone (mostly) can handle (allowing intersubjective agreement). BTS used historical evidence and asked the question "what factors" do experience effect. Then they arrived at a high and low point for those factors, such as delay time and number of people shooting etc. Once you have a high and low you use your ordinal-subjective categories to divide capability on a scale, and each range on the scale gets called one of your terms. Green and Crack are not scientific terms, but definitional labels on top of a theory of how infantry works (ie. experience effects certain aspects of a squad's performance). In the send we have an objective quantifiable scale that has recieved a subjective set of labels so we all can understand why the infantry do what they do. Please try and not attack every aspect of the game without at least a basic understanding of the system that BTS used to set it up -- it make for frustration all around and does not advance the cause of optics.

Also understand that certain parts of the game, for example the color of a house, are subjective in nature, but that does not mean we need to move the entire game system to subjective to satisfy the Deutschland über Alles group for consistency. In fact, although they have been successfully flamed out of this discussion, I bet BTS is trying to move anything that is subjective into a more objective area if it is possible.

[CavScout]

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

I am going to come right out and say it. I think the objections to the idea that optics could/should be modelled in CM are 95% based on the "CM is prefection incarnate" attitude that is extremely prevalent on this board, despite protestations to the contrary. This is a perfect example of that attitude, but hardly the first example, and probably not the last.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is this "CM is prefection (sic) incarnate attitude"? If you are going to "come right out and say it" then who are you talking about? Those asking for more than just saying "Deutsche nie verlieren" to adding advantage to the German optics are a poriton of the same group that advocated changing CM in the "Gamey Recon Technique?" thread. How is this "CM is prefection (sic) incarnate attitude"?

Cav

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 10-03-2000).]

[Jeff Heidman]

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

Because they haven't made the Germans invincible?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep. That is it. I would be so much more happy with invincible Germans. That is precisely what everyone is asking for. You have hit the nail on the head. Everyone who thinks that Zeiss optics were superior is a closet Nazi of the worst sort. Gosh, you have found me out.

Thanks so much for contributing to the overall high level of discourse and discussion that this thread has enjoyed. You are a perfect example of the level of intellectual honesty displayed by those who cannot accept the idea that CM could be made better.

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

Slapdragon, try to to be a little less obtuse than you have been all along.

There is no "anti-science" group. There is no "Germans should be invincible" group. They do not exist. They are nothing more than a ratehr weak ad-hominen creation.

If you had half the brain you think you do you would have realised when you read my post that I was NOT attacking the other examples of where BTS has used non-objective methods to come up with objective numbers. I was just pointing out that they existed, and hence, the objection to this particular example is fallacious.

I feel VERY sorry for your students if you are actually a science teacher.

Jeff Heidman

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 10-03-2000).]

[Slapdragon]

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

Slapdragon, try to to be a little less obtuse than you have been all along.

There is no "anti-science" group. There is no "Germans should be invincible" group. They do not exist. They are nothing more than a ratehr weak ad-hominen creation.

If you had half the brain you think you do you would have realised when you read my post that I was NOT attacking the other examples of where BTS has used non-objective methods to come up with objective numbers. I was just pointing out that they existed, and hence, the objection to this particular example is fallacious.

I feel VERY sorry for your students if you are actually a science teacher.

Jeff Heidman

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 10-03-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeff -- you mostly resort to flames of Cavscout and science when you loose your argument. Actually, I won teacher of the year (doctoral) for the State of South Carolina and I won it for teaching science in mass communication, so lucky for me you are not on the board for higher education. Your arguments are stronger if you would actually stand by what you wrote. When you wrote that the infantry system was subjective, you were arguing right in with the Deutschland über Alles gang even if you want to remove the faction from existence. Then when I called you on your silly assumption that infantry was subjective, you move back and say, er, uh, that was not what I said.

Use a silly argument, get it called silly. Use a flame -- and CavScout flames you right back. Use subjective thinking and then freak when someone points it out, and you are in the antiscience group.

