Don't tell me that this is realistic

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Seanachai:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by CombatGeneral:

And there are no red wolves in nature damnit.

Wrong again, actually, proving that there is almost no sphere of human knowledge in which you aren't being shown up. The Red Wolf is a sub-species of the North American Gray Wolf. Had you said that none currently live in the wild, you could probably be considered correct. The current population of about 300 or so exist in zoos.</font>

[Andreas]

Tom, BTS has not just been refusing to model this because they are lazy or don't like the idea. They have asked here for quantifiable evidence of this superiority. Whether you or I 'believe' that the Germans had better optics, or whether the Finns agreed that they had, is neither here nor there if you are asked to code it. How much better is the crucial question.

tero - I have mentioned Soviet tanks firing on the move, and I always said that this was for HE and suppreession. It was not just a shock tactic I believe. Take 30 T34s, have them barrel down on the enemy position while putting down fire. What is the likely effect? A lot of misses, but some will be close, and at least suppress the enemy, because it is HE, and not AP solid shot. Some my even hit by fluke. The Soviets knew that on the modern battlefield you only move if you have fire superiority. So you put a lot of lead and HE down on the suspected enemy position, and keep his head down. Since they made it to Berlin, I think one can assume that in general they knew what they were on about towards the end of the war.

Of course you don't do that if you try to hit a tank, or if you have a shortage of HE rounds. Most of the time however, the Soviets could be fairly certain that there would not be any tanks to back up the German defense. They probably also had more HE rounds available than you could shake a stick at. So why not use it?

[WineCape]

Posted by the Senachai:

You're a sad little character with serious self-esteem issues, aren't you? Don't be afraid. We all like you, we really, really do! But you do know that it's wrong to lie and get angry when you're caught at it, don't you?

And Note: This is not the same as the following often asked question addressed to me:

"I'm curious, are you any relation to Charlize Theron?"

My comment: "NO COMMENT!"

Sincerely,

Charl Theron

[ July 02, 2002, 08:40 AM: Message edited by: WineCape ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Andreas:

How much better is the crucial question.

Or rather: how should "optics" be defined ? Just the aiming device or is a broader definition called for ?

The overall visibility out of a buttoned AFV was critical and it is easily quantifiable, yet it does not seem to be have made the critical criteria list when the game engine was first modelled. (Granted, absolute spotting does undermine it). However such things as crew layout and visibility are a real concern in CMBB world when it did make a difference between a dead T-34/76 and a living PzKw-IIIJ in a snapshot duel in close terrain.

tero - I have mentioned Soviet tanks firing on the move, and I always said that this was for HE and suppreession.

I know. But there are others who leave it out. Nothing personal intended.

It was not just a shock tactic I believe.

I think it was. It was designed to dislodge the defenders from their entrenched positions by spooking them out into the open. Or keep their heads down until they got close enough for the tank riders to do their stuff. Had they come in without blasting away they would propably have been thrown back none the wiser. Even when coming in with the blasting they did get thrown back.

Addendum: it was IIRC also used to mask off the slackening of the arty preparation.

Would they have been better off using different tactics. Propably not.

Since they made it to Berlin, I think one can assume that in general they knew what they were on about towards the end of the war.

I agree with most you are saying.

But the fact is all the way to the end they used massive amounts of HE (in preparation, while closing/leaning on the barrage and during the actual assault) and still they suffered huge casualties in both men and machines. It worked (but not always) and it was not without a cost.

[ July 02, 2002, 09:03 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Tom, BTS has not just been refusing to model this because they are lazy or don't like the idea. They have asked here for quantifiable evidence of this superiority. Whether you or I 'believe' that the Germans had better optics, or whether the Finns agreed that they had, is neither here nor there if you are asked to code it. How much better is the crucial question.

(and))

tero - I have mentioned Soviet tanks firing on the move, and I always said that this was for HE and suppreession. (...)

Of course you don't do that if you try to hit a tank, or if you have a shortage of HE rounds.

