Quality of T34/B sights.

[aka_tom_w]

This old Thread IS JUST Full of this kind of info

I'm not sure how many folks here REALLY care about this stuff, but this is a good page from the long thread with images posted by Jeff D of what gun sites in German tanks look like from inside the game Panzer Elite:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=011342&p=17

take a look

(thanks Jeff thats a Real treat for us Mac users that can't play PE)

-tom w

[Battlefront.com]

Rexford wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Does the opposition to German optics quality input into game mechanisms sound a little like a fear that the panzers will fight more effectively? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not at all. But using the same logic being batted about here one could argue that "Allied sources constantly talk about how superior the Tiger is. Well, I have used it in CM and don't think it is superior at all. You need to boost the armor ratings and make that gun kill any tank it shoots at. After all, everybody knows the Allies were in fear of these things. Does the reluctance for boosting armor and gun "game mechanisms sound a little like a fear that the panzers will fight more effectively?""

In other words... who the heck cares about science and carefully reasoned modeling. I read 50 times that the guys thought the German optics (Tigers) were superior. So make them superior.

Bad... bad... bad... bad...

We are dead set against putting in modifiers that don't have sound scientific basis and are likely to discriminate against one side or another (we don't care WHAT the nationality is!!!!!!!!). Obviously, way too much stuff doesn't have researchable answers, so we do have to make informed guesses about things like the affects of crew quality. But those affects are beyond questioning and therefore MUST be simulated if the game is to work. However, we do things like this in such a way as to not introduce bias into the game.

A bunch of anecdotal, vague/general, and non-qualified quotes about "gee whiz, those German optical thingies are really super neat" does not impress us. At most it leads us to think that there *might* be some inherently superior quality to some German sights vs. some Allied ones. But that is not enough for us to go slapping some numbers in to give the Germans a magical bonus. It is simply the WRONG way to design a realistic simulation.

Anybody that considers themselves scientifically minded shouldn't be asking for a bonus unless they can (to some degree at least) outline logical arguments to describe what that bonus should affect, to what degree they should affect, and under what conditions. Anybody asking for a bounus without caring about these questions, but instead thumping a bunch of scattered comments, is just going about it all wrong. No bonuses, for any vehicle for any nation, until we can get a handle on these questions. Period.

Again, we are looking at coming up with some sort of fair, rational, and at least consistant system for assessing +/- of various optical systems. We might not be able to do that, but we are going to try.

Steve

[ 06-21-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Tero]

>Yep - but that is Sfz 14 or whatever the

>real name of the Scherenfernrohr was and

>not your bog-standard tank gunner optics,

>and IIRC there is no conclusive evidence

>(although Jeff Duquette dug out some

>pictuers) that this was in widespread use

>on tanks, as opposed to Stugs (which were

>part of the Artillery).

I think there is a difficulty in translating the term here. What is being referred to are the viewing prisms of the TC and other crew members along with other viewing devices, not the forked artillery range finder.

[Andreas]

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

I think there is a difficulty in translating the term here. What is being referred to are the viewing prisms of the TC and other crew members along with other viewing devices, not the forked artillery range finder.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AFAIK the Sfz14 could be used from inside the Stug. Are you 100% proof-positive that he is not talking about it? I have looked through the prisms of a Panzer IIIN in Bovington and was not impressed.

[rexford]

The last statement in my last post was tongue-in-cheek, and seems to have generated responses that equal or exceed mine in length. Subject is a touchy one, alright!

What to do with optics questions is so subjective that it is probably impossible to please everyone.

[rexford]

Just reread the entire "tankers talk" report on http://www.hitechcreations.com/ubb/Forum9/HTML/000686.html

So many officers and tankers attest to superior German sights in the aforementioned report, reports comparing Panther and U.S. (?) sights testify to superior German sights, claimed superiority of German sights is consistent with scientific info presented on this thread.

When so many different sources suggest the same thing or support other statements, it is worth further pursuit and consideration.