The Deutschland über Alles group exists, most of us on ladders who do not belong have met them. They exist on this board -- Willhammer gets flamed down for pointing out an inconsistency in point score beceause "everyone knows Germans were better." CavScout gets flamed becuase he wants something more in the argument.

Proof -- the Deutschland über Alles, when faced with a sceptical BTS, resorted to flames. The first flame, as they say, has the weakest argument.

Obtuse just means that I use a method of sceptical enquiry that is likely past were you have been schooled. Or, and after rereading your exchanges with CavScout I think this is more likely the case, you fail to read others posts (seemingly this is required to join the Deutschland über Alles club) before you trot out your silly examples. But, in the modern age, reading other people's posts is a waste of time, is it not? Not when you have an argument to win in flames.

[Jeff Heidman]

Slappy sounds like the adults speaking in a Peanuts cartoon. Noise is being made, but there is no actual signal there.

You got spanked, and you responded by running a bunch of ad-homs about conspiracys and the motives of your opponents. It is just that simple. CavBoy (of course) was right there carryng the coattails as he always is. Yawn.

My infantry example was (and is) spot on. John's gyrostabilzer example was (and is) spot on. The other examples I cited are spot on. I have not even remotely changed my argument in the least.

BTS uses subjective data to make objective formulations all the time. Their demand that the optics issue meet some criteria that they have not held so many other issues to is fallacious. You can rant and rave all you like, but in the end you cannot avoid that simple fact.

But this is pointless. BTS has dug their heels in, and so we shall not see any movement on this issue at this point. Shrug. No big deal. Hardly a game breaker or anything.

Jeff Heidman

[Slapdragon]

Also, I am not saying that anyone has to use objective thinking and systematic presentation of arguement, only that I doubt BTS is going to listen to you if you do not. And if you do, you should do it correctly. Anyone on the Net for awhile will remember the Source discussion group (the Internet was much smaller then) that Martin Rimm trotted out his pearl about Porn on the Net. It was a similar issue: do you use science in discussion and does it have to be good science. He dressed up his initial subjective drivel with a lot of seemingly objective facts that turned out to be crap, but anyone who pointed it out to the "censor the internet group" was marked for flames, and they used a surprisingly similar group of arguments to ones being used on this board.

It is funny that Martin Rimm is not one mistake in the Internet community, but a deeply felt anti-critical thinking philosophy, that facts can be twisted to meet opinion of a vocal minority who can then say, end discussion! or flame down the critics.

In the end, flaming the game creators down gets no where, but if you are loosing the argument, it at least allows you to be "right" to the soft headed group.

[Insu]

Deutschland uber Alles?

You guys are just so unreal for beeing highly educated professionals. I get kind of offended by the statement from Slapdragon since I do like the German equipment from WWII more than I like the Allied. Does that take me into the club of DuA? I hope not.

Just a very unprofessional statement and I assume Slapdragon uses the expression just to make his point clearer, cause if not, I think he is out of line.

I´m not an expert in any way and I wont budge into the technical discussion but I´m quite convinced that if BTS would have left out the Gyros, not many people would have argued for it.

Pro-German arguments (or whatever you´d call it) does not make someone a member of Deutschland uber Alles. Maybe it is not clear to you, Slapdragon, but I think that especially John and Jeff are arguing for the sake of improving CM and not for the Deutschland uber Alles club.

CM is the best game of all, thanks BTS. I just point out that there are actually people who DO NOT favor any side in CM but still thinks that there are juste cause for this thread.

[Slapdragon]

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

[b

My infantry example was (and is) spot on. John's gyrostabilzer example was (and is) spot on. The other examples I cited are spot on. I have not even remotely changed my argument in the least.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeff, if Spot on means ignorant of all critical meaning, then I congratulate you on your adult admission of this fact.

If you read the previous posts (again, I know you are in the Deutschland über Alles group because you do not) then you will see the problems with John's gyro argument, the problems with your infantry agrument, and the problems with the optics argument.

Jeff- Infantry are subjective so everything should be.

Steve- No they are not -- here is why.

