German tank optics seem lacking. Just a gripe

[Wilhammer]

"To Wilhammer and the gyro-subject, does the gyro compensate for infinite accelerations?"

What kind of language is that? Define "infinite accelerations."

The Gyro keeps the gun stable relative to the....hell, I explained all of that.

If you are referring to whether or not the thing will work while the tank is moving and speeding up or slowing down, yes.

As for the ranging thing, the Coax MG with tracer could tell you that. If you are familiar and/or trained with a pice of equipment, you can know how well it will perform, and some of the "Helper Apps" that go with fall away in need, same goes for knowing how your gun behaves.

Warships get the range by firing multiple guns and getting the range by observing the splashes. The Coax MG does the same thing, much faster.

[Wilhammer]

My latest post bumped my page 8 solution into oblivion.

I have a copy stored on my desktop, so, if want it, I can repost, I guess. I'll wait, BTS may repair.

[Slapdragon]

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

I think the whole optics thing was explained completely wrong.

IT'S NOT THE QUALITY OF THE GLASSES, BUT INSTEAD THE MAN MACHINE INTERFACE !

What that means IMO - and my experience only goes back to Panzer Elite - that in a M4 there is (almost) no means to gather range information, whereas with the german system it was genuinely easy ! (Already as a 10 - year old kid i could understand it (i had an example of the "Tiger Fibel" a training manual for the Tiger I), this in CONJUNCTION with a quite flat trajectory makes it easy to hit a target stationary within 1000 m almost with the first shot at average for a regular trained tanker. Below 700 m the trajectories also in the M4 makes it easy to hit since ranging errors would not make that big difference.

So the problem for acurate shots beyond is RANGE aqcuiring.

Maybe somebody in that huge forum can explain us equally detailed as with the "Zeiss-system" (Available at the Panzer Elite site) how the System(s) for the M4 worked.....

To Wilhammer and the gyro-subject, does the gyro compensate for infinite accelerations ?

Greets

Daniel<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

An IBM or Westinghouse / Merc Gyro could handle most motion below 1g (10m2), so an infinite acceleration is ?-1 to much for the gyro to handle. A gyro could handle a short hop through the air as long as the lateral and verticle acceleration did not combine to a vector of more than 1g, since this hop was more than the HVSS of all but the lighest tanks could handle (an M18 being an example of one that could theoretically exceed its gyros by going airborne) you would instead damage the suspension making a hit moot.

The Aberdeen tests of Gyros used a control set of tanks who did not have gyros connected to establish a baseline for tank accuracy on the move, then added gyros and looks for a significant difference. A significant difference was found in tanks that were moving at all speeds tested. One of the rsults of the Aberdeen tests is that all US tanks have retained gyros whose operations were very similar to those in World War Two, and is one factor given for the success of US made armour in the Arab - Isreali war of 1967.

No study of how many tankers used gyros has ever been done. Oral histories are widely variant on this -- the oral histories collected of the 761st tank battalion and 704th Tank Destroyer showing that they were almost always kept operational, while the history of the 67th Armoured (the core of CCB 2AD) saying that some tanker disconnected them because the gun could cause an injury.

The Squad Leader evidence most often cited never had a published source, Greenwood in particular mentioning that "most gyros were disconnected" but not saying from which source this opinion came around. This has started an Urban Legend that the gyro was not used at all in combat, but seeing that post war tanks not only retained their gyros but retained models similar to WW2 (the computer assisted gyros of the M1 being the first major departure) and trained extensively with them, the theory that they were never used is probably far overstated.

Sometimes when a German tank misses at under 2000 meters you will actually hear the automatic first hit >1500 meters theory run up the flag pole, but anyone who has ever had to fire a firearm knows that their is no such thing. Sweat dropping in eyes, smoke, noise, confusion, shakes, and fear all combine in a tank to assure that their is a huge murphy factor in any tank shot. German and US tank could and did miss even the most simple shots, and they also hit with the most outrageous shots that can be imagined.

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

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

Combat Mission does not use "penetration tables" or charts to determine armor penetration. Instead it uses the mathematical equations described in "Penetration of Armour Plate" originally by (British) Ordnance Board Subcommittee of the Armour Piercing Projectile Committee (reproduced by U.S. Dept. of Commerce National Technical Information Service #PB91127506). -- Charles

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

[PzKpfw 1]

Wow what happened to all of today's posts.