Andreas,

just three comments w/r/t those two snippets.

1) you know as well as I do that "optics" and "ergonomics" are hardly quantifiable. if you do not bow to common wisdom or general opinion, the closest to an objective comparison you get is if you go and take a look at the two interiors, and look through both optics. and even then you can argue very good with another person about his personal opinion.

things such as "7.5 x maagnification" might sem objective values but don't really say anything about blurriness, inaccuracy in the reticle etc.

if the finnish who used both types of design / manufacturing philosphies concluded (probably publicly when the political decision for/against one type was reached) that the optics in one type was so much better that this means retaining it against another vehicle even though the latter would be better politically and economically then that is one valid argument in my book.

2) we are specifically talking about hit accuracy against another tank. hence the notion that "soviet tanks did fire on the move regularly" really doesn't add anything to this issue at hand when this regular use was not of the type discussed here (just wanted to clear that up, I guess you agree).

[Andreas]

Markus,

I certainly agree on point 2, I just got a bit riled up about the blanket statement by tero.

I think I also agree on point 1. Optics advantages not being quantifiable,you have to look at what the worst possible case in terms of disadvantaging one side is for any given solution.

Assume we can not know what the exact difference is between the optics (as is the case), we just agree that there is one.

If that is the case, we could still say that we leave them on a par, call that 'Option 1'. It is clearly unsatisfactory, and wrong, but it has the benefit of being the easy solution, and one that you can defend (as BTS has done). This solution means the Germans are worse off than they were in reality, and is your baseline.

Under 'Option 2', you give an X% bonus benefiting the Germans. Now to do that you have to be sure that the Russians are not made worse off than the Germans are under 'Option 1', because otherwise you have just made the simulation more unrealistic than before. So you need some evidence to be assured of that. I think that evidence is still lacking, and it appears BTS thinks so too. We are probably all in agreement that Option 2 is more desirable, but unfortunately you can not ensure that under it, the Russians would not be worse off than the Germans were under Option 1. On top of that, it takes additional coding.

In the absence of any evidence other than 'the German optics were better', BTS is facing a 'damned if they don't, damned if they do' situation.

[Scipio]

I think the question which optics were better is not so extremly relevant - beside the fact that it can not be modeled very well.

A German tanker was trained with German optics, a Russian tanker with Russian optics - at least I assume that there were a difference between both. I guess a trained and experienced Russian was able to achieve the same results with his optics then the German with the German optics, even if one equipment was maybe better.

It's just a question what you are used to do, like the difference between shooting with your own rifle and with somebody else rifle. So I guess the technical difference between the optics is solved by a completly different factor: the crew's experience.

[ July 02, 2002, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Andreas:

In the absence of any evidence other than 'the German optics were better', BTS is facing a 'damned if they don't, damned if they do' situation.

Agree completely. The tough decisions of a game designer...

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Scipio:

I think the question which optics were better is not so extremly relevant - beside the fact that it can not be modeled very well.

"A German tanker was trained with German optics, a Russian tanker with Russian optics - at least I assume that there were a difference between both. I guess a trained and experienced Russian was able to achieve the same results with his optics then the German with the German optics, even if one equipment was maybe better."

I'm sorry but I disagree with this statement.

I'm sorry I do not know what Russian optics looked like and I may get flamed for this BUT the German optics were designed with precision and with the intention to be able to accurately determine range and distance to the target. This is a HUGE factor.

Sorry to bring it up BUT if Panzer Elite accurately modeled the reticle and sighting mechanisms of German and American sites and optics it is clearly obvious to me the the German optics are better for determining range to the target.

here is the link:

http://www.panzerelite.com/zeiss/zeiss.html

more here:

http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/turret/pegunnery/pegunnery.shtml

 

Mastering Gunnery in Panzer Elite

Feature by Michael J. McConnell

November 9, 1999

MASTERING GUNNERY

IN PANZER ELITE

Ammunition Trajectory

The basic flight path of any shell in flight is an arc.  The ‘arch’ of the shell’s arc depends on the muzzle velocity and other items.  Hence the higher the muzzle velocity, the flatter the ‘arch’ of the shell and the more accurate the gunner can be.