Jeff- Infantry are subjective so everything should be.

John has a serious case of this, it took like 24 BTS repeats of the same statement for him to finally read one and go, ohh.

Rather than go through a useless repeat of reasons why all of those arguments do not work -- I will recommend you read the previous posts. Actually read them, just don't see if they agree or disagree with you and then repeat your previous argument.

BTS has not dug in its heals. If you could make an intelligent argument they would jump for joy and light candles at the mass to Saint Ignatius in thanks. What they have said is enough tripe, show us a system, and you have said, duhhh, what is a system.

[Slapdragon]

Sorry -- it has been pointed out to me in a side e-mail that likely, loosing the argument, your goal is to get this one locked up.

Good tactic Jeff! Real mature!

Instead, give us an objective system that can be coded into the game supported by good sources and I will take back your anti-science medal.

[PzKpfw 1]

Well thx for the E-mail all on asking me to return.

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

Actually Phillistine, there are no exagerated attacks-- I am just sick of reading really whiny anecedote thrown out then someone saying to BTS - "prove me wrong". Example of 88L71 argument:

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then don't read them. And why can't someone express their opinion here, just as you do without the repetiveness & poor attempts at sarcasm inherent in your reply's.

See my problem is you tend to wade into a diuscussion half cocked, provide nothing benificial to it, other then possibly atempting to add comic reliefe, then accuse anyone who dares disagree with youropinion as either a racist or part of some mysterious 'anti - science' crowd.

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

88L71- "I have a test done by Snoopy that says the 88L71 shoots throw 39 feet of steel at 27 miles."

BTS- "We don't use test data in out figures."

88L71- "You are not listening, the tests says it so!"

BTS- "We don't use test data in our figures"

88L71- "I waiting for an answer, answer me!"

BTS- "We don't use test data in our figures"

88L71- "Well then I have this other test..."

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another typical example of your attempts at sarcasm, & failure to read & or understand a discussion, you once again waded into at the end to see, while failing to recognise that valid points have been made on both sides and the continuation of it was to try & pin down why the discrepencies, if Charles & Steve felt their was no basis for continuing the discussion they would have locked it.

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

And endless repetition of the above. Same with this thread -- 6 times BTS lined up its argument, and 6 times were ignored or flamed by who I have now dubbed the "anti-science" group. Then one flames too hard and they leave the forum. Great way to get the game changed. When I present a system of argument that could be used to convince BTS -- I am betting that if worked out well it would, everyone runs for cover or repeats the same old. "everyone knows German optics are best".

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See the problem with the above is it assumes you have presented anything valid, and if so can anyone get by your ego to in fact recognise you have contributed anything. You seem to misconstrue why anyone would leave as proveing you are correct.

When I had, had enough it was, after your unfounded racism accusations as well as your overbearing attitude towards anyone who dares disagree with you, on the forum, theirs the right way, the wrong way & Slapdragon's way & god help anyone who doesn't take SDs way, because he's like the3 energiser bunny he keeps going, & going, & going...

When SD is pushed on an issue his reaction is to either fall back to racism accusations and leave claiming the thread has gone racist, and or purporting to represent the entire scientific community declare the thread participants as 'anti science' and leave or drown the thread in tarot card postings.

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

Worse, as soon as someone tries to pin someone down on what they are saying, make them come up with numbers -- they start a flame war because they can't. The read some history books on German tanks and that is the extent of what they know, or they say to BTS "I don't have to prove why German Optics are great, you have to prove why they do not provide automatic hits!." And BTS rightly quits listening.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Realy SD another example of your lackluster approach to defining a conversation on this board. As I have stated in the past had you bothered to read it other then open mouth & insert foot as usual, you would have seen I agreed with Steve that yes German optics were better & I was at a loss how one would model it in CM, but unlike you, I have contacted Zeiss,, the Zeiss historical group, Aberdeen, etc to try & get us more data on this issue, as in I am actively attempting to help resolve this discussion, instead of sitting here twidling my thumbs, and lording over ppl.