Regards, John Waters

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

The "Penetration OF Armour Plate" by the US Ordnance Board, Aberdeen Proving Ground, March 1950, NTIS call number PB91-127506 which was believed until recently, to be the basis for all CMs calculations, has limitations In that It can only compensate for mass, diameter,and velocity of the projectile, & hardness of the target plate. The formula can't distinguish between rounds with different nose shapes, or different hardness, and materials, nor does it predict the angle-dependant performance of armour piercing caps.

It can't predict the performance of face hardened armour vs shot, & Its correction for angled armour is flawed compared to penetration charts vs. angle, with curves.the formula was generally accurate for AP shot. Accuracy was found to be better than 2% velocity(roughly 21 f/s),provideing the baseline 3% Cr.Mo. steel was used, but when other types of steel were used as a target the formula's accuracy dropped, and deviations of as high as 150 f/s were noted.

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

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-04-2000).]

[Mark IV]

I thought Simon Fox's list was interesting so I'll put it up for the third time:

WO 185/195 "New type sighting for tanks"

German Military Technology: The Optical Equipment by Hans Seeger.

Eyes of the Wehrmacht by Steve Rohan.

Ordnance School. Foreign Materiel, volume 3. (fire control instruments & sighting equipment, German & Japanese, B.C. scopes, range & height finders) Published by The Ordnance School: Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, July 1943. (OS 9-61, vol. 3)

...these sound germane to the topic.

[:USERNAME:]

what the hell happened here?

[TeAcH]

Since it was my post that reignited this whole debate, I feel I need to make one change to my first post, which by now is totally irrelevant. My tank duel was not at a range of 300 meters but 700 meters.

Secondly, though I am not part of any secret society nor am I a German WW2 lover, I cast my vote for the inclusion of the optics.

I would say that the same logic that called for including gyros to all US tanks, should be applied to the optics as well.

I think the benefit to the germans would be:

1) better target identification

2) an increase in accuracy, albeit a small one. Perhaps the same benefit given to the gyros for US tank firing on the move.

I've been to the shooting range more times than I can count. Sometimes, I get handed cheap eye protection when we set out on the pistol course. It is a bit harder to see the target at a distance. When a good pair of expensive eyerwear frees up, I put them on and, let me tell you. The target is easier to see and hit. A placebo? Dont think so.

I know this is a simple analogy, but its late and all that I can muster.

I am a bit suprised at BTS' stance on this issue given all of the debate. Furthermore, as BTS has mentioned, the dilema must be tackled sooner or later for CM2. Tackle it now and let us see how it works in CM1. Then you can fine tune it for CM2 I say.

[Slapdragon]

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

Since it was my post that reignited this whole debate, I feel I need to make one change to my first post, which by now is totally irrelevant. My tank duel was not at a range of 300 meters but 700 meters.

Secondly, though I am not part of any secret society nor am I a German WW2 lover, I cast my vote for the inclusion of the optics.

I would say that the same logic that called for including gyros to all US tanks, should be applied to the optics as well.

I think the benefit to the germans would be:

1) better target identification

2) an increase in accuracy, albeit a small one. Perhaps the same benefit given to the gyros for US tank firing on the move.

I've been to the shooting range more times than I can count. Sometimes, I get handed cheap eye protection when we set out on the pistol course. It is a bit harder to see the target at a distance. When a good pair of expensive eyerwear frees up, I put them on and, let me tell you. The target is easier to see and hit. A placebo? Dont think so.

I know this is a simple analogy, but its late and all that I can muster.

I am a bit suprised at BTS' stance on this issue given all of the debate. Furthermore, as BTS has mentioned, the dilema must be tackled sooner or later for CM2. Tackle it now and let us see how it works in CM1. Then you can fine tune it for CM2 I say.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually they have tackled it now, and this boards difficulties demonstrate it. I will write the critic that this thread woul dhave if it were presented to me as a journal paper.

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

Issue on the table: Optics. Reason for the issue: tank missed at 700 meters. Theory Presented: German optics allowed for a much higher hit ratio and German tanks should have this benefit. Evidence presented- Anecedotal evidence that German optics are "superior". Model presented: none.

Conclusion: Creating a model for optics surperiority not possible with data presented in current physics based system used. Likely optics benefit not large enough to be modeled in current system. Model of presenting party absent due to lack of supporting objective data.