 

 

THE OPTICS AND GUNNERY

German Gunnery

Zeiss Optics

To accurately fire in any of the German tanks, you will need to understand the Zeiss Optics, shown below.  Don’t let it be intimating...with practice you to will be able to master it.

Step One: Determining Range

Back before the days of laser rangefinders, German gunners used "mils" to get the range to the target.  One mil equals one meter.  The first thing you will need to do is to get to know the dimensions of the tanks you will be expecting to fight.  This is somewhat simplified in Panzer Elite.  Your main threat will be from M4 and M10s.

Dimensions Of American Tanks

M4 Sherman Medium Tank

Height - 3.37m

Length - 6.27m

Width - 2.67m

M10 Tank Destroyer

Height - 2.48m

Length - 5.97m

Width - 3.05m

M3 Grant / Lee Medium Tank

Height - 3.12m

Length - 5.64m

Width - 2.72m

M3 Light Tank

Height - 2.51m

Length - 4.53m

Width - 2.23m

Using the Triangles

The large triangle in the center of the Zeiss sight is 4 mils wide and 4 mils high at the calibration range (500m).  Knowing that, the first step to accurately gunning is to use the triangles to gauge the distance to the target.  The space between the large triangle and the smaller ones to either side is 2 mils. The small triangles are 2 mils wide and 2 mils high.  Therefore a target 500m away that is 4 meters in size would be 4 mils, or the exact size of the large center triangle.

(Note: Although Panzer Elite's sights are calibrated at 500m, in real life German sights were calibrated at 1000m).

"U.S. GUNNERY

M55 Optics

This sight picture is from a M55 telescope.  The M55 was used on the M3 (75mm) gun, which was in the early American tanks of World War Two.  The dot that is at the top of the range tree is for aiming at targets less then 500 yards.  The 8, 16, and the 24 marks on the range tree indicates the needed elevation to hit targets at 800, 1600, and 2400 yards, respectively.

 

M38A2 Optics

This sight picture is from a M38A2 telescope.  The M38A2 was used with both the M3 (75mm) and the M1 (76mm) guns.  The cross at the top of the range tree is for targets under 500 yards away.  The 8, 16, 24, 36, and 42 marks on the range tree indicates the needed elevation to hit targets at 800, 1600, 2400, 3600, and 4200 yards, respectively.

 

 

Step One: Determining Range

Sorry troops, the American sights had no way to find range .  However, here is an old old virtual tanker’s trick...if I recall my training correctly, the coax could be used to roughly gauge the range.  Say the coax range is set out to 800m.  With that knowledge, I would move my sight up to 800 meters and fire a burst of coax.  If it fell beyond the target, I knew it was closer then 800m.  If the bullets fell in front of the target, then I knew the target was further then 800m.

Here is a variation of that virtual trick in Panzer Elite.  You can fire your coax until you ‘hear’ the ping from your enemy.  Take note what the range is.  Also take note on how high the arc of the coax bullets are.  You have just found a very close estimation of the enemy’s range.  You should be able to hit the target in 3 main gun rounds.  Of course, this comes with a lot of practice.

Step Two: Aim Your Weapon

The aiming point for the cannon in your scope will be the center vertical line and also the horizontal line marking the correct range.  You will want to make sure that the center vertical line is dead center on your target, and then lower or elevate the main gun to the correct height (range).  For example, if the target is 800m away, have both the center vertical line and the horizontal line (that shows 8) going through the center of the target.

Again, in PE's Realistic Gunnery setting, your round may actually land a bit further to the right of your aiming point on the range ladder.  This is due to the spin that your main gun puts on the shell to increase its accuracy at longer ranges.  Weather effects may also come into play.