As to trying to pin down numbers, how much research have you done on this issue SD? its nice to sit here and drop in & nitpick a thread, or ask for something you know no one here has obtained yet, w/o haveing a single thing to contribute towards resolving it, other then to deride anyone who doesnt conform to your way of thinking. Perfect example is your above remark on automatic hits, no one here has even sugested that be the case, except you, by writeing that, which again turns the thread into a spin.

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

So -- if you want to present a clear argument to BTS you can take my advice on source credibility and scientific argument -- OR you can label your posts as idle chatter / beer hall conversation and pure WAG and then it wont change the game and people can just throw popcorn at each other.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And thats the jist of all your posts, SD your way or the highway.. Now we can continue to exchange BS with each other or agree to disagree & move on, your choice.

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 10-03-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

WOW

I can see I have missed some "good" stuff here.... (rolling eyes)

I have been talking about German tank gunnery optics from the time the gold demo was released.

Check out this thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004572.html

WAY back then Heinz posted this:

Heinz 25th PzReg

Member

posted 05-15-2000 09:28 AM

Greetings all

I have been playing the CM golde demo for some time now and it is great. But I am a litte

interested in how the game simulates the tank gunners actions. I have seen tanks miss their

target completely at ranges under 300m. Ok, that probably happened sometimes during the

war, but the when a second shot also misses, something is wrong. Are the gunners blind??

Do they need glasses?? The German Zeiss optics was actually quite good and they where

very accurate. The American optics was not that good in comparison. The German gunners

should have a distinct advantage just because of their optics. Is this more clear at

engagements over long ranges in CM??

And does the hit probability increase after the first shot?? I have seen my StugIII gunners

miss the first shot against Shermans hoping they would nail them with the next shot. But

sometimes the second shot can be even further of target. Is there a logic to all this or is it

just chance??

Qualified answers would be greatly appreciated.

Many thx

Former tank gunner

Heinz 25th PzReg

And FIVE updates later not one addition patch or tweak has addressed this issue.

We have tried to do our best to present logical rational scientic documented proof that some that some German weapons should have a targeting bonus modeled for better optics.

It hasn't happened

But do we really need to blatantly and openly flame Steve and Charles and each other over this?

I really do hope not.

Please Gentleman, lets keep it as civil as possible in here as we pursue our goal of modeling a higher long range "chance to hit" accuracy algorythym for the high velocity german guns.

Thanks

-tom w

[CavScout]

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

Thanks so much for contributing to the overall high level of discourse and discussion that this thread has enjoyed. You are a perfect example of the level of intellectual honesty displayed by those who cannot accept the idea that CM could be made better.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Go read the Gamey Recon thread and see just how much I DO think that CM can be made better. Don't confuse my contention that "Deutscher des Anblicks Verlust nie" may be false with my thinking CM is "perfect".

Cav

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 10-03-2000).]

[Spook]

Well, this thread is becoming epic in its cyclic impasse. So my added comments here likely won't change nay views, but I will add them quickly and then divest myself from this discussion too.

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

What crap. There are literally DOZENS of examples where BTS fudged numbers when they designed the formuals for this game. This is not a bad thing, it is an inevitable thing. Why are they holding this optics issue to a higher standard than the standard they hold gyrostabilizers to?

Jeff, while I have no personal strong view (yet) on whether or not the German optics are getting a fair break in this game, I have to state this on the "higher standard" comparison you're making between gyros and the German tank optics. This statement is effectively in error, because Steve has already related, long ago in this thread, that he used historical field test references from Aberdeen in WW2 to decide whether or not to allow a gyrostabilizer effect.

The whole idea of a field test at a military test center, in this case, is to ISOLATE the gyrostabilizer effect as a unique factor to combat performance. The only way that the German optics could be comparably "quantified" to US optics would be to mount the German optics onto an US tank, run it through EXACTLY the same test conditions alongside a tank using standard US optics, and see what the TRENDS would be in who would better acquire and hit a target at varying ranges.