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

Issue on the table: Gyros. Reason for the issue: Percieved unfair allied advantage. Theory Presented: Gyros should not be modeled since they were not useful in combat and were often disconnected. Evidence presented- Anecedotal evidence that tanker disconnected gyros, no cited data, origination of theory likely from Greenwood, Squad Leader. Model presented: none needed.

Conclusion: No data presented to justify change, however model of having gyros is supported by Aberdeen data and presented anecedotal data.

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

Issue on the Table: German visual acuity due to vitamin A deficiency. Reason for issue: Medical report Surgeon General 1945, "Health of Axis Prisoners of War". Theory presented- low vision scores by Axis prisioners of war, related to vitamin A deficiency from substandard Axis military diet, led to a reduced capability to operate war machinery requiring distance or fine vision. Evidence presented- Vision tests of Axis POWs 1942-1945 as presented to Surgeon General.

Conclusion- While report saw a statistically significant difference in vision acuity between Allied and German (Axis) soldiers, and speculated that this led to suboptimal performance of German soldiers in the field, it did not quantify this differnce in terms of accuracy potential, nor did it test soldiers ability to operate optics with substandard vision.

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

[hl]

Luckily we have a quid pro quo here. The argument to remove gyros fails for lack of evidence, the argument to add a bonus for optics fails for lack of evidence and a successful objective model, and the argument to reduce accuracy for aggregate vision problems from poor nutrition fails for lack of a model.

If we reduce our requirement for evidence, then the nutritional vision problem expressed in the Surgeon General's report could be said to give an arbitrary -10% to hit at all ranges (we have no model after all, it has to be arbitrary) and the "better" German optics could also be given an arbitrary +10% to hit at all ranges (again, we have no model so it has to be pulled from a hat).

Since the two issues on the table that do not have objective model built from data cancel each other out we do not have to change anything in the game system, and the optics party can consider itself to have won its argument without needed to dig up all that messy scientific data and defending it, it is just that the bonus was counteracted by another equally plausible argument that sadly lacks a model.

[Simon Fox]

He he, good one slappy, I'm usually a bit more malicious when reviewing publications. I don't think your 'peer review process' will be understood too well though.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am a bit suprised at BTS' stance on this issue given all of the debate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Since when has the existence of a debate constituted sufficient rationale? For all the value which has come out of this thread it is ironic that it arose from sooking on your part about one single instance of tank loss at ranges where the proposed optics changes would have no effect or possibly a negative effect, lol. These sort of instances where dead set certainties are missed just demonstrate the realism of CM. The 6th RTR Sherman in Italy which was missed by two concealed German AT guns at 100yds which then destroyed both of them or the German SP gun which fired (and missed) 3 times at Ken Tout's tank which was completely stationary in a Normandy field are real. There may be a case for making allowance for optics but it sure isn't going to stop these things happening.

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

"Fatso-the battlers' prince"

[Dilger]

Daytime television drama has nothing on this thread. I'm rivited.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

He he, good one slappy, I'm usually a bit more malicious when reviewing publications. I don't think your 'peer review process' will be understood too well though.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heck, if I REALLY gave it both barrels there would be a chorus of "he is makimg fun of me!" from the paper originations and threats on my tenure. It ain't blind afterall!

Seriously, I had a paper some time back from an unnamed source to an unnamed source that interviewed 21 women on a university campus asking them to explain, "how does violence an television degrade and belittle you" picking up on a thread of physical illness from the interviewees and proposed in its findings that violence in television programming caused "physical illness." I returned the paper to its source with two tarot cards explaining they did not draw enough cards in their testing phase ---- damaging validity .

[Slapdragon]

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

Since it was my post that reignited this whole debate, I feel I need to make one change to my first post, which by now is totally irrelevant. My tank duel was not at a range of 300 meters but 700 meters.

Secondly, though I am not part of any secret society nor am I a German WW2 lover, I cast my vote for the inclusion of the optics.

I would say that the same logic that called for including gyros to all US tanks, should be applied to the optics as well.

I think the benefit to the germans would be:

1) better target identification

2) an increase in accuracy, albeit a small one. Perhaps the same benefit given to the gyros for US tank firing on the move.