[Battlefront.com]

Hi Rexford,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The last statement in my last post was tongue-in-cheek, and seems to have generated responses that equal or exceed mine in length. Subject is a touchy one, alright!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe... man, you have NO idea We have been constantly "attacked" for either favoring the Germans over the Allies or more commonly the Allies over the Germans. In fact, at one point we had two VERY snide threads going with each one claiming to have solid proof that we were intentionally biased against the Germans and another against the Allies. This has proven to us that it is not we that have the hidden agenda, but rather certain customers

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What to do with optics questions is so subjective that it is probably impossible to please everyone. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Understatement of the Year Award goes to... wait for it... Rexford Sorry, can't help but poke a little fun back your way. We have been in so many lose/lose discussions like this that we have lost track of them all. But optics/gunner has been probably the #1 issue.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>When so many different sources suggest the same thing or support other statements, it is worth further pursuit and consideration. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Totally agree. There is more than likely truth in the statement that German optics, in a given comparison, are "superior". But that is really a no brainer as quality of technology is very rarely the same for all nations in a given conflict, or even within a given army, so it is obvious that SOMEONE will have "better" or even "superior" stuff than the other side. Since Germany has been, and still is by many accounts, the leader in optics technlogy and (more importantly) manufacturing, it is not a stretch to assume that there is truth to the "gosh the German's stuff is better than ours" statements. That is why we are looking at this issue in more detail.

But even an assumption that *all* German optics systems, at all points in the war, are better than *all* Allied ones is a bit of a stretch to make. And then even if this stretch is made, what does "better" or "superior" mean on the battlefield in hard nosed equation type stuff?

BTW, I read through pretty much that entire link you posted and didn't see anything particullarly interesting. I have seen *all* of that source material before, and it is the usual mix of too many things to draw any specific conclusions, other than in general German tanks were better when engaging in tank vs. tank battles at any distance. This we already know

Steve

[Slapdragon]

Actually, this is related to a great study that is being done by Bob Jones University. It seems that they have a scholar looking into the famous Venetian Navigators of the 13th and 14 centuries. Turns out that 90% of these people felt that the world was flat from their own personal observations, and thus Bob Jones feels we need to redraw our maps to represent this discoevered "truth" before some sap sails of the edge of the world in a supertanker.

In other words, when applying numbers to something complex like optics, we need something stronger to go on. Lots of unscientfifc opinions can lead us to conclude that there might be something there. The ideal would be a multivariate survey of shots fired in battle with 25 conditionals broken down by percentage of variance for each variable. We wont get that, but lets shoot for something at least a little more scientific than a group of rumors.

[Matthew_Ridgeway]

Slapdragon:

What is the integral of secant(u)du

[gunnergoz]

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

Slapdragon:

What is the integral of secant(u)du<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I love it when you talk dirty sweetie!

[PzKpfw 1]

The problem is the optics question/debate is not quantifible (sounding like broken record yet ). PPl want physical evidence, not anecdotal from a bunch of GI's who wern't qualified to comment on it as they had no degrees in optomics etc.

It's similar to ppl who read a 'definitive' study on a battle then try to tell the vetran who fought it he doesn't know what he's talking about because <insert favorite author's name here> said the vetran is mistaken etc.

Basicly we have no way of knowing anything about German tank optics other then what authors choose to tell us Ie, Zaloga on the M4 Sherman 3X M70 sight says:

The M70 didn't have either the optical quality or power of German sights & was difficult to use if faceing into the sun .

This what we have been told since the earliest books on WW2 tanks. Now what were left is the impression German sights were better to a degree then Allied optical; devices, Ie the US Handbook on German Forces from 1945 tells us German optical devices Feild Arty, AT, Tank etc, were of the highest workmanship.

Whats lacking is an detailed anylss & I have heard for years that the US did such an study, I contacted Aberdeen on it last year & was told all material was moved to Washington in the 1970's. And all inquires should be made their. Needless to say anyone interested in that will have some serious digging to do .

Anyway the type of quantification ppl are looking for here is not going to surface IMHO so Steve & Charles are going to have to go with what thery think is correct as other game designers have had to do since wargameing WW2 tanks began.

