Matrix Games Forums

Originally posted by hammerhead:
OK. I may be confused here but all I could find for the 88 that resembled an AA gun was the 88mm FLAK 18 "AT" ...

There's an "AT" and an "AA" version in the OOB, which describe basically the same gun, but with different ammo loads and some tweaked stats to reflect the "prime use".

The "AT" version is classed as "AT-gun" and has more AP shells; it will show up in the At-Gun selection.

The "AA" version is rated as "heavy AA" and will only show up in a special "88 AA battery", it has very few AP shells at all and some modified RgF/FC value to make it more suitable to the AA role.

Remember - the AT gun will not shoot at a/c !!

The "range" given in the unit stats is never either the maximum range or the effective range you may find in a technical description/manual, but depends on various factors.

Arralen

hammerhead: If I recall correctly, the original complaint was that the 88 had too great a range. No, in fact it's actually too short id we're comparing it's range to it's role against enemy air. I would certainly suggest that while the 88 may have had the longest range or similar to other heavy guns, it couldn't shoot as far horizontially as vertically and achieve a smidgen of accuracy. The 80 range you pointed out is probably quite fair for it, however, as I said, the range is quite moot anyway, because it bascially cannot exchange fire with it's lengthy range.

On the subject of the US 90mm, it probably doesn't deserve the 88 flak's range, but it's still superior beyond the range of the current maximum visibility, so that it too is being punished so to speak, and has to exchange fire with mere 37mm (some of them have range of forty with maximum visibility of 45).

Few people know this, it would appear, and I didn't know it until recently, but the Germans actually had an 128mm flak gun as well, but you never hear many stories about "the dreaded 128", as I would suspect the Germans never used it in an AT role, or did so, so infrequently, that it was only if it was stuck in a city's AA defense and found itself being stormed by ground forces, at the same time there were no air units to shoot down.

.

Originally posted by Charles22:

Few people know this, it would appear, and I didn't know it until recently, but the Germans actually had an 128mm flak gun as well, but you never hear many stories about "the dreaded 128", as I would suspect the Germans never used it in an AT role, or did so, so infrequently, that it was only if it was stuck in a city's AA defense and found itself being stormed by ground forces, at the same time there were no air units to shoot down.
[/B]

Yes thats right, the 10,5cm and 128mm Flak guns were orgenised in GrossBatterien for the protection of German cities. From what i can surmise they were quite effective against allied raids. I think they were radar controled, but i dont now. Anybody got any information on German fire control radars?

------------------
Divide et Impera
Daniel E

Hammerhead
I find two more reasons why German equipment are a bit overrated.

1.
US kit is well known, both pros and cons so it is easier to treat them correct.
If the tracer is spent at 1500 meters this is a good argument that the effective combat range is aprox 1