I've been to the shooting range more times than I can count. Sometimes, I get handed cheap eye protection when we set out on the pistol course. It is a bit harder to see the target at a distance. When a good pair of expensive eyerwear frees up, I put them on and, let me tell you. The target is easier to see and hit. A placebo? Dont think so.

I know this is a simple analogy, but its late and all that I can muster.

I am a bit suprised at BTS' stance on this issue given all of the debate. Furthermore, as BTS has mentioned, the dilema must be tackled sooner or later for CM2. Tackle it now and let us see how it works in CM1. Then you can fine tune it for CM2 I say.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just noticed your occupation teach, so I thought it could be put another way since you hold a job that ideally requires a similar way of thinking, but maybe another way of stating it.

Lets assume you are in property crimes (have no idea -- just picked it out of a hat) and an informant tells you that stolen property is being dealt from the back of a business. You trust this person, so on the strength of their evidence you obtain a warrant. A search of the business reveals a number of "books" which detail some sort of selling activity, but no stolen goods and no way to connect the books to any particular activity. You interview the store owner and he explains the books are for his baseball card business, but no baseball cards were found either.

Lacking stolen goods and an explanation for the books, you are faced with two alternate courses of action. Get a grand jury indictment based on the books (one prosecutor in Virginia stated you could indict a ham sandwich through a grand jury) and the testimony of your witness, and then when it is presented in trail getting clobbered by the judge for a weak case, or you can throw it back and wait to catch the guy with a store full of stolen VCRs, possibly in the act of selling one.

And of course perhaps he really was selling baseball cards and the informant just got the location wrong.

[Dschugaschwili]

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

Look.... I have several sets of binoculars. I have two 25x sets, one from China and one using Japanese optics. I can see the same things at the same distance, but the Japanese optics are CLEARLY superior. I get a much better picture and a far easier time picking out very small details (like individual leaves on trees). However, would this change my ability to shoot at a target if these optics were scopes? No. It might change my ability to SEE the target in the first place, but that is an entirely different discussion (i.e. spotting, not accuracy).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. But I think being able to see the target more clearly might help spotting the place where the shell impacts, thus making bracketing easier.

Of course, the transparency of the propellant gases also plays a role in this topic.

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

1. German guns are more accurate at long ranges - true. But what factors make them more accurate? Certainly more than the optics, so this position does not in and itself prove anything.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again agreed. So you're saying that in CM guns with high muzzle velocity are already more accurate at long range than low velocity guns?

Dschugaschwili

[Slapdragon]

This is the sort of event that usually triggers a desire to reduce Allied effectiveness in tanks or increase Axis effectiveness. I originally posted this as a joke, since I have never had a Hellcat perform this well in combat, but it makes a serious point here. Do we, because this Hellcat killed 2 stugs, 2 ACs, and a Tiger tweek it down until it is a casualty no matter how well it is handled? Perhaps we reduce the speed of a Hellcat, kill its turret speed, and remove the Gyros. Perhaps then we make the 50 cal on it (killed 1 AT teams and chopped a PZG squad) less effective that a STG44.

Of course, the Hellcat in real life has a 5 -1 kill ratio in tanks, just as this Kitty has here. And they did it the same way, speed to keep from getting hit, strike from ambush at lumbering German tanks, always attack from the flank. I have lost Hellcats before to MG fire, and other things without making a kill -- perfectly realistic. But just because one Hellcat does well is no reason to tweek the game until it is no better than an M3 halftrack.

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

[Claus B]

Dunno what happened here, but the board ate half my (long) post of posted 10-04-2000 06:04 AM - bollocks!

Claus B

[:USERNAME:]

Well I reiterate that SPOTTING and TARGET RECOGNITION and TARGET ASPECT are issues that good optics resolve. I dont care for what BTS' guesses are at regarding these issues. Having a good clear sight allows you to determine who and what you are looking at. Period. Perhaps with the present borg-spotting, realistic german optics would strip away the allies concealment too much. 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.

Now, Slapppy can come up with an inappropriate recon parody about that, I dont care, He must remember that those that cant do teach, but BTS should stop digging in its heels into this S**t mess and get a better grip on what people are presenting. I wish I had more time to research but am late for work right now.

Another subtle issue is the ability to hit certain parts of a vehicle selectively. Good optics will allow you to target tracks, weak spots, etc.

Lewis

[aka_tom_w]

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

My latest post bumped my page 8 solution into oblivion.

