Do Tanks Die Too Quickly In CM?

[Scipio]

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

Are you serious? Where are your sources? Where is your sense of proportion? Why are you so desperate to change something, anything in CM? I don't claim CM to be perfect, I'm just amazed that anyone thinks that their "feel" is enough to warrant a change in it.

It seems to me that what some people really want is a turn editor so they can point, click and drag their shots to hit or miss, to penetrate or not. That way you wouldn't have to deal with that useless data BTS based this game on and you could adjust your turns to suit your "feel" of how things happened in WW2.

I have copyrighted this idea and am seeing some investors later this week.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mr Geier, Sir, I wonder why you ignore the rest of my message?

I already said that it's often only 'feeling' or 'frustration' what makes the game wrong, in other words, it's my opinion, not the game what's wrong.

Maybe you read the other posts, too, and also go here : [url=http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=019743&p=1]

This has been discussed already. Moving and fireing was mostly senseless in WWII - it's even today. If you don't believe it, go and find a source that disproves me, and PLEASE don't bore me with lawyer bull****.

And please excuse my bad English.

[Scipio]

Hey Slapdragon and Username,

where do you see the relation to your discussion and tanks? I only ask, cause I don't see it.

I propose you move to the general board or somewhere else for off topic things.

This is no kindergarten here.

[Geier]

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

As for my wifes country of origion, why is that of any concern? I dont care about your wives, girlfriends, boyfriends, etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just to assure you, I do not care one (ein, 1, une, yxi, I, en) iota about you or your wife. Hope it helps and rest assured I'll do anything to make you feel comfortable Lewis.

[Slapdragon]

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

Mr Geier, Sir, I wonder why you ignore the rest of my message?

I already said that it's often only 'feeling' or 'frustration' what makes the game wrong, in other words, it's my opinion, not the game what's wrong.

Maybe you read the other posts, too, and also go here : [url=http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=019743&p=1]

This has been discussed already. Moving and fireing was mostly senseless in WWII - it's even today. If you don't believe it, go and find a source that disproves me, and PLEASE don't bore me with lawyer bull****.

And please excuse my bad English.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Scipio, it is not up to Geier to prove you wrong, it is up to you to prove that he is wrong. If Gyros were and are useless hunks of metal, never used by tankers during the war and never used today, cite your sources and back up your comments. Maybe you are frustrated that a Sherman kills your Tiger, but it is useless to rant about it unless you go about it more systematically.

As to the side issue of cats in chinese eateries, I am through poking fun at Lewis, so I will let it drop. I wouldn't want to delay his coding for his new "better than CM" game.

[Slapdragon]

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

Hey Slapdragon and Username,

where do you see the relation to your discussion and tanks? I only ask, cause I don't see it.

I propose you move to the general board or somewhere else for off topic things.

This is no kindergarten here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry (honestly). Lewis is easy to get into a froth, so sometimes it is hard to keep from poking a stick into his cage and getting him to knee jerk a bit. It has nothing to do with the thread, merely good clean fun, but you are right, Lewis baiting should be enjoyed elseware.

[jshandorf]

Nice to see the CM sycophants are still hard are work.

[Username]

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

Scipio, it is not up to Geier to prove you wrong, it is up to you to prove that he is wrong.

As to the side issue of cats in chinese eateries, I am through poking fun at Lewis, so I will let it drop. I wouldn't want to delay his coding for his new "better than CM" game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What a laugh. There you go again pontificating about right ang wrong and proving stuff (funny cause you stare at it through a camera).

First you go calling me a racist and then you make a racially charged slur. You just poked yourself in front of everyone. You are a Hypocrite.

Lewis

PS If you cant stand the heat then get out of the Chinese kitchen.

[Geier]

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

I already said that it's often only 'feeling' or 'frustration' what makes the game wrong, in other words, it's my opinion, not the game what's wrong.

And please excuse my bad English.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No need to make apologies for not writing perfect english. Could you please correct me if I misunderstood what you write above? I believe that what you mean is that you are often frustrated by some things that happen in the game as they are not the same as the results you expected, correct?