My view on the gyros in CM? I don't have a strong one there either, because I don't know quantitatively as to how much it affects hit chances when firing on the move. But if it'd make people think that CM was more "fair", I'd suggest that only veteran-level or better US crews should be allowed the gyro modifier.

Now to another of your statements:

I could go on and on with these kinds of examples. The point is that it is necessary to fudge numbers, simply because the hard data just plain does not exist. So you fudge the numbers, test the result, and see if you get results that are realistic. If you do not, you adjust them and try again.

On face value, that seems reasonable to state, Jeff. But with insufficient historical correlation, or more importantly, actual optics field test data that directly compares German vs. Allied optics, how do you define to "get results that are realistic"? THAT----is the inherent trap that BTS has to deal with here. In lieu of such data for reference, then it falls upon BTS and its test team to determine "realism" in a SUBJECTIVE way. And Steve has related quite repeatedly that many WW2 wargamers---even those tapped as CM testers---can subjectively assess the test results to call it "realistic" only when a perceived (but unsubstantiated) German benefit is apparent enough.

Of course, all of this was stated earlier, too.

Well, BTS MIGHT finally decide to add in an "optics bonus" for German tanks; but without that compelling data that ISOLATES the German optics as a factor to accuracy at varying ranges, don't be surprised that only an overall added effect of 2-4% to firing accuracy is allowed. So when those of us then scream "FOUL" that it isn't enough or still "doesn't seem right", then rest assured, the onus will REALLY be put on us to prove why.

Do I think that German direct-fire ordnance in tanks should get an optics bonus? Sure---but ONLY after enough references & data can establish by TRENDS as to how much added benefit the German sights would give to acquisition time & hit chance accuracy.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Well, this thread is becoming epic in its cyclic impasse. So my added comments here likely won't change nay views, but I will add them quickly and then divest myself from this discussion too.

Do I think that German direct-fire ordnance in tanks should get an optics bonus? Sure---but ONLY after enough references & data can establish by TRENDS as to how much added benefit the German sights would give to acquisition time & hit chance accuracy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excelent post Spook & agreed, I think thats what we all want, despite the spin the thread took.

Regards, John Waters

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

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

[aka_tom_w]

quote:

Originally posted by Spook:

Well, this thread is becoming epic in its cyclic impasse. So my added

comments here likely won't change nay views, but I will add them

quickly and then divest myself from this discussion too.

Do I think that German direct-fire ordnance in tanks should get an

optics bonus? Sure---but ONLY after enough references & data can

establish by TRENDS as to how much added benefit the German sights

would give to acquisition time & hit chance accuracy.

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

Excelent post Spook & agreed, I think thats what we all want, despite the spin the thread took.

Regards, John Waters

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed!

The problem remains, has yet we have not found any reliable historical data, references, or field tests to cite.

I'm not even sure where to begin looking?

Are these things printed in German field manuals some where? Are there German speaking players here that can access this kind of material for BTS? Where can we find the data and refercences that we can rely on?

-tom w

[Jeff Heidman]

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

Sorry -- it has been pointed out to me in a side e-mail that likely, loosing the argument, your goal is to get this one locked up.

Good tactic Jeff! Real mature!

B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<Edited post>

I think it is time for me to be going. Thanks for the truly honest discussion.

jeff Heidman

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 10-03-2000).]

[CavScout]

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

Pro-German arguments (or whatever you´d call it) does not make someone a member of Deutschland uber Alles. Maybe it is not clear to you, Slapdragon, but I think that especially John and Jeff are arguing for the sake of improving CM and not for the Deutschland uber Alles club.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortuantly it seems that many advocate changes because they don't think their German armor is effective enough. This one, and the one on arty, are but a few examples.

When the Nichts Abbrüche Deutsche group throws out long range kill reports for Germans they jump up and done saying it is proof of superior optics. When similar reports are put out of Allied vehicles getting kills at similar ranges, and on the move to boot, they are ignored.

Cav

[L.Tankersley]

Nice post, Spook. Thanks for reiterating (again ) what the core obstacle is.

