Why No Tungsten For The Jackson?

[Vanir]

I assume the answer is because they didn't make any. But why?

The US has 4 "big" AT guns mounted on tanks/TDs: 76mm and 3 varieties of 90mm (Jackson, Pershing and Super Pershing). Of the 4 only the Jackson has no tungsten.

Anybody know why?

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

You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV

[WolfLord]

Shhhh!...oh damn, the secret is out now My poor Panthers.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Vanir]

There were a lot more Jacksons in the ETO than Pershings. Seems odd they would ignore the Jackson.

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

You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by Vanir:

There were a lot more Jacksons in the ETO than Pershings. Seems odd they would ignore the Jackson.

Actualy after the appearence of the T-33 round, the 90mm guns didn't realy need APCR-T as they had with the shatter prone softer nosed rounds. The T-33 was the 1st sucessful US attempt at creating a round with comparible but not equal to, its German counterparts nose hardness thru heat treatment, to German APCBC levels Ie, Pzgr.39/44.

What this meant was the T-33 penetrated more armor for basicly the same MV as earlier US 90mm APCBC rounds.

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 01-24-2001).]

[Slapdragon]

I looked today and could not find anything about Jackson's getting Tungsten. Hellcats were said to have had the highest of high priority even for TD command, while other TD command units had tungsten, but never once is a Jackson mentioned. This one topic sucks because there is just a bunch of mentions in things like the oral histories, and never with much data, while the official compilations sometimes lump it in with other shells.

Maybe they had it, but on the other hand maybe the 90mm on the Jackson had no need of it because it could kill the Tiger and Panther from at least moderate ranges. And maybe the same lack of proof that it existed is why BTS did not include it.

At this point it would take a nice trail of evidence to get a tungsten round for the 90mm. And even with a good chain of evidence it would ignite another firestorm like the previous one over changing points balance in QBs.

[Ari Maenpaa]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

At this point it would take a nice trail of evidence to get a tungsten round for the 90mm. And even with a good chain of evidence it would ignite another firestorm like the previous one over changing points balance in QBs.

When did it got to the point that BTS began to compromise CM's historical details for the satisfaction of the players? I'm concerned. If the Jacksons had tungsten shots in real life, then nothing should keep them without in CM.

I don't have any problems to accept the change in QB-points, but weren't there pretty reasonable posts too questioning the change? For the future's sake I see it bad if all of those who "defend" CM's Axis side are tried to be shown as faceless mass of mindless firestorm igniters. With all respect that is how I interpret the latter part of your post. Hopefully I misunderstood it.

Ari

[Guest Big Time Software]

Ari,

When did it got to the point that BTS began to compromise CM's historical details for the satisfaction of the players? I'm concerned. If the Jacksons had tungsten shots in real life, then nothing should keep them without in CM.

Slapdragon was making a bit of a joke about some threads that have popped up recently concerning some of the changes in 1.1. The exact point you make is the one that was rather openly challenged (i.e. don't make CM more accurate if it means German tanks go boom )

As it is, we can't find any evidence that tungsten rounds were even made for the 90mm round, in any quantity, until the Pershing programe was underway. And when that happened, they were just for the Pershing's guns and not the Jackson's. So... as far as we know, the Jackson did not have access to Tungsten rounds in the ETO. If anybody has some sources to counter this, we would welcome to see what you dug up since our evidence is far from conclusive.

Steve

[CavScout]

Originally posted by Ari Maenpaa:

For the future's sake I see it bad if all of those who "defend" CM's Axis side are tried to be shown as faceless mass of mindless firestorm igniters.

We'd all be better off if people "defended" historical accuracy and not any "side".

[Guest Big Time Software]

Ari,

Another point. The dispute over Tungsten and point changes was largely, but of course not totally, driven by emotion and not rational debate. That is why it got ugly. When evidence was asked for by anti-change group, it got even uglier.

Meanwhile, we made Tungsten less effective (huge change there) and the Jumbo's mantlet much weaker (due to ahistorical use, also a major change). Not one single person, not even one, did so much as grumbled about this. Compare this to the 3 very large threads about the point changes.

So while I for one have NO problem with people defending German stuff, and even asking for improvements (like the Tiger mantlet special case coding), I do have a big problem with being attacked (and yes, we were attacked) for doing something that is geared towards a better historical balance. Especially when said people can't/won't/don't even try to present a logical, rational, and evidence supported argument. Although the number of people that do this is small, they more than make up for it with volume and disrespect. So yes, it does leave a sour taste in some people's mouth. Including mine.

But we are still a fair arbitrator and try to do the right thing no matter what the level of unproductive noise is As CavScout said so well, people should defend historical accuracy no matter WHICH side is being discussed.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 01-24-2001).]

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

But we are still a fair arbitrator and try to do the right thing no matter what the level of unproductive noise is

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 01-24-2001).]

Just wait until people start arguing about the use of tungsten by T-34's and T-34/85's!

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Ari,

Slapdragon was making a bit of a joke about some threads that have popped up recently concerning some of the changes in 1.1. The exact point you make is the one that was rather openly challenged (i.e. don't make CM more accurate if it means German tanks go boom )

As it is, we can't find any evidence that tungsten rounds were even made for the 90mm round, in any quantity, until the Pershing programe was underway. And when that happened, they were just for the Pershing's guns and not the Jackson's. So... as far as we know, the Jackson did not have access to Tungsten rounds in the ETO. If anybody has some sources to counter this, we would welcome to see what you dug up since our evidence is far from conclusive.

Steve

Ari,

Reread what just happened in the QB thread. Like Steve says, no one even twitched for two changes making the Allied Armor less effective in a historical manner, but touch the Germans even with the best historical reason and you will ignite this firestorm not of faceless people, but of people who said, quite openly, history be damned, don't mess with the Germans. Although a few people made some good arguments in a calm and rational way, look at the number of people who called BTS and anyone who defended the principal of maximum historical accuracy by every flame they could think of.

I, and I think BTS, has learned that the strong uber deutchland faction that exists in other areas of gaming exists in CM, that the rational of this group is usually based in rhetoric rather than fact, that is tries to shout down rather than proves, and that it is nearly impossible to have a discussion with. This also means that the more level-headed people like Phillistine and others who questioned the change in a constructive manner get shouted down by the ubers faction (to coin a term from David Brin) who then goes on to start use flames against I and others who merely ask that a useful argument be presented and defended, rather than "My Tiger was killed by a Sherman, change the game now."

So yes, I was joking, but also I am pointing out using that joke that on this subject -- if indeed tungsten existed (no proof), then BTS would have to perhaps be ready to fight the "firestorm of faceless people" that do indeed exists, and who turn off the section of their brain that processes fact when they enter the BBS.

[Guy w/gun]

Origianally posted my Andrew Hedges

Just wait until people start arguing about the use of tungsten by T-34's and T-34/85's!

Just wait until people start arguing about the use of the T-34/85 period! It will happen, I have forseen it!

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Guy w/gun:

Origianally posted my Andrew Hedges

Just wait until people start arguing about the use of the T-34/85 period! It will happen, I have forseen it!

I wonder if a Soviet uber faction will form to shadow that of the German faction. OH JOY BTS -- Two groups who can argue on no facts for 24000 posts the addition of reduction of 1mm of armor protection on a T-34.

[illo]

War is over guys

Most of us want historically accurate game.

Forget balance.

[Guest Michael emrys]

Originally posted by illo:

Most of us want historically accurate game.

Forget balance.

I can't speak for "most" of us, but I can speak for me and I agree with you! Don't let CM be ruled by players who are only interested in competition.

Michael

[Guest Space Thing]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

I can't speak for "most" of us, but I can speak for me and I agree with you! Don't let CM be ruled by players who are only interested in competition.

Michael

Right on Michael! illo is right on too!

Historical accuracy is what I want also.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Don't worry folks, historical accuracy has been something we have defended since before the game was even released in Beta Demo form. Although the number of cries for "change this because I say so" has inreased, our resolve to cut through unsupported opinions has increased even more.

Balance, in our opinion, is NOT the act of catering one side so it does not outdo the other. Balance, in our definition, is the art (and it IS an art) of ensuring that each side is treated fairly so that they can be whatever history dictates and our abilities allow. When our abilities are not up to the task (i.e. hardware isn't good enough, coding is too time consuming, etc.) we try to make sure that the treatment we CAN enact doesn't unfairly penalize/promote one side ahistorically vs. the other.

So when we changed the Combined Arms points it was to create a better historical balance of some of the artifical factors inherent in the game. The Allies got some of the benefits and the Germans some as well. In all cases it was because that particular force had been unfairly penalized under the old system. As it turned out, the Allies probably received more benefits than the Germans, but only because they probably had been penalized (ahistorically) more under the old system.

If we were to find out that no US tank in fact had Tungsten at all, and that a big mistake had been made by a couple dozen respected authors and field manuals, we would rip out that round from each and every Allied tank. And we would do so willingly, no matter how much it would screw the Allied player. Obviously a silly example, but a nice statement of our resolve in any case

Steve

P.S. One of the guys that partook in the pro-German flamefest wrote us a nice apology email and asked that there be no hard feelings. There aren't, but unfortunately those posts still illustrate a larger issue so they are likely to be mentioned in future discussions.

[kford]

I primarily favor the German units and never could understand the whole flame war thing over tungsten rounds. I play for historical accuracy and anything that BTS can do to achieve that, I'm for.

The fact of the matter is that while the German armor might have been better than allied on average, it was not unstoppable. If you do stupid things with your units, you will loose them, period. Play your strengths and you will do well. That is what I think a lot of the consternation is really about. Many of the players who have been using German equipment have been doing in to compensate for bad tactics. Now that the tanks are reduced in effectiveness to a more historically accurate level…

As far as the reducing the Jumbo's effectiveness, I would rather have had that left as historically accurate as possible. This was really only a problem where people were not picking historically accurate unit mixes. If two players want to have historically accurate unit mixes, then they can make an agreement. I don't want to open a can of worms (sounds like plenty have been opened on this already). All I'm saying is that I like historical accuracy, the more the better.

What might be a really cool feature (look how easily I like to spend BTS's money) is if you had an option in quick battle that would pick historically accurate unit mixes for both sides for a particular time period.

Ok, I'm just rambling now.

Just remember, accuracy is king.

Thanks,

Kevin

[Guest Big Time Software]

Kevin:

That is what I think a lot of the consternation is really about. Many of the players who have been using German equipment have been doing in to compensate for bad tactics.

Bingo! You win a prize Same goes for Allied vehicles. Some of them were damned fine when matched against all but the heaviest of the heavy German tanks. But if you drive something like an M10 around like a Jagdtiger on parade, you will lose it very fast. The only difference is that an Allied player, through years of conditioning, EXPECTS to lose his vehicles (even when it was "user error"). On the other hand, through years of conditioning, many German players do NOT EXPECT to lose his vehicles (at least not the big ones). Combat Mission requires people to "unlearn" a lot of things standard in other wargames, and AFV strength/weaknesses are a big part of it.

BTW, the Jumbo effectiveness reduction WAS to correct a historical flaw present in 1.05 and earlier. Rexford pointed out that the mantlet was actually made out of two pieces of armor, not one. This means it should be 25% (or so) less effective than we had it in earlier versions. So it was corrected because it was wrong, not because people were over using the vehicle.

Steve