That is to me another reason why CM is so damn good, you can very rarely know the exact results until you've seen the movie.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Moving and fireing was mostly senseless in WWII - it's even today.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It wasn't then and it certainly isn't now unless our instructor (I did short compulsory service with an AT-platoon) lied to us. Tanks are really big targets and guns are really accurate weapons, especially closer than 500 meters. While hitting a stationery target isn't likely, it sure as hell isn't impossible either and I would feel like the turreted AFV's had been hamstrung if they never took the shot.

You see, when given a Move order the vehicle only moves at walking speed. I'm not sure but I think that is about 4km/h. Whatever. Coming to a complete stop is a moments work from this speed. Fireing while moving is easy. Actually hitting something with the main gun is tougher and seldom happens in CM, at least for me. It can happen though and I fail to see why it should be excluded from the game. One good thing with Move order is that a turreted AFV can and will acquire the target during the Move order and when it stops it can usually pull off a good shot.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you don't believe it, go and find a source that disproves me, and PLEASE don't bore me with lawyer bull****. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Big mistake. You want the change, you need to prove it is wrong now. I have no need whatsoever to prove anything to you since I find the game to be reasonably and acceptably modelled as it is.

Had they been nailing hulldown Hetzers from 1000 meters while moving Fast you might have had a case. I don't believe you have one now.

You need to prove BTS wrong, not the other way around.

[Scipio]

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

Scipio, it is not up to Geier to prove you wrong, it is up to you to prove that he is wrong. If Gyros were and are useless hunks of metal, never used by tankers during the war and never used today, cite your sources and back up your comments. Maybe you are frustrated that a Sherman kills your Tiger, but it is useless to rant about it unless you go about it more systematically.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slap,

a) I don't have said that I think that Gyros are crap.

I don't have said that I'm frustrated about Shermans killing my tanks - to be true, I said that I know it's (maybe) only my frustration, not a program problem.

c) I HAVE said - don't bore me with lawyers bull****.

d) you also have missed that the most tanks in CM don't have Gyros, and they still move and fire. And this is IMO a program problem. The tankers of WWII KNOW that they have nearly no chance to hit on the move, so they usualy don't try it. In CM, they fire, and they hit. If someone can disprove this, then I accept that I'm wrong and feel happy about my historic correct modeled tanks. If not, it's up to BTS to proof the program (if they want).

It appears to me that you always try to attack somebodys credibility or try to go off topic if you don't have better arguments. Do have read to much Schopenhauer?

[Slapdragon]

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

Slap,

a) I don't have said that I think that Gyros are crap.

I don't have said that I'm frustrated about Shermans killing my tanks - to be true, I said that I know it's (maybe) only my frustration, not a program problem.

c) I HAVE said - don't bore me with lawyers bull****.

d) you also have missed that the most tanks in CM don't have Gyros, and they still move and fire. And this is IMO a program problem. The tankers of WWII KNOW that they have nearly no chance to hit on the move, so they usualy don't try it. In CM, they fire, and they hit. If someone can disprove this, then I accept that I'm wrong and feel happy about my historic correct modeled tanks. If not, it's up to BTS to proof the program (if they want).

It appears to me that you always try to attack somebodys credibility or try to go off topic if you don't have better arguments. Do have read to much Schopenhauer?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In fact, if you read Lewis any, this is exactly what the "attack BTS" gang does to derail conversations. I really was only playing with Lewis, not arguing any point.

Read Geier above, or have someone like Andreas from the Beta testing crew translate it to you. Programming is work. The game is correct unless and until you can prove it is not correct, and unless and until you can show how it should work to better simulate reality. This level of argument is over the heads of some, notice J. Shandorf and J. Hiedman who always attack anyone asking for proof, but it is not all that hard to come up with if the idea holds any water.

This is not lawyer crap, it is how you have to go about building an argument that holds water. People are very willing to work around your language barrier, which is not all that great (you speak better English than I do German or even Portuguese) but all they are seeing is some comments that don't have much to do with reality.

Don't let the hate BTS gang get to you here, they want urban legend, but CM was designed to be as accurate to reality as our computers could achieve, and it has come a long way. If you do have an idea, develop it and present it in a way that may actually make a difference.

