I have done that, using as a first example obvious error regarding the M3 gun as a first test of the good will of that request. I assumed it was not just a rhetorical proposal?
And I tried to point out using techincal data why it is not so obvious that there is an error, and in fact it appears that you are in error.
I was not providing data about penetration and plate angle test varacity or type of ammo or any other technical information or test results. I was simply stating that three sources agreed on the matching power of the 90mm and the 88. The penetration value technical assessment or non technical, was not anywhere in my text. The only statemnet regarding detailed and tested performance was regarding muzzle velocity. This came from tests performed by the US Army during the war. It did not measure penetration to any angle or accuracy or any other aspect of performance. It stated that the muzzle velocity of the 90 was slightly better than the 88. That is all.
The first case compares 88 APCR and M3 HVAP. Guess what they both have penetration 255 (which the game converts to 310 or so +/- 10%) and the M3 has a LONGER range than the 88. 50 to 45 hexes. What's the problem, seems to be as you suggest it should be!!
If you take 310mm at 0m (assuming the usually 30 degree angle to the vertical most tests use) that converts to about 162mm or about 6.3 inches at 1000yards (+/- 10%) so that is a little less than the 7 inches, but if you assume a vertical plate that goes up to nearly 8 inches, so I seem to have bracketed your 7 in number.
The third quote doesnt indicate the mark of Tiger, the Tiger I was the predominant model so comparing the M3 and 88L56 in APCBC performace is not bad:
M3 Range - 64, accuracy 24 and pen 185
88L56 Range 64 accuracy 27, pen 150
In fact the penetration is a good bit better on the M3, and the accuracy a shade better on the 88. I could see arguing that the acuracy on the M3 is a bit low, 25 might be better assuming parity in MV and the barrel length is the main difference. But one can split hairs forever +/- 1 or 2 on these things...
You also continue to use the wrong 90mm gun for comparison, (admittedly the wrong was was given to the M36 - Pershing has the correct one) the range of the M3 is 64 hexes, which one could argu could be increased to 72 (at that distance the program uses steps of 8 hexes), but again based on muzzle velocity difference of nearly 20% (comparing APCBC shells) , one might expect the effective range to differ by a like 20%?
If you want to try to educate then, please try to get the facts straight. A little examination would have shown that the game supports your contentions nearly exactly!
I accept that your intention might not have been to offend, but understand that when you imply that the game designers are at best "not grown up" or "lacking knowledge" and at worst have a "pro-Nazi bias" how that that can raise ones hackles.
We've had the "Geramn/Nazi" debate ad nauseum and I am not trying to invoke that, other than to point out I have done the best job given the data available of compiling and evaluating it with a PRO ALLIED bias if anything in evaluating the data.
Out of respect for the various sensitivities of people on this forum we have tried to minimize the use of the "Nazi" to generically describe the German Army. Just like many Japanese take offence to being called "Nips" or "Slopes". Feel free to open that debate again. But its not going to change the fact that many view the label like an epitaph, for good or ill.
No one (well I at least) am not trying to erase NAZI from the vocabulary, just offereing that a littel sensitivity goes a long way. I meant only to distance myself from a "pro-Nazi" moniker you seemed (and I accept that I perhaps misunderstood you) to want to stick on the game designers.
You seem to be put out that we aren't hailing your "obvious errors" with a slap on the head - you do point out the M36 has a typo, but your other arguments to not hold up to scrutiny.
We welcome folks pointing out errors, but I would hope that the depth of analysis that was done to use hard data to come up with the numbers in the game would be given more than a cursory glance before "obvious" errors are driven home with such conviction.
As to "banning people from the forum" - that will NEVER be done over a difference of opinion!!!
[This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited October 17, 2000).]
See Carlo D'Estes books ...in particular "Decision in Normandy" I find most British publications lack authority and contain poor bibliographys and source data.
) 
)