I have a copy stored on my desktop, so, if want it, I can repost, I guess. I'll wait, BTS may repair.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Wilhammer

Can you please put up the posts there were lost yesterday?

Do you still have them?

I think what was lost yesterday will actually contribute to the flow of this thread.

DOes anyone know if this was the only thread affected by the loss posts in this way?

It seems to me none of the other threads lost any posts.

Thanks

-tom w

[PzKpfw 1]

I'm more interested in the actual details from the Aberdeern report on Gyro other then the fragment from Hunnicutt, personaly I don't agree that the gyro issue is resolved or even quantified, but thats just my opinion yes I understand they drove & fired it through 1 test, just how many rounds were fired while moveing? how many hit the target? how many missed? what were the speeds attained per fireing sequence? how many times was the test halted to recalibrate the gyro? these are just a few questions I have.

Anecdotaly there is no consensus it was used in combat Ie, their are accounts it was, their are accounts it wasn't, for varying reasons, Ie, the Gyro was not used because of the high level of daily maintance needed to keep it operational, others claimed it was 'worthless', others thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread etc. As well as the question of if the Gyro was so effective, why was it omitted in later production runs of M4 Shermans?.

On optics I agree to date we do not have eneouh data, other then 'ya they were better' but by how much. Till the US & British reports are read & data posted, this discussion is moot.

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.

I also think Claus had a good point & one I hadn't considered due to the realism emphisis inherent in CM I had not thought of it in Claus's way, on why its even being discussed as CM is a tac wargame not a tank simulator.

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).]

[Slapdragon]

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

Well I reiterate that SPOTTING and TARGET RECOGNITION and TARGET ASPECT are issues that good optics resolve. I dont care for what BTS' guesses are at regarding these issues. Having a good clear sight allows you to determine who and what you are looking at. Period. Perhaps with the present borg-spotting, realistic german optics would strip away the allies concealment too much. 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.

Now, Slapppy can come up with an inappropriate recon parody about that, I dont care, He must remember that those that cant do teach, but BTS should stop digging in its heels into this S**t mess and get a better grip on what people are presenting. I wish I had more time to research but am late for work right now.

Another subtle issue is the ability to hit certain parts of a vehicle selectively. Good optics will allow you to target tracks, weak spots, etc.

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great answer Lewis. your grasp has so much improved. Now quantify your answers Lewis. Quantify mean numbers. Numbers are those funny little counting symbols that people sometimes ask you to read but you generally do not, often mixed in with operations symbols that tell what to do with those numbers.

Funny Lewis how you never respond to a fellow member of the military CavScout, but then again he can count so he is obviously a member of a different military organization that you.

CavScout-- can you explain the issue in terms like right shoulder arms and left shoulder arms that Lewis can pick up on?

[PzKpfw 1]

Just a note concerning kill ratio's as with SD's example of 5 to 1, I would add that that's highly subjective as it implies that each Hellcat kill was actualy confirrmed, documented, & awarded accordingly.

As we know today it is impossible to accuretly asses WW2 armor kills & or even aircraft kills & these types of statements are generlizations with generaly no supporting evidence, other then anecdotal & unit histories.

To add I'm not attacking SD here I'm mereley pointing out that if we are all going to be held to scientific standards then the same holds true for all.

Regards, John Waters

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

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

[Slapdragon]

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

I'm more interested in the actual details from the Aberdeern report on Gyro other then the fragment from Hunnicutt, personaly I don't agree that the gyro issue is resolved or even quantified, but thats just my opinion yes I understand they drove & fired it through 1 test, just how many rounds were fired while moveing? how many hit the target? how many missed? what were the speeds attained per fireing sequence? how many times was the test halted to recalibrate the gyro? these are just a few questions I have.

------------------------------------------------<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you are serious about removing gyros from the game you can get this document from one of the major government document repositories -- most States have one, and if it is not extant in fiche it can be ordered through a large enough library that handles federal documents. That will allow you to build a quantitative model explaining why they should be removed and what effect it has on accuracy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>On optics I agree to date we do not have eneouh data, other then ya they were better but by how much. Till the US & British reports are read & data posted, this discussion is moot.

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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually this is right and wrong. From the point of view of this board no evidence has been presented and quantified that optics effected tanks enough to change accuracy at any point of the war -- but that is not surprising since no evidence stronger than "my Tiger missed at 700 meters" has been really presented against any BTS arrangement at all.