Jeez, going into threads recently visited by BTS can really take you into the dark side...

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[This message has been edited by L.Tankersley (edited 10-03-2000).]

[Mark IV]

Simon Fox posted a reading list that sounds like a pretty good start.

I don't really agree with the requirement to put German optics in an Allied tank, to assess their relative efficacy. The optics are only one part of a shooting system, and seeing me at 1000+m is only the beginning- you have to hit me.

The GAME issue is the odds of ANY given tank hitting and killing another at a given range. If certain optics were proven superior, it would confer nothing but bragging rights on any AFV or other weapon system that couldn't follow through with a kill at the specified range. So the lethality of the whole shooting package is what's really at stake.

I know there have been comparative gunnery tests, at least for Panthers vs. Allied tanks, but I'm not groggy enough to have them. But wouldn't these tell a more complete story than focusing (haha) on the optics?

Hydraulics, tolerances in gear drives, tube quality, and projectile design are all factors in long-range hitting.

A Mark IV with the same optics as a Panther is not going to have the same luck at 1000+, is it? Any more than the same high-quality scope would guarantee that I shoot the same groups with 2 different rifles of different caliber and quality.

I think a lot of us would like the issue resolved, and that very few are doing this from a blanket pro- or anti- German stance. BTW, a stupid or flamey response from a proponent of a certain idea IN NO WAY diminishes the validity of that side's intelligent arguments (just an unfortunate association, not a logical event). These accs and counter-accs really lower the quality of what was a fairly interesting thread.

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

I know there have been comparative gunnery tests, at least for Panthers vs. Allied tanks, but I'm not groggy enough to have them. But wouldn't these tell a more complete story than focusing (haha) on the optics?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now there's a good idea for a change.

I don't really care rat's ass what's the input of the optics, if there's

a test showing the accuracy of the vehicles. Too bad I don't have

such data. And I wonder if any such tests were ever done.

My main gripe so far is with my assumption that all accuracy is

based solely on the velocity of the projectile.

I wonder if the following should go to another thread? This one is just

too damn long, and has already deteoriated to entrenched flaming.

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

The GAME issue is the odds of ANY given tank hitting and killing another at a given range. If

certain optics were proven superior, it would confer nothing but bragging rights on any AFV

or other weapon system that couldn't follow through with a kill at the specified range. So

the lethality of the whole shooting package is what's really at stake.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not so sure about this...

Sorry to disagree Mark IV,

I would like to see the german optics bonus address ONLY the ability to spot at long ranges and the chance to hit, other factors like (quantifiable numbers here) muzzle velocity and projectile weigh, shape, and diameter, and the thickness of the opposing armour must determine the result of the hit whether it bounces or penetrates.

The only factor/variable that should help the "chance to hit" equation here might be the flatter trajectory of the HIGH velocity german rounds from their bigger guns, based on the hard number of the actual muzzle velocity.

Mostly I am "just" looking for an increased "chance to hit" at long ranges and an increased spotting and correctly identifying the enemy bonus for the "better" german optics.

Penetration and the result of the hit must still be determined by hard math as we know it in the game. The Long 88 lacking punch thread is attempting to address the issue of the 88 lacking some penetration ability at 30^. I would like to think that is a different issue than we ae dealing with here.

There are already mathimatical equations and algorythyms based on physics and some test data to determine penetration if the round hits, that issue should be left out of the discussion of German gunnery optics as the even laser range finders, and night vision google, the best optics in the world don't make the round hit with any more kinetic energy than its gunpowder charge will send it down the gun barrel with.

I think we should focus the discussion on a higher chane to hit and better spotting ability at long range.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-03-2000).]

[danielh]

(Huch a long post, sorry)

First i feel sorry that Steve and others quitted, because i think it was nobodys intention to hurt somebody. AND OF COURSE WE ALL LOVE THIS GAME !!!

I think the problem must be divided into the different aspects how "something" is certified to enter the model world of CM.