[Slapdragon]

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

c) I HAVE said - don't bore me with lawyers bull****.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I should also say if you don't want your comments discussed intellectually and looked at in a rational manner, maybe this is not the place to post? Posting here assures people will look at your ideas, but it also assure they will do it seriously, not merely by whipping out a Ouija board.

[Andreas]

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

The tankers of WWII KNOW that they have nearly no chance to hit on the move, so they usualy don't try it. In CM, they fire, and they hit. If someone can disprove this, then I accept that I'm wrong and feel happy about my historic correct modeled tanks. If not, it's up to BTS to proof the program (if they want).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't play much with tanks because it bores me. Having said that, I never really noticed German tanks to shoot & hit a lot, if at all. But that could be because I never ordered them to shoot & hit, since I knew it was SOP for the Germans from the start of the war to shoot only when stopped.

Your assertion is only half right though, since I am quite sure that the UK tank-force at the start of the war had an SOP of firing on the move, even though they might not hit, it was felt that this would provide suppression or something. Needless to say they got their rear-end kicked viciously in the desert.

By 1944-5 they sat in gyro-stabilised Shermans & M10s (I think) and presumably non-stabilised Cromwells and Churchills. I wonder if there was a different SOP for different types of tanks.

Anyone knows what Red Army SOP was? I seem to recall they had fire on the move at least at the start?

[Username]

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

In fact, if you read Lewis any, this is exactly what the "attack BTS" gang does to derail conversations. I really was only playing with Lewis, not arguing any point.

.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think its apparent what you are doing now. You arent man enough to apologize. Its part of your poor character.

So what do you do? You try to deflect the point. Maybe being around court rooms has twisted you further.

"Attack/hate BTS"? Thats the best you can come up with? You really come off as someone with no dignity.

Lewis

[Scipio]

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

In fact, if you read Lewis any, this is exactly what the "attack BTS" gang does to derail conversations. I really was only playing with Lewis, not arguing any point.

Read Geier above, or have someone like Andreas from the Beta testing crew translate it to you. Programming is work. The game is correct unless and until you can prove it is not correct, and unless and until you can show how it should work to better simulate reality. This level of argument is over the heads of some, notice J. Shandorf and J. Hiedman who always attack anyone asking for proof, but it is not all that hard to come up with if the idea holds any water.

This is not lawyer crap, it is how you have to go about building an argument that holds water. People are very willing to work around your language barrier, which is not all that great (you speak better English than I do German or even Portuguese) but all they are seeing is some comments that don't have much to do with reality.

Don't let the hate BTS gang get to you here, they want urban legend, but CM was designed to be as accurate to reality as our computers could achieve, and it has come a long way. If you do have an idea, develop it and present it in a way that may actually make a difference.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slap,

what do you expect? I could go and post something that I invented and say that I got it from a book that's already out of print since 30 years, and I don't think that much people are out there to proof it...

Anyway, if I find something that anyone else can proof easy, I post it. But now have something more important to do, cause I currently work on a new mod.

[Slapdragon]

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

I think its apparent what you are doing now. You arent man enough to apologize. Its part of your poor character.

So what do you do? You try to deflect the point. Maybe being around court rooms has twisted you further.

"Attack/hate BTS"? Thats the best you can come up with? You really come off as someone with no dignity.

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahh yes, your opinion of my dignity is very high on my list of things crucial to my happiness. I am just crushed that you think I have poor character, and will just cry the rest of the day.

By the way, can you tell me what is happening on "Days of Our Lives" recently, I rarely get a chance to see it, and I know have the chance now.

[Slapdragon]

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

Slap,

what do you expect? I could go and post something that I invented and say that I got it from a book that's already out of print since 30 years, and I don't think that much people are out there to proof it...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would be surprised if you find a book that cannot be tracked down by this gang. You may get a request for a photocopy of the book and its source list, but mostly then its an issue of source credibility. Source credibility is weighed on how close to the issue the source is (closer is not always better though), the sources reputation, how well the source can be tracked, and a bunch of other concerns. I would say a true source credibility and validity discussion is rare on this list since we mostly use the same data, or data that comes from similar sources.