However, as BTS is still designing the game we do not know what research they hold, and by the nature of publishing wont find out. However, as with gyros, anyone on this board could make an attempt to gather and form an argument objectively and present it. As can be seen though even with the citations provided by our friends in Australia there is not really a ground swell to do so.

[Jeff Heidman]

The entire gyro issue is a great example of how to use illogical means to obfuscate the issue. It is nothing more than a rather successful red herring.

The issue has never had ANYTHING to do with whether gyros should be included in the game. Read the post where it was originally brought up. It had to do with the fact that gyros were included when there was no QUANTIFIABLE data to show how effective they were, while that excuse is used to exclude the optics issue. Simple logic should tell even people as obtuse as those who want to claim that anyone disagreeing with them is a memeber of a secret Nazi-lovers cabal that saying that optics should be held to the same standard as gyros is not the same as claiming that gyros should be removed from the game.

There has been NO argument to remove gyros from the game. This is nothing more than a blatant lie Slappy is using to confuse the issue.

The fact remains. Aberdeen provided ZERO quantifiable data as to the effects of a gyro on combat. If that is not the case, please provide the actual numbers they provide to show the definite effect of a gyrostabilzer. BTS has demanded that those who ask for optics to be modelled provide a quantifiable model to support it. SlapAndTickle has demanded the same, yet neither has provided one iota of actual quantifiable data to justify whatever bonus is given to gyros. Or to veterna vs. green infantry. Or to the chance of a bomber attacking the wrong target. Etc., etc.

Nobody has claimed that gyros should be removed. The point is that if you removed everything from the game that you could not justify with quantifiable data, you would be left with very little.

BTS made a demand simply because they KNEW it could NOT be fulfilled, and hence it safely avoids the entire debate without actually having to address any of the issues. Slappy and Scouty have jumped on that same bandwagon. But they all refuse to apply that same standard to any of the myriad of other examples of bonuses added to the game for various things that are equally unquantifiable with real data. Gyros are only one of many.

The funny thing is is that BTS actually DID fudge a number for German optics superiority. They just decided that number was zero. Whatever the number might be, it has been show that zero is definitely not correct. That is the one data point we can be sure about.

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

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

Great answer Lewis. your grasp has so much improved. Now quantify your answers Lewis. Quantify mean numbers. Numbers are those funny little counting symbols that people sometimes ask you to read but you generally do not, often mixed in with operations symbols that tell what to do with those numbers.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Still waiting for SlapAndTickle to provide those funnly little numbers things for gyros, infantry experience bonus to firepower, odds of friendly fire incidents, increase in time for artillery strikes for inexperinced spotters, ability of scattered trees to provide cover to some number of men (and the QUANTIFIABLE difference between those scattered trees and brush), and the other dozens of examples of where CM has decided to go ahead and provide modifiers to combat results without QUANTIFIABLE data as to the real world effectiveness of those elements.

Not interested in your theories about how John and I are closet Nazis, or how we hate science, or how brilliant you are when you treat your students like your personal ego booster. Just the numbers that you are so fond of demanding, and, of course, your source for those numbers.

Jeff Heidman

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Actually this is right and wrong. From the point of view of this board no evidence has been presented and quantified that optics effected tanks enough to change accuracy at any point of the war -- but that is not surprising since no evidence stronger than "my Tiger missed at 700 meters" has been really presented against any BTS arrangement at all.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well thats debateble what evidence has been provided to show that optics dont affect accuracy?. & the question remains on why if German optics wern't implied generaly in refrence materials, as being better then US & UK devices, why this debate even surfaced. The problem here is material today, written mateial by authors such as Zaloga, Perret, Hunnicutt, Culver, Forty, Mackesy, etc to name a few, imply German optics were of better quality then Allied devices, what we have generaly is inferences that German optics were better & statements that optic quality affecting engagement ranges Ie concerning the M4 Shermans M70 3x sight:

* <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> This was a three-power sight without special filters, and was good to 1000m even though it did not have either the optical quality or power of German sights, and could prove dificult to use faceing into the sun<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>.

*See: Zaloga Steve, Sarson Peter: Sherman Medium Tank 1942 - 1945.

To date their has been no objective argument presented here that these authors are incorrect in their material.