First i think WE all want a game that is realistic in a way that the tactics of WWII can be played through from either side, and still be balanced to allow either side to "win" (And with win i don't only mean the plain word, but also win in enoyment..). I DON'T want the Supertank which kills everything, but i also want to have the differences of the different weapon-system "accurately" modelled. So far i think all of us can agree.

Where the fight starts is where the details come into play.

Evidence on any subject in the real world can ONLY be gathered by perception through our senses. (Science is a special category thereoff)

Now what methods do we have to "proof" evidence on the subjects laying 60 years in the past ?

FIRST and most important in my opinion and a base for further investigation are the testimonies of people involved, that means quotes, stories by soldiers from either side.

These have to be crosschecked against each other to get a rough picture of the subject, favourably since the object under investigation is the complex called "war" testimonies from each side should be taken into account evenly. Of course one has to examine always the background of a given statement. Was it maybe for propaganda or honestly meant ?

If available this statments then should be crosschecked with possible available so called "scientific" sources about the matter, like testreports. Preferable from both sides. Of course also here the material has to be examined for acuraccy in the environmental setup, acuraccy of methods used, comparability and so fort. Provided data probably will deviate throughout the different sources, then the reasons for the deviation should be adressed, maybe important variables are unknown for comparison, as could be easily possible. Fictional Example: All AT-guns of a specific manufacturer are measured on a manufacturers testsite. The resulting testreport does not include all the relevant data like the gun powder batch used for the grenade for instance, or the cristalline structure of the armorplate wasn't examined, but instead only referred as BNH 220. The same gun measured on a different testsite produces different data, also there important data is lacking. What to do ? If possible priorize the impact of the different variables, if not calculate the average by leaving away the values devaiting the most from the average and calculate again.

Of course if a (near) complete mathematical model exist, this can be taken to justify the testdata.

After screening the testdata this shold be compared against the statements.

If great deviation is indicated, the statements must be screened through for hidden reasons/objections.

It's a fractal process, you can go through it again and again, but already with the first pass some fundamental evidence can be derived.

As far as CM is concerned, the object discussed to alter, should be substantially enough and easy to implement with the current model.

A subject can be called substantially if it's implementation would have a significant impact on the game (Tactics).

As far as i can overview the current "important" subjects are the following:

Tank issues in general:

- Acuraccy at all ranges (Hit probability), this divides into three subcategories:

- Optics (Spot and aim) technically

- Gyrostabilizer

- Human performance (Spotting, aquiring, aiming)

- Armor representation to some extent

- Penetration power to some extent

The M2 issue (0.5 inch)

Artillery issue

- Pattern

- Time intervalls

Whereas the M2- and Tank- issue are the most important ones, since huge threads exist.

To the current thread about the "Zeiss" optics, which in fact is one about aiming / hit probability over short to longrange:

The subject in my opinion could be easily cleared using the above described method, the same for all the others....

There were several posters which tried honestly to contribute data for the different subjects, but none of them were accepted but rather denied or not commented at all.

There will be NEVER a scientific proof on any of these subjects, but instead proof by presumptive evidence which always leaves some questions open.

It was absolutely correct to mention that the gyroscopic doesn't fulfill the criteria of "scientific" evidence, and it's presumptive evidence is very questionalbe, since it stems from only one single test, which Steve mentions.

On what ground was the test executed ? On a perfectly flat road or in the field ?

Is it really true that the US-tankers weren't trained to use them ??? If so is it scientifically correct when even a regular crew knows to handle it in CM ?

In other words, the reasoning of Steve to counter (and i emphasize counter) the reasoning and evidence of the "Zeiss Pros" was invalid itself and didn't fulfill the requirements he posed on the "Zeiss" subject.

But why counter ? Why not examin the evidences properly ?

Where is danger on the way ?

I want a precise as possible CM, and NOT a game to kill US or Germans (there are better games for that kind of "amusement")...

When i kill a Tiger i want to be proud off kwowing that i achieved something.

Hope minds cool down a bit, so we all can enjoy CM and it's predecessors

Greets

Daniel