I like to use an old training method on my aiming.  When you go to aim, draw a G figure with your sight.  Move your gun sight in a circular motion, starting the G figure just to the front top of your target. Then move your gun sight slightly around the target without losing sight of the target.  Now to finish the G figure, you come up from the bottom of the target and you will finish center of the target.  This allows me to aim more accurately.

Step Three: FIRE!

Again, when you fire, make sure you are relaxed...just a twitch will throw off your well-planned shot.  Be ready to follow up your first shot immediately, because the chance of a first round hit is very small."

"Summary

U.S. tankers...do not get into a long-distance duel with German tankers, period.  Use a lot of smoke and maneuver to gain a hull down fighting position less then 500m from your target.  Also, a flank shot is preferred.  Refer back to my other articles on the tactics that you may need to survive on the battlefield.

German tankers...learn your optics well.  Once you do, you will be the king of the battlefield, plain and simple.  Use your better optics and better firepower to shoot targets at longer ranges.  Don’t let the enemy close in on you.  Make sure you have a good fighting position.  Refer back to my other articles on the tactics that you may need to survive on the battlefield.

That is about it for the basic World War Two gunnery concepts.  Sharpen your gunnery skills and I will see you on the field of honor!

 

TANKS,

Michael J. McConnell

a.k.a. Col. Sabot"

END QUOTE

In the past I have been critized for suggesting that the way optics are modeled in Panzer Elite (being that it is JUST another WWII Tank Sim VIDEO GAME ) may have NOTHING at all to do with historical accuracy or the way gunnery optics "really" worked in the real deal. To be fair I have only ever fooled around with the Panzer Elite Demo, a little bit so I do not know if it is REALLY realistic or not, BUT from those web pages above and what the optics looked like when the gunner looked through those sites, to aim, I would conclude that a well trained German gunner would have a DECIDED advantage at determining range to the target OVER a well trained American gunner based on the design of those optics in WW II.

Sadly, I am sorry to report, I have no frame of reference for the Soviet optics.

Does anyone have a web page or reference as to what the gunner saw when they looked through a WW II Soviet tank gun site?

-tom w

[ July 02, 2002, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

this is interesting:

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~pref8u/PEgunneryGER.htm

These Tips require the 1000m calibration for the German Site - else it isn't really "full realism" gunnery PE's german gunsight is calibrated for 500m. To get the 1000m calibration just use notepad or edit to open PE_Game.ini from in C:\Program Files\Psygnosis\Panzer Elite\Data and change aimscale1=16384 and aimscale2=16384 for both zoom levels of the german sight. This does not effect the mg sights or US sights. P.S. The big triangles height in the german sight is 4m at 1000m and the smalls are 2m at 1000m. This lets you estimate the range to the target by how much triangle is covered by the target.

TIP 1: How to gauge range with the German Sight

hint:

M4 Sherman Medium Tank

Height - 3.37m

and

more Eastern Front files here:

But they are in German:

http://home.arcor.de/custompe/index2.html

-tom w

[ July 02, 2002, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[illo]

Hitting while moving feels way too easy in CM while shots from positioned tanks feel slightly too inaccurate. There should be huge difference. Now there isnt.

[Tomb]

not to confuse the issue with facts or anything

WO 291/975 Tank battle analysis.

This report presents the results of an analysis of 83 tank vs. tank actions in NW Europe taken from unit war diaries. The data means that it is not possible to separate results out by individual tank or gun types. It is assumed that Allied (British) tanks have 25% 17-pr tanks, and that 25% of towed ATk guns are 6-pr, the rest 17-pr. German ATk guns are assumed to be 50% 75mm and 50% 88mm.

The report's conclusions are:

SP guns are more effective that towed ATk guns by a factor of about 3 for the Allies, and about 2 for the Germans.

The Panther and Tiger are more effective than Mk III and IV against Allied SP guns by a factor of about 4.

"In tank versus tank engagements, for the chance of success to be equal for either side, Allied tanks would have to outnumber the German tanks by some 30%".