[Username]

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

By the way, can you tell me what is happening on "Days of Our Lives" recently, I rarely get a chance to see it, and I know have the chance now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You rarely post without a misspelling or some kind of error("I know have the chance now"? Nothing like trying to come off flippant and funny and posting oddly on the punch line). I guess it’s those crappy synapse’s getting ready to go haywire huh?

You don’t seem to let your day job interfere with your posting practices. Very professional. More tax dollars up in smoke.

Well, I am going to drop this. I got my satisfaction out of exposing you. You go around accusing people of being things and then demonstrate that you are exactly what you accuse others of being.

Lewis

[Slapdragon]

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

You rarely post without a misspelling or some kind of error("I know have the chance now"? Nothing like trying to come off flippant and funny and posting oddly on the punch line). I guess it’s those crappy synapse’s getting ready to go haywire huh?

You don’t seem to let your day job interfere with your posting practices. Very professional. More tax dollars up in smoke.

Well, I am going to drop this. I got my satisfaction out of exposing you. You go around accusing people of being things and then demonstrate that you are exactly what you accuse others of being.

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When you get a chance to demonstrate that let me know Lewis. By the way, its lunch here (even Federal Employees get that -- not all of us are happy living all day off of uncle sam like yourself ) but I do post from time to time. I usually type about a hundred words a minute, but never spell check because I don't have all day like you do to reread things.

Hope to hear from you again Lewis when you have more to say (er, something to say, anything.)

[ 07-24-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Scipio]

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

I would be surprised if you find a book that cannot be tracked down by this gang. You may get a request for a photocopy of the book and its source list, but mostly then its an issue of source credibility. Source credibility is weighed on how close to the issue the source is (closer is not always better though), the sources reputation, how well the source can be tracked, and a bunch of other concerns. I would say a true source credibility and validity discussion is rare on this list since we mostly use the same data, or data that comes from similar sources.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I would say we have so often similiar and fruitless discussions on this board because always someone pops up and thinks he must discuss how to discuss something correct, or start a complete off topic discussion and don't stop until he has the last word. A third of this threat is filled with you and Username, and why? Only cause you said something that Username don't like to hear about his wive, and instead you say 'Hey, I'm sorry' you talk and talk and talk absolutly senseless bull**** to justify you.

Yes - we have a lot of people here that know very much about WWII and weapons, and when I say 'Hey, this appears to be wrong.", then I hope that they share their wisdom with me. I don't want to go and make all the research again. That's something that you absolutly don't understand - and the worst is, because people like you jump in, the REAL experts don't start to post, cause they don't have an interest to hear your drivel.

Scipio out

[Andreas]

I think this whole discussion comes down to to-hit chances, and I have not seen anything like that in this thread. I also don't have time to do a test, but since I don't feel it needs addressing, I won't do one myself.

So Scipio, first of all I think that your assertion that 'WW2 tankers knew they could not hit on the move' is a bit general. The armies of two countries (US, UK I think) had tanks that were provided with a device that should have enabled that. Whether they used it a lot/somewhat/not at all is open to discussion though, and has been discussed here at length. So theoretically at least these tankers should have known the opposite of what you claim.

Different for the Germans, since they had stop-to-shoot as SOP. Not sure about the Soviets, but neither of the two had gyros. Neither did the UK have them pre-Sherman days, but they still had (I believe) a move&shoot SOP.

So there goes your claim, without any lawyer BS.

Now regarding the accuracy. I think we can all agree that this is indeed only a problem if a moving tank has the same to-hit chance as a stationary tank? If it is lower, it could be debated how much lower it should be. For German tanks somewhere near zero, for gyro-tanks somewhere near X? I don't know.

I am certain it should never be zero though, since you always can have the luck of the draw. I read a story by some 88 gunners who did a first-shot kill on a T-34 at 7,000m in the Caucasus. Pretty unlikely, but an indication of what luck can do, if the story is indeed true.

