rexford Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Originally posted by fridericus: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rexford: The Tiger 88L56 APCBC round was superior to just about every other WW II projectile in terms of round to round random scatter. There was a reason for developing the 88L71 of the Kingtiger, so this gun was better. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 redwolf's new name is redwaffle. I do agree that the game engine does not transfer the range intelligence as well as it should. I also think the game undermodels hulldown as far as difficulty in gauging the range of a HD vehicle. Also oversizing it so that it gets more hits/spots. The game probably also does not reflect the difficulty in hitting a moving target very realistically. Tanks have 3 speeds. One is a crawl, another is balls out and the other is road march. Crawling is used when getting a hull down and approaching a position while searching targets. Balls out is when other weapons are covering your advance, you can not fire effectively so limiting exposure time is a good idea. You just rush to a new forward position. Road march is just a column movement that limits vehicle wear. [ February 12, 2004, 03:52 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 If the 88L56 had the smallest dispersion then its test data does not show it. Both the Panther gun and Tiger I gun show 100% accuracy at 500 and 1000 meters. But at 1500 meters the Tiger I is 98 and the Panther 100. At 2000 meters the Panther is 92 and the Tiger I 87%. If it had such a tight shot group, it would have to outperform the Panther gun in the test. How do you define this scatter? Do you have any source for this? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Originally posted by Mr. Tittles: redwolf's new name is redwaffle. For someone who deluges the forum with grogspam that any halfwit with the nous to employ the forum search function or google could cobble together, this is the height of hypocrisy. I don't always agree with redwolf or JasonC for that matter but they seem to generally make an effort to present their arguments coherently, in stark contrast to yourself. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Actually I employ a technically proficient mind that I back up with sufficient data that is available over the internet. Somehow, to ranting self-posessed posters, finding information over the internet is a point of derision. a time-locked archaic dusty book still holds their fascination I suppose. In any case, you are so welcome to share anything besides your hissy-fits Mr. Simon. Your posting style is award winning I suppose. The Ranting Troll: a time honored internet character. [ February 12, 2004, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Technical proficiency marred by disorder and incomprehensibility is unfathomable. By your reply I note that your stream of google style is accompanied by poor comprehension. The source of information is irrelevant, it's the delivery that's the problem. I am interested in the discussion in this thread and in my opinion your discordant and disorganised modus operandi is perverting its' benefit and pointlessly distracting some other participants. A number of other threads have received a similar ruinous deluge of grogspam. I don't like it and now I've said so. Furthermore, I think your characterisation of redwolf as a waffler was both pompous and egregiously hypocritical. As far as I'm concerned these types of threads have an audience far greater than the participants. It's not a private conversation you're having here, it's a public discussion. The audience, who might be interested in learning something, also have stake in the intellectual dividend. Just because they're not clogging up the ether endlessly harping on doesn't mean they might not contribute in due course, as long as the thread doesn't take a nosedive. "The Ranting Troll": time honoured internet cop-out overused by querulous thin-skinned sooks. [ February 12, 2004, 03:08 AM: Message edited by: Simon Fox ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 I guess if you really cared to understand, you could perhaps ask for clarifications. But probably you just needed a venue to use a word like nous to impress yourself (or all the others that you are concerned about). Eh. It doesnt really matter. If you think Jason's last post makes all that much sense, then God be with you. I think redwolf clearly waffled. But I can agree with a point he has without being a big poof like you need to be. Is there anything else you need to 'add'? We could get a nice milkbox for you to stand on... You can call me more names and impress yourself to death. Grogspam. Yeah, pat yourself on the back for that one. What a yahoo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Actually, he's right on the money. You have single handedly ruined more threads than I care to remember. Congratulations. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Gee it must be late and the beer must be flowing in a certain colonies around the west pacific. Perhaps you can do a search in the threads and see if anyone found my posts interesting? Generally I avoid the Afrika Korp forum because it is over run with sub-10000 barflys with attitudes. The real grogs hang out in the CMBB threads. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Advance apology to other readers of this thread. Originally posted by Mr. Tittles: Generally I avoid the Afrika Korp forum ...The real grogs hang out in the CMBB threads. Let's see. Of your last 50 posts, 1 has been in the CMBO forum, 14 have been in the CMBB forum, and 35 have been in the CMAK forum. What is your definition of 'generally' again? But I can see why you would be avoiding the CMBB forum, since that is after all apparently where the real grogs hang out, and you just wouldn't fit in. Have a nice day, and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. JonS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Apology accepted. But I think its clear that JonS has a need to focus on me instead of the thread. He has done it in the past and its usually annoying at best. Maybe Simon has vented and feels better. Who knows. But a good bet is that JonS will tally up all my posts and do differential equations on the stats (cause its real important for him to do that). Not that he is obsessive or anything. [ February 12, 2004, 03:31 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Originally posted by Mr. Tittles: I think redwolf clearly waffled. But I can agree with a point he has without being a big poof like you need to be. Is there anything else you need to 'add'? We could get a nice milkbox for you to stand on... You can call me more names and impress yourself to death.Whether redwolf waffled or not is irrelevant. What's astonishing is that grogdoms answer to William Amos bagged him for it. As for names a return to Enid Blyton for a new nom de plume might be in order: Dame Twaddle perhaps. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 What were you saying about incomprehensibility and unfathomability again? You are laughable. You want some big blow up but under the pretense that you care so much about the thread/redwolf/etc. You are just a rabble-rouser. You are transparently phony and come off as a pompous load to boot. [ February 12, 2004, 03:43 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParaBellum Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Tittles, you are definately one of the most obnoxious, arrogant gits to have ever graced this forum. Have a nice day. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Originally posted by Mr. Tittles: What were you saying about incomprehensibility and unfathomability again? You are laughable. You want some big blow up but under the pretense that you care so much about the thread/redwolf/etc. You are just a rabble-rouser. You are transparently phony and come off as a pompous load to boot. Oh, the irony. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zebulon Pleasure Beast Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Grog fight! Quite a comedy goldmine 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WineCape Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Originally posted by Mr. Tittles: redwolf's new name is redwaffle.Sir, Your manners... please. Sincerely, Charl Theron ----------------------------------------------------- Wine donations send to the following for their contributions to CM: </font>Staff @ Battlefront.com</font>Fuerte for his PBEM HELPER</font>Manx (He used to run the “sexiest CMBO modsite on the net”)</font>Boots & Tracks (RoW tournament scenarios)</font>Andrew Fox (modding art)</font>Keith Miller @ Scenario Depot</font>Gordon Molek for his CMMOS utility</font>Co-creator & Sponsor of the following Combat Mission tournaments: </font>The infamous CMBO “Invitational” (Ari Maenpaa)</font>WineCape Tourney I and II (Fangorn + KiwiJoe)</font>Rumblings of War aka RoW (Winners: Wreck = RoW I; Kanonier Reichmann + Ali + Jon_L = RoW II; Deadly 88 + Frunze + mPisi = RoW III)</font>Download and play the RoW III Tournament Scenario Pack</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 What the heck does "to waffle" actually mean (when used as a verb)? Not a native speaker of English here, I must miss something. Somebody is trying to insult me but is even screwing that up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Originally posted by redwolf: What the heck does "to waffle" actually mean (when used as a verb)? Not a native speaker of English here, I must miss something. Somebody is trying to insult me but is even screwing that up. You speak German? Waffle = Labern, Sabbeln. I would suggest to DNFTT. He is really not worth responding to, with his googled up knowledge. Grogspam is a very good way of characterising it. BTW - don't you owe me a turn Simon? If not, should you? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Determinant Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Originally posted by Mr. Tittles: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Determinant: 'Came the dawn and the ground looked frightful. The Bosche started shooting flares over us, and then came in the 3/4 light the dreaded bouncing, gleaming "white tennis ball", the fastest I've ever seen, shot from the 88mm gun. Very quickly our friends on the left started to blow up and catch fire. Guy saved us ... He put us all right. The tennis balls came very close to us all and too close to one or two, but Guy maneouvred us so that we got into a good position for retaliation and could not get into serious trouble.' Capt C B Stoddart 25 Oct 42, El Alamein, letter to his father. Not all of those tennis balls seemed to be getting their first round hits under battle conditions. Is this due to the incompetence of the 88mm Flak crews in the A/Tk role as opposed to the invincible Tiger crews? Or is it all a bit harder than it looks from my armchair? 