For an equal chance of success against German anti-tank guns, Allied tanks need to outnumber them by about 2 to 1.

The mean "success range" for the 17-pr was 2100 yards, as against 580 yards for the 75mm.

The average "success ranges" for tanks were 750 yards for the Allies, 1290 yards for the Germans.

Allied ATk guns were successful at 1090 yards (SP) and 870 yards (towed), whereas German figures were 330 yards (SP) and 300 yards (towed).

my comment

the 17pdr easily is the best gun/sight combination on these numbers

Of 83 actions, 58 were won by the side that fired first. Where a side was both numerically superior and fired first, it was invariably successful.

A successful tank attack typically resulted in about 15% losses; a failure, about 65%.

A successful ATk gun defence resulted in about 12.5% (SP) or 15% (towed) losses; a failure, over 50% (SP) or 80% (towed).

WO 291/90 Firing on the move from tanks.

"With existing British tanks the effectiveness (hits per minute) of shooting on the move is never greater than 1/2 that of stationary fire under similar conditions and is often 1/20 or less. The Westinghouse gyro stabilizer produces some improvement".

The "Movement is armour" argument was held to be confuted by results from a trial by gunnery instructors at Lulworth shooting at a target at 800 yards and obtaining 62% hits on a static target and 64% hits on a moving one. It is pointed out that the smooth, steady movement necessary to gunnery on the move does little to make the tank harder to hit.

For MG fire, "...the number of machine gun bullets per minute that will come dangerously close to an anti-tank gun crew from a single tank firing on the move is very small." The best MG results, using the shoulder-controlled mounting in the Crusader and an expert crew, showed a reduction of one-half in hitting rate. "For average gunners factors of 1/4 to 1/20 or worse would be expected."

For the main armament, it was found that "...a comparatively high percentage of hits can be obtained with a light gun in a free elevation mounting but that the rate of fire is greatly reduced by movement."

(all (and more) availible for your reading pleasure on john salts home page)

regards

Tomb

[Tero]

Thanks, Tomb

WO 185/195 New type sighting for tanks

At the start of the war, British tank telescopes gave a magnification of ×1.9 and a field of view of 22º. German telescopes were ×2.5, with a similar field, but lower light transmission.

Later telescopes had magnification ×3 and field 13º. For production reasons, moving graticules were replaced by fixed graticules. "Our optical industry was not equal to the task of producing telescopes of the German pattern in the quantities required." Later, it was possible to return to moving graticules, together with illumination, and an alternative eyepiece of ×6 power, needed to exploit the penetration

performance of the 17-pdr. German improvements were, first, two ×2.5 telescopes to give binocular vision, and later a single telescope with alternative powers of ×2.5 and ×5.

The Americans, "after the rather poor reception given to their first episcopic sights and to their earlier straight-through telescopes", produced the M10 dual-magnification sight (×1 and ×6), episcopic sight, and T122 variable-power telescope.

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Tomb:

Of 83 actions, 58 were won by the side that fired first. Where a side was both numerically superior and fired first, it was invariably successful.

Interesting would be to know what determines who will have the first aimed shot (in game and in reality)?

In game I think spotting and turret speed. The spotting is generally flawed, already because of the absolute spotting. The turret speed has a major influence as Redwolf pointed out.

But how is it in reality?

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Scipio:

3 Tankhunters (M10 or Hellcats) move over a hill top in open terrain, three PzIV drive fast on a road away from them. The distance is 800+ and fast rising.

One TD fires and kills the middle PzIV with the first shot at 835m. The leading PzIV turns it turret and fires on a TD, moving at full speed with the barrel at ~160° to the driving direction, fires and kills a TD at 875m with the first shot. The PzIV then leaves the road, spots still at full speed a Hellcat ~400m away in the opposite direction, turns the turret and kills it again with the first shot. That was three "1 in a Million" shots within 30 seconds, not to speak about the unrealistic accurate spotting.

I hope BTS make some major revisions on the gun accuracy and spotting in CM:BB.