So if someone who wants this changed would go out and run a few tests (nothing major, just a few, to get a ballpark figure) showing what the to-hit percentage differential is between the same tanks, at almost the same distance, depending on whether they move or a stationary, then we would have something to work from. Until then, it will remain a gut feeling, and I am not even convinced at this stage that we have a problem here, regardless of assertions about what tankers in WW2 knew.

I am open to be convinced, but I am not going to disprove anyones assertion here.

Here is mine - the game is fine, because the US had gyros, and therefore all US tankers knew they could shoot and hit while on the move. German tankers if pressed did it, and sometimes scored a hit against expectation.

If you don't like it, disprove me. Not very productive, eh?

Now if someone could tell me what Soviet SOP was??? Where is John when I need him...

[Username]

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

By the way, its lunch here (even Federal Employees get that -- not all of us are happy living all day off of uncle sam like yourself ) but I do post from time to time. I usually type about a hundred words a minute, but never spell check because I don't have all day such like you do to reread things.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Time to time? How many times today? 8 or 9? In this thread alone? How much surfing research and shopping to go along with that? Should fed workers get faster connections in the faint hope that they may get SOME work done?

Get to work.

Lewis

[Slapdragon]

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

And I would say we have so often similiar and fruitless discussions on this board because always someone pops up and thinks he must discuss how to discuss something correct, or start a complete off topic discussion and don't stop until he has the last word. A third of this threat is filled with you and Username, and why? Only cause you said something that Username don't like to hear about his wive, and instead you say 'Hey, I'm sorry' you talk and talk and talk absolutly senseless bull**** to justify you.

Yes - we have a lot of people here that know very much about WWII and weapons, and when I say 'Hey, this appears to be wrong.", then I hope that they share their wisdom with me. I don't want to go and make all the research again. That's something that you absolutly don't understand - and the worst is, because people like you jump in, the REAL experts don't start to post, cause they don't have an interest to hear your drivel.

Scipio out<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't recall saying anything about lewis's wife, perhaps you can get that quote for me? I never even knew he was married.

As for the rest Scipio, you post an idiotic comment then get mad when someone ask for you to amplify it and provide some sort of discussion. BTS does not have to prove to you why the game is the way it is. You have to prove why it is different. If this makes you uncomfortable or hurts your head or something, then perhaps the fact that everyone is bending over backwards to be understanding with your "why can't Tiger Tanks fly" drivel is misplaced. Certainly no one attacked you here, only started discussing your idea.

As for Loosername, his reputation far exceeds him, and like I said, I was wrong to rattle the poor sods cage. I was doing it solely for entertainment, and it was unworthy of the list.

[aka_tom_w]

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

I think this whole discussion comes down to to-hit chances, and I have not seen anything like that in this thread. I also don't have time to do a test, but since I don't feel it needs addressing, I won't do one myself.

So Scipio, first of all I think that your assertion that 'WW2 tankers knew they could not hit on the move' is a bit general. The armies of two countries (US, UK I think) had tanks that were provided with a device that should have enabled that. Whether they used it a lot/somewhat/not at all is open to discussion though, and has been discussed here at length. So theoretically at least these tankers should have known the opposite of what you claim.

Different for the Germans, since they had stop-to-shoot as SOP. Not sure about the Soviets, but neither of the two had gyros. Neither did the UK have them pre-Sherman days, but they still had (I believe) a move&shoot SOP.

So there goes your claim, without any lawyer BS.

Now regarding the accuracy. I think we can all agree that this is indeed only a problem if a moving tank has the same to-hit chance as a stationary tank? If it is lower, it could be debated how much lower it should be. For German tanks somewhere near zero, for gyro-tanks somewhere near X? I don't know.

I am certain it should never be zero though, since you always can have the luck of the draw. I read a story by some 88 gunners who did a first-shot kill on a T-34 at 7,000m in the Caucasus. Pretty unlikely, but an indication of what luck can do, if the story is indeed true.

So if someone who wants this changed would go out and run a few tests (nothing major, just a few, to get a ballpark figure) showing what the to-hit percentage differential is between the same tanks, at almost the same distance, depending on whether they move or a stationary, then we would have something to work from. Until then, it will remain a gut feeling, and I am not even convinced at this stage that we have a problem here, regardless of assertions about what tankers in WW2 knew.

I am open to be convinced, but I am not going to disprove anyones assertion here.

Here is mine - the game is fine, because the US had gyros, and therefore all US tankers knew they could shoot and hit while on the move. German tankers if pressed did it, and sometimes scored a hit against expectation.

If you don't like it, disprove me. Not very productive, eh?

Now if someone could tell me what Soviet SOP was??? Where is John when I need him...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi

I admit I prefer to play the Allies and the Hellcat has to be one of my favourite tanks, because it seems so "gamey" to have it fire on the fast move and hit and knock out BIG German tanks with HVAP Tungsten.

I use Greyhounds and Hellcats ALOT, niether unit has a gyro stabiliser and they both do very well firing and moving.

The Allied Hellcat can fire on the FAST move (top speed 55 MPH!!!) (in the game of course) while flying across open ground and it is IMHO unsually accurate on the fast move for a tank moving and firing in CMBO.

I know they won't fix this for CMBO but I hope that Steve and Charles will at least look at this "fire on

the FAST" issue for CMBB.

-tom w

And again I will add to this thread with this insightful post from another similiar thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=019743&p=1

Stephen Smith

Member

Member # 567

posted 06-20-2001 10:54 AM

As a real-world comparison-

modern M1A1 tanks have essentially 'gyrostabilizers' on them. In training, we fired 'on the move', but

'on the move' meant 'driving approximately 15 mph along a straight gravel road. It did NOT mean

driving

cross country (even in a field!) or driving in any environment where there is much up and down motion,

nor driving very fast. I don't believe it would be possible to fire modern M1A1s while 'on the move' in

any

but these very limited circumstances (i.e. relatively flat terrain, relatively low speed), for two reasons 1)

it

would be hard to keep the cross hairs on the target, and 2) it would be hard for the crew to keep

themselves still enough to even look through the optics well enough to aim (the gunner would be

thrown

around the inside of the vehicle too much). And unless 1940's technology was much better than

1990's

technology, I suspect the ability to fire on the move under any but very rare circumstances, even with a

highly trained crew and a gyrostabilizer, is grossly overrated.

And-

I just read a book on Kursk which quoted a german gunner as saying the ideal range for engagements

was about 800 meters. So what ranges should we expect in CM2? I would think about the same as in

CMBO. While the optics and penetration of main guns may have allowed extremely high ranges (2000,

3000 meters in incredibly rare, extreme cases), I suspect that due to real-world terrain, actual

engagements were probably conducted, 95% of the time, 0-1000 meters or so.

Steve

[Scipio]

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

If you don't like it, disprove me. Not very productive, eh?

Now if someone could tell me what Soviet SOP was??? Where is John when I need him...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IMO it's much more productive then posts of some people

Indeed my comment was to general - I meant the German tankers.

And - I love this game. Why? Because I can discuss things like gun accuracy. Perfection is boring

BTW- I have read just today (book : Panzerkampfwagen IV by Spielberger/Doyle/Jentz) that the optics (Type T.Z.F.5b) allowed aiming up to 2000m maximum. Another interesting stats I've found in this book is the penetrating ability for the PZ IV (with gun 7,5 cm Kw.K L/48)at frontal hit with an angle of 60°

Pz Iv can penetrat

Cromwell on distance of 1500m

Churchill - 500m

Sherman A2 75mm - 800m

Sherman A4 76mm - 800m

Pz Iv can be penetrated by

Cromwell on distance of 100m

Churchill - 100m

Shermann A2 75mm - 100m

Sherman A4 76mm - 1600m

[ 07-24-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Andreas]

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

I know they won't fix this for CMBO but I hope that Steve and Charles will at least look at this "fire on the FAST" issue for CMBB.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess that accuracy would warrant looking at. It should not be forgotten though that some of the points in the other thread, whence you picked Stephen's quote, are quite likely to play a role too though:

1. The over-use of regular and veteran crews

2. That CM could just simulate the shoot/stop/shoot procedure without showing it.

Also, I have just been told on the back-channel that Soviet SOP was to fire on the move. Maybe they even did hit sometimes???

So there, at least I learned something from this.