The same applies to Soviet optics as I can imagine getting tech data comparisons on that is even a more daunting task .

And here again the data varies on the quality of Soviet optical devices Ie, authors for years have stated Soviet optics were inferior to German devices even internal Soviet reports state this, the UK & US reports on the T-34 both basicly agree the optics were of good, quality while the Germans reported them as sub par etc. It's a subject that has basicly been defined by anecdotal 'evidence' since the begining...

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-21-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Battlefront.com]

Hi John,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>PPl want physical evidence, not anecdotal from a bunch of GI's who wern't qualified to comment on it as they had no degrees in optomics etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the main problem right there. And, of course, we don't necessarily know that much about the veteran's background is in general. Ask a vet and he might say, "sure, the German optics were the best" and come to find out he was a baker or perhaps was a tank driver and not a gunner. Or the guy was interviewed when he was 85 and also remembers all those Panthers with there 87mm guns and the Tigers that he saw in a place 200miles away from where the nearest Tiger was.

Veteran accounts, especially ones logged DURING the actual conflict, do hold value. But in general only as a corroborating source, not a prime source. It depends on what is being looked at, of course, but I am generally talking about technical stuff.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It's similar to ppl who read a 'definitive' study on a battle then try to tell the vetran who fought it he doesn't know what he's talking about because said the vetran is mistaken etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe... sometimes they are Especially when it is technical stuff (like dates, unit numbers, vehicle types, etc.) being recalled 50 years after the fact. Many vets don't go back and reread the historical acounts of the battles they fought in, so all they have are their memories. Memories often are not accurate even 10 minutes after an event, not to mention 50 years.

Often times even veterans totally contradict each other. I always cite interviews in "The Deadly Brotherhood" about equipment. 10 different vets gave 10 different answers about the same weapon, ranging from "it was the worst piece of crap" to "I would never go into battle without one". Damn frustrating from a research standpoint.

Interesting stuff about that report you can't locate. Slapdragon, you care to put your nose to it? He found me lots of cool stuff on the M29c Weasel in the National Archieves

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The same applies to Soviet optics as I can imagine gewtting tech data comparisons on that is even a more daunting task.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We are working on this angle now. We have a trusted source who does business with several Russian optics firms which used to make systems for tanks during WWII. Faxes have been sent, so we shall see if anything useful comes of it. One can always hope...

Steve

[Slapdragon]

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

Slapdragon:

What is the integral of secant(u)du<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

An integral is one part of a bisected or divided circle (or I think for other figures also so a square could have an integral with equal facility). A secant is a line that divides a circle, so the question asks what is the area to either side of that line defined by trigonomic substitution (u)du. If you want a deeper math lesson may I suggest Triola "Advanced Statistics". If you do not feel the need to dive into trigonometry (I never have, grunt trig is useless to me when I have SPSS and SAS) then buy a simple books on stats like Seaman's "Stats for Science" and buy a cheap stats package.

As for what veterans know, you often get people who have the distorted idea of combat veterans that they spent a great deal of time analysing everything from the strategtic mission of the war, to the diplomatic issues surrounding the conflict, to the quality of the M1 shovel versus the M2 shovel. Veteran stories are very important, I am an oral historian and use them for lots of things, but combat veterans often think the other guy has better stuff because they don't have to go into battle with it. Sometimes they think the other guys stuff is crap, when they have never encoutered it. Personal accounts are just one way of looking at a subject, and one that must be balanced with other data. In situations were you want to know about the feelings of the man in the trenches, his moral, etc, then personal interview cannot be beat. But asking the guy if his rifle or a german's rifles he has never fired gives better grouping patterns at 250 meters is absurd, except as the first stop in research.

[Slapdragon]

I should also say it is very common to find the misconception that veterans keep minute by minute notes of their combat experiences in their heads and memorize technical manuals each evening. I interviewed a Hellcat driver, and when I asked how well the 76mm gun worked against Tigers, he said, "hell, I don't know, I just shot the damn thing."