Lets not forget where this Thread started.

Just to revisit the opening post, THAT is quite a story of interesting first shot hits, on both sides!

-tom w

[Scipio]

When I read aka_tom_w's post about the different target optics, then I must change my opinion. If one optic allows to determine the rang faster then the other optic, then it is indeed very important, especially if tomb's stats are right. And I guess this can be modeled. If German optics should allow faster range finding, then they don't have an accuracy advantage, but a time advantage, they can fire the first shot faster, and maybe they need less attempts til they first hit. Of course, this is highly speculative, cause I don't have hard facts bout it .

[Sailor Malan]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scipio:

3 Tankhunters (M10 or Hellcats) move over a hill top in open terrain, three PzIV drive fast on a road away from them. The distance is 800+ and fast rising.

One TD fires and kills the middle PzIV with the first shot at 835m. The leading PzIV turns it turret and fires on a TD, moving at full speed with the barrel at ~160° to the driving direction, fires and kills a TD at 875m with the first shot. The PzIV then leaves the road, spots still at full speed a Hellcat ~400m away in the opposite direction, turns the turret and kills it again with the first shot. That was three "1 in a Million" shots within 30 seconds, not to speak about the unrealistic accurate spotting.

I hope BTS make some major revisions on the gun accuracy and spotting in CM:BB.

Lets not forget where this Thread started.

Just to revisit the opening post, THAT is quite a story of interesting first shot hits, on both sides!

-tom w</font>

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Sailor Malan:

1 Repeat after me PANZER ELITE IS NOT A VALID REFERENCE. Real life is a valid reference. Comments about spotting difficulty whilst looking at a 17" monitor do not cut it with me. As an aside, I have ridden unbuttoned in a Leopard, at speed (10-20mph), over a very uneven surface (ridged mud track, 3 or 4 ft ridges every few yards, and ruts).

sorry but I think PANZER ELITE is probably more of a valid reference than your personal impressions from riding a Leopard once.

I have done the same, I have ridden unbuttoned in a Leopard over uneven surfaces, at considerable speed and my impression/opinion is opposite to yours. And contrary to you i would not think that it is so very easy from such a position to spot a tank at 800m distance during a battle going on around you in full swing.

And maybe, just maybe those folks at Panzer Elite gave their product *some* thought, too, and maybe they do not like being talked down and dismissed just like you seem unappreciative of being talked down to.

and either way, the other poster wasn't using the firing / aiming in PE as a reference, but facts from reality that also surface in PE, namely the outlay and general differences between german and allied optics, which were there for real. if or how much they perform better in PE is not the issue at hand.

[Sailor Malan]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sailor Malan:

1 Repeat after me PANZER ELITE IS NOT A VALID REFERENCE. Real life is a valid reference. Comments about spotting difficulty whilst looking at a 17" monitor do not cut it with me. As an aside, I have ridden unbuttoned in a Leopard, at speed (10-20mph), over a very uneven surface (ridged mud track, 3 or 4 ft ridges every few yards, and ruts).

sorry but I think PANZER ELITE is probably more of a valid reference than your personal impressions from riding a Leopard once.

I have done the same, I have ridden unbuttoned in a Leopard over uneven surfaces, at considerable speed and my impression/opinion is opposite to yours. And contrary to you i would not think that it is so very easy from such a position to spot a tank at 800m distance during a battle going on around you in full swing.

And maybe, just maybe those folks at Panzer Elite gave their product *some* thought, too, and maybe they do not like being talked down and dismissed just like you seem unappreciative of being talked down to.

and either way, the other poster wasn't using the firing / aiming in PE as a reference, but facts from reality that also surface in PE, namely the outlay and general differences between german and allied optics, which were there for real. if or how much they perform better in PE is not the issue at hand.</font>

[Jarmo]

About the optics again.

Been reading a book of finnish AT teams. There was a mention of optics between finnish and german 37mm AT guns. The difference being that the finnish version had open sights (for economic reasons) vs german guns proper optics.

It was assumed the german guns would do a lot better in combat, but in real life that was not found to be the case. Actually the only RL difference in performance was that the open sights were better on low light conditions.

Now, the situation was not the most favourable for optics superiority, there wouldn't be any firing at 500+ meters and so on. Probably the optics would have improved the gunnery at longer ranges, like 1000+ meters. But I actually have come to doubt there'd be a big difference at sub 1000 meter distances.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

And maybe, just maybe those folks at Panzer Elite gave their product *some* thought, too, and maybe they do not like being talked down and dismissed just like you seem unappreciative of being talked down to.

and either way, the other poster wasn't using the firing / aiming in PE as a reference,but facts from reality that also surface in PE, namely the outlay and general differences between german and allied optics, which were there for real. if or how much they perform better in PE is not the issue at hand.

I guess I was the "other poster".

did I "talk down" to someone and not realize it?

This suggestion seems somewhat strange to me as I have admited more than a few times that while I may be a little opinionated (sometimes ) I have no military experience what so ever (Although I do read about WWII armoured combat ALOT) and have never claimed to have any first hand tank gunnery experience, so it seems somehow far fetched that someone with Real Life Military experience might feel I was "talking down" to them.(if in fact it was me doing the talking down?)

I kinda figured someone would eventually object the the PE reference, (Given that it is JUST a VIDEO GAME you know! )but this quote does sum up my position very well:

"the other poster wasn't using the firing / aiming in PE as a reference,

but facts from reality that also surface in PE, namely the outlay and general differences between german and allied optics (i.e.range finding optics in the reticle, and lack thereof on the Allied side ), which were there for real "

Thanks

-tom w

[ July 02, 2002, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

This Latest bone is VERY tasty indeed!

"More Advanced Damage Calculations

Thanks to the availability of a wealth of new scientific and gun range testing data, the ballistics and penetration calculations are far more advanced than ever before. One of many new elements is the possibilty of partial penetrations"

NOW How cool is that!!

-tom w

[Pacestick]

Sailor Milan

Comparing the ride in the turret of a leapord to that of a ww2 vintage tank is like comparing chalk to cheese. I have been in the turrets of both the leopard and of the centurian that it replaced in my neck of the woods and there is a huge diference between the tanks in the speed that you could cover rough ground in and what you can see whilst doing so. I am amazed that ww2 tanks could hit anything except at point blank range on the move and feel that any firing on the move was more for the morale of the crews than in the belief they would actually hit anything.

[Jack Carr]

Gun accuracy is frustrating in CMBO.

Many times I have had a friendly tank/tank destroyer waiting in ambush for an enemy vehicle to roll into its line of fire only to miss 3 to 5 times and then get whacked with the first shot by the enemy tank. These engagements are usually within 200 meters.

The other day I had a StugIII waiting in ambush behind a building and an M7 Priest moved right into its killing lane. This Priest is a gonner I thought, as I watched the Stug miss 3 times as the Priest turned its chasis and smoked the StugIII. All at 150 meters and flat terrain! The StugIII was not distracted by other enemy units, there were no other enemy units around.

I just laughed and shut the game off.

Now I'm seeing posts about tanks moving fast and scoring hits on moving enemy vehicles from a long distance?

Hey, I love this game, but isn't something wrong? :confused:

New screenshots of CMBB look great. Really looking forward to it.

[Sparky Rat]

although ive onlr been able to suffer thouirhg half of the posts it felt i must get my 2 cents worth in.

this whole thread reeks of "whaaa, my tanks got killed , whaaaaaaaaa!"

there is 1 and only 1 point; ITS A GAME. its not real life and it never will be real life there is no possible way it could ever totally simulate reality because there is no possible way to take into acocunt all the possiblities that real life can. AND when you get right down to the most basic parts, its still just a game.

cordialy yours,

Sparky

PS, dont bother replying to me because i will more than likely not be returning to this thread, or for the same reason, go ahead and flame.