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

However, as BTS is still designing the game we do not know what research they hold, and by the nature of publishing wont find out. However, as with gyros, anyone on this board could make an attempt to gather and form an argument objectively and present it. As can be seen though even with the citations provided by our friends in Australia there is not really a ground swell to do so.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd also add that no one here has sugested that the Gyro be removed, somewhere down the line, the Gyro example has been misinterpted from its original intent, the Gyro was used as an example of quantification, where some feel BTS set stricter standards for quantifing optics then what was used to include the gyro.

Their is an interesting exchange in an old thread on ROF, & aiming devices between Fionn & Steve where it was implied that the Gyro was suposed to be modeled inactive due to questions of its actual use by crews, somewhere down the line that was apperently changed.

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).]

[Slapdragon]

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

The entire gyro issue is a great example of how to use illogical means to obfuscate the issue. It is nothing more than a rather successful red herring.

The issue has never had ANYTHING to do with whether gyros should be included in the game. Read the post where it was originally brought up. It had to do with the fact that gyros were included when there was no QUANTIFIABLE data to show how effective they were, while that excuse is used to exclude the optics issue. Simple logic should tell even people as obtuse as those who want to claim that anyone disagreeing with them is a memeber of a secret Nazi-lovers cabal that saying that optics should be held to the same standard as gyros is not the same as claiming that gyros should be removed from the game.

There has been NO argument to remove gyros from the game. This is nothing more than a blatant lie Slappy is using to confuse the issue.

The fact remains. Aberdeen provided ZERO quantifiable data as to the effects of a gyro on combat. If that is not the case, please provide the actual numbers they provide to show the definite effect of a gyrostabilzer. BTS has demanded that those who ask for optics to be modelled provide a quantifiable model to support it. SlapAndTickle has demanded the same, yet neither has provided one iota of actual quantifiable data to justify whatever bonus is given to gyros. Or to veterna vs. green infantry. Or to the chance of a bomber attacking the wrong target. Etc., etc.

Nobody has claimed that gyros should be removed. The point is that if you removed everything from the game that you could not justify with quantifiable data, you would be left with very little.

BTS made a demand simply because they KNEW it could NOT be fulfilled, and hence it safely avoids the entire debate without actually having to address any of the issues. Slappy and Scouty have jumped on that same bandwagon. But they all refuse to apply that same standard to any of the myriad of other examples of bonuses added to the game for various things that are equally unquantifiable with real data. Gyros are only one of many.

The funny thing is is that BTS actually DID fudge a number for German optics superiority. They just decided that number was zero. Whatever the number might be, it has been show that zero is definitely not correct. That is the one data point we can be sure about.

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First off Jeff- your "start a flame war and get the subject locked down" strategy is silly.

Jeff, take a really deep breath and reread the posts. Really really reread them. You have so much cognitive dissonance going on that jumping in with a flame just makes you look silly. Since BTS has better things to do (hopefully) that repeat statements previously made to people who cannot or will not read them, I will help. Not that you will read this one either - but it will help the people who do read the posts keep from letting ignorance guide them.

1) No one has presented data that is quantified the advantage of German optics, if any. If and when someone quantifies the results so that they can be coded, and backs up that quantification with more than "my german tanks should never miss" whining, then I bet BTS will code it. As it is, there is no way to do it because it appears that it may be a small variable whose presence or abscense will not effect things.

2) Other variables could also be coded -- crew nutrition, work space, weapon wear, etc, but are not because like optics, there is not enough data to make them change accuracy, and they are not supported well enough in even subjective data to include, just like optics.

3) The construct of green to vet to crack is a subjective construct over an objective scale based upon research into firing habits - moving habits, etc. It is arbitary in its construct but it is a useful construct due to the fact that it allows us to buy units. Here I would say reread my previous post, but it was written at a 10 grade level, when it probably should have been written at an 8th (where newspapers write by the way).

4) John did question the inclusion of gyros, so it was answered.

5) It is up to you to prove the game is wrong, not BTS to constantly prove you are wrong. No amount of flames will change that.

So Jeff -- you have added exactly zero to the argument. If and when you do read the other posts, and if and when you decide to come up with some type of argument, I will be happy to read it -- I bet BTS will also be happy to read it, but by this point the amount of ignorance and fear in the "Germans always win" group has probably tainted there reading of this thread.