[PzKpfw 1]

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

I should also say it is very common to find the misconception that veterans keep minute by minute notes of their combat experiences in their heads and memorize technical manuals each evening. I interviewed a Hellcat driver, and when I asked how well the 76mm gun worked against Tigers, he said, "hell, I don't know, I just shot the damn thing."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree I think the jist of what I was trying to point out was lost in the translation . I also think while books are a great source we also can't disregard anecdotal account's either. One thing to remeber on the repoirt to Eisenhower that alot of the optics data is allured to was an official report with interveiws conducted in the feild in 1945.

I have had eperience interigateing ppl as well as in accident reports & one thing I can tell you from every accident was in multiple witnesses you got a difrent story from each witness on what had occured 10 ppl will give you 10 difrent accounts of the same incident defined by their POV.

The same holds true among socalled 'experts' in their feilds the jist of it usualy boils down to their own POV or what they 'think' is correct.

What I want to say is plainly the whole feild concerning WW2 optics has been set by anecdotal data for the most part about the only thing agreed on was German optics were of the highest quality & workmanship the March 1945 US Army handbook on German military forces states the same concerning German optical devices. The Soviet's captured the main German optical factories at the end of the war & some data may be in their archival houses as well.

The problem we are encountering is how did these ppl come to this decision & were they qualified to make this claim by todays standards. All in all its one little mystery that may never be quantified to ppl satisfaction.

I contacted Zeiss & they were of no help either ecept to give me a contact number here in the states that never returned my corrospondance or phone calls.

BTW my M16 had a tighter pattren at 250ms then the captured AK-47 & AK 74 I fired. I also was familiar with the M-60, M1 & knew quite abit about the T-72 etc . before that I made it a point to learn as much as I could about PACT as If i was going to fight them I wanted to be prepared. Sorry i didn't keep a journal though ......

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Slapdragon]

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

I agree I think the jist of what I was trying to point out was lost in the translation . I also think while books are a great source we also can't disregard anecdotal account's either. One thing to remeber on the repoirt to Eisenhower that alot of the optics data is allured to was an official report with interveiws conducted in the feild in 1945.

I have had eperience interigateing ppl as well as in accident reports & one thing I can tell you from every accident was in multiple witnesses you got a difrent story from each witness on what had occured 10 ppl will give you 10 difrent accounts of the same incident defined by their POV.

The same holds true among socalled 'experts' in their feilds the jist of it usualy boils down to their own POV or what they 'think' is correct.

What I want to say is plainly the whole feild concerning WW2 optics has been set by anecdotal data for the most part about the only thing agreed on was German optics were of the highest quality & workmanship the March 1945 US Army handbook on German military forces states the same concerning German optical devices. The Soviet's captured the main German optical factories at the end of the war & some data may be in their archival houses as well.

The problem we are encountering is how did these ppl come to this decision & were they qualified to make this claim by todays standards. All in all its one little mystery that may never be quantified to ppl satisfaction. I contacted Zeiss & they were of no help either ecept to give me a contact number here in the states that never returned my corrospondance or phone calls.

BTW my M16 had a tighter pattren at 250ms then the AK-47 I fired .

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree 100% with you. Personally, I think that German optics were better for exactly the reason you cite, lots of veteran accounts. Experts are also suspect because of a research problem called the Rashoman effect (don't get me started on that, it can kill an oral historian) and because they often test apples and oranges.

So, we just need some data behind claims of superiority. I think if we can get anything, we will be better off, mostly because we can start throwing darts at the right dart board. Without more data, we have no idea if the dart board is even there.

[Slapdragon]

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

Hi John,

We are working on this angle now. We have a trusted source who does business with several Russian optics firms which used to make systems for tanks during WWII. Faxes have been sent, so we shall see if anything useful comes of it. One can always hope...

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John,

Can you get me the exact document title? I go to Washington soon, and will do a NARA search for it. Assuming it still exists, it may be in those dusty halls. I have maybe 20 file boxes full of crap I found there, plus about 1500 photographs, and soon I will start ordering films. I may be able to get the document for you.

[Battlefront.com]

Hi John,

Having only been in two accidents myself, I am VERY glad to say that although witnesses did have different accounts, they all pointed the finger squarely at the other party

OK, so we are definitely in agreement here regarding the 1st hand, generally off the cuff stuff from veterans. Good source material, for sure, but it isn't necessarily (can be though!!!) to be taken at face value. Unfortunately, as you say, there isn't much else available in terms of optics comparisions.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The problem we are encountering is how did these ppl come to this decision & were they qualified to make this claim by todays standards.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately, it is a little more difficult than that. Even if the US Intelligence reports of German optics being "highest quality & workmanship" are totally correct, and based on careful study by Nobel Prize winners in Optical Sciences (if they have an award for that ), this "fact" doesn't tell us much.

A German BMW is thought of as being a standard for "highest quality & workmanship". But guess what? I would NEVER, EVER, IN A MILLION YEARS want to own one of those things where I live. They suck in the kind of winter conditions we have here, there isn't a decent place to get one fixed for 50 miles, and they don't get you very far off the pavement which is a problem since a great many of our roads are not paved.

So, even though a BMW might have a lot more quality and workmanship compared to my 4x4 pickup or Subaru Outback, I wouldn't take a Beamer even if you gave me one (OK, I would take it and sell it so I could go buy a Sherman or somefink fun ). So "quality" is all relative here.

This is just an extereme example to demonstrate that quality itself doesn't necessarily mean much without further qualification and quantification. A real example here is how "superior" the German sights were for determining range. But apparently during the winter of 1941/42 they froze up solid because they were too complicated. Meanwhile, the "inferior" Soviet optics were working just fine. So in this case, as was typical of many German mechanical things, they were over-engineered.

If we just gave the Germans an across the board bonus, then the T-34 at 60 below zero in Scenario X would be at a double disadvantage. Not only would the German sites be better that the Soviets, they woldn't be penalized. Like getting frosting on your cake AND a cherry when in fact you should just have a lump of dry cake

So I find the big problem to be relating this "quality" to real world aspects of gunnery. In some situations the German optics might shine brighter, but in another situation they might be on a par, and in another still at a disadvantage.

This is the type of thing we are trying figure out.

Steve

[Matthew_Ridgeway]

Slapdragon Said: “An integral is one part of a bisected or divided circle (or I think for other figures also so a square could have an integral with equal facility). A secant is a line that divides a circle, so the question asks what is the area to either side of that line defined by trigonomic substitution (u)du. If you want a deeper math lesson may I suggest Triola "Advanced Statistics".

I am beginning to understand why there is a certain belief that what is being discussed here involves a bit of mysticism and is “unquantifiable”. Just curios, but, why would you recommend a textbook on advanced statistics for a simple exercise in integration?

[Battlefront.com]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Just curios, but, why would you recommend a textbook on advanced statistics for a simple exercise in integration? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because this stuff ain't that "simple" Now, I for one don't know squat about higher statistics, nor do I need to. Charles understands how to implement it, so all you or I need to know how to do is to at least gather usable data. Slapdragon was, I think, trying to point out why it isn't as simple as looking at some guy's stats he dug up and saying "oh cool, that is all we need. Let's plug 'em in and we'll be all set". If we did that CM wouldn't be 1/4 the game it is today To really get a deep simulation one must look beyond the simple stats and WAY beyond the unqualified 1st and 3rd person accounts. But as we have discussed here, optics is one of those things that is hard to get real meat on.

Steve

[Slapdragon]

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

Slapdragon Said: “An integral is one part of a bisected or divided circle (or I think for other figures also so a square could have an integral with equal facility). A secant is a line that divides a circle, so the question asks what is the area to either side of that line defined by trigonomic substitution (u)du. If you want a deeper math lesson may I suggest Triola "Advanced Statistics".

I am beginning to understand why there is a certain belief that what is being discussed here involves a bit of mysticism and is “unquantifiable”. Just curios, but, why would you recommend a textbook on advanced statistics for a simple exercise in integration?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Editied because the bait is not worth taking.

[ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Slapdragon]

I do, however, want to point out now that this may tip into flame war, that I have the deepest respect for John Waters and www_Tom on this subject. This subject may soon spiral down as people begin to take stab at other people rather than arguing facts and issue, but I think Tom and John have a number of valid points that have been maturely and well argued.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Hi John,

Having only been in two accidents myself, I am VERY glad to say that although witnesses did have different accounts, they all pointed the finger squarely at the other party

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Steve. Heh I'm glad, some of the reports I handled were plain mystery's how we ever figured out what happened had we used only the eyewitness reports ......

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

OK, so we are definitely in agreement here regarding the 1st hand, generally off the cuff stuff from veterans. Good source material, for sure, but it isn't necessarily (can be though!!!) to be taken at face value. Unfortunately, as you say, there isn't much else available in terms of optics comparisions.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aye very much so Steve, as I said I don't feel what I was trying to say came across initialy.

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

Unfortunately, it is a little more difficult than that. Even if the US Intelligence reports of German optics being "highest quality & workmanship" are totally correct, and based on careful study by Nobel Prize winners in Optical Sciences (if they have an award for that ), this "fact" doesn't tell us much.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed & again its all they have given us to go on unfourtently.

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

This is just an extereme example to demonstrate that quality itself doesn't necessarily mean much without further qualification and quantification. A real example here is how "superior" the German sights were for determining range. But apparently during the winter of 1941/42 they froze up solid because they were too complicated. Meanwhile, the "inferior" Soviet optics were working just fine. So in this case, as was typical of many German mechanical things, they were over-engineered.

If we just gave the Germans an across the board bonus, then the T-34 at 60 below zero in Scenario X would be at a double disadvantage. Not only would the German sites be better that the Soviets, they woldn't be penalized. Like getting frosting on your cake AND a cherry when in fact you should just have a lump of dry cake

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh I agree but have to add that the Germans rectified the situation promptly by installing heaters so were looking at very little benifit from the initial freeze ups.

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

So I find the big problem to be relating this "quality" to real world aspects of gunnery. In some situations the German optics might shine brighter, but in another situation they might be on a par, and in another still at a disadvantage.

This is the type of thing we are trying figure out.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed their are many variables that we havent discussed it also goes into your's & Charles time in that quantifing all this could be a lengthy process. But I trust whatever you do will suffice. We may not agree on whatever you do decide to do abouit the optics mystery but we will know that we all did the best we could with what was available to sort all this out.

Regards, John Waters

[PzKpfw 1]

Slapdragon, you & I have had are share of flamefest's but I want you to know I have always respected your opinion & your right to express it. I also believe despite our fallouts that the topic we broke out the asbestos suits on was the better for it in the end.

We can only learn by shareing & were not always going to agree. Arguments even vehement ones are often benificial in the long run as they force us sit back, take a breather & finaly to reacess our positions, generaly in the end we all see where each other was comeing from.

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[aka_tom_w]

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

I do, however, want to point out now that this may tip into flame war, that I have the deepest respect for John Waters and www_Tom on this subject. This subject may soon spiral down as people begin to take stab at other people rather than arguing facts and issue, but I think Tom and John have a number of valid points that have been maturely and well argued.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Honestly....

So far I think there is not all that much to fight about.

I'm just a computer geek (with no military experience) with a passion for photography and optics, nothing more.

Steve is open minded about looking to the optics issue, John and Slapdragon are both wise and have provided new and valuable insight and information on the issue.

So far there is nothing to really argue about because we all "seem" to agree it will be VERY hard to model any optics bonus in any historically accurate way and do it equitably based on "chance to hit" probabilities for different weapons.

I REALLY don't think there is any thing to argue about here because so far we have not got our hands on anything really reliable like an actual source of data on optics and how to model it in CMBB that we can actually debate.

In short I think we all agree this optics issue is a tough one and we should all try our best to help Steve and Charles out anyway we can. (I sort of think we have been doing mostly that so far )

-tom w