1. Its dark 2. Whats the range? 3. Whats the target height/width? 4. Are they moving? 5. they were close misses? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jard Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Something I found after reading this (sometimes) interesting thread: According to Jentz (JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; op. cit.): "These accuracy tables are based on the assumptions that the actual range to the target has been correctly determined and that the distribution of hits is centered on the aiming point. The first column shows the accuracy obtained during controlled test firing to determine the pattern of dispersion. The figures in the second column include the variation expected during practice firing due to differences between guns, ammunition and gunners. These accuracy tables do not reflect the actual probability of hitting a target under battlefield conditions. Due to errors in estimating the range and many other factors, the probability of a first hit was much lower than shown in these tables. However, the average, calm gunner, after sensing the tracer from the first round, could achieve the accuracy shown in the second column". Accuracy: Gun___88 mm KwK 36 L/56 Ammunition___Pzgr. 39___Pzgr. 40___Gr.39 HL Range 500 m_______100 (100)__100 (100)__100 (98) 1000 m______100 (93)____99 (80)____94 (62) 1500 m_______98 (74)____89 (52)____72 (34) 2000 m_______87 (50)____71 (31)____52 (20) 2500 m_______71 (31)____55 (19) 3000 m_______53 (19) Source : JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; ISBN 0-7643-0225-6 The following statement got my attention: Due to errors in estimating the range and many other factors, the probability of a first hit was much lower than shown in these tables.However, the average, calm gunner, after sensing the tracer from the first round, could achieve the accuracy shown in the second column". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Ah a valiant attempt to get back to the subject. Good luck! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jard Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 One can always try... afterall it WAS a interesting subject... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 There are actually several interesting subjects going on. I think the starting subject has taken on the following: High first shot probability at short to medium ranges for 75mm+ HV weapons. Some claim 90% out to 1000m (Panther). My contention is that this 90% only applys to stationary targets. It would be reduced for hull down or targets that shoot n scoot or use other movement IMNHO. But the bottom line is that these 75mm+ high velocity weapons had the ability to score high first round hits out to ranges that are typical in CM. Other interesting topics are: Zeroing: this means setting the gun/sight system using a measured (surveyed) range and target height/width. I think the game assumes zeroing or it can be abstracted through crew status (green/vet/etc) Bracketing: long range fire method that would use more ammo. In game terms, it would allow a platoon's tanks to share aquisition (see below) IF they had radios. It would cut down on the depletion of ammo for little gain seen in the current game system. Aquisition: (not to be confused with zeroing) so that an aquired target range data can be transfered to a new target that is reasonably close. The game does this but perhaps should make it transferable up to 100 meters or so or dependant on other variables. [ February 12, 2004, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by Determinant: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Tittles: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Determinant: 'Came the dawn and the ground looked frightful. The Bosche started shooting flares over us, and then came in the 3/4 light the dreaded bouncing, gleaming "white tennis ball", the fastest I've ever seen, shot from the 88mm gun. Very quickly our friends on the left started to blow up and catch fire. Guy saved us ... He put us all right. The tennis balls came very close to us all and too close to one or two, but Guy maneouvred us so that we got into a good position for retaliation and could not get into serious trouble.' Capt C B Stoddart 25 Oct 42, El Alamein, letter to his father. Not all of those tennis balls seemed to be getting their first round hits under battle conditions. Is this due to the incompetence of the 88mm Flak crews in the A/Tk role as opposed to the invincible Tiger crews? Or is it all a bit harder than it looks from my armchair? 1. Its dark 2. Whats the range? 3. Whats the target height/width? 4. Are they moving? 5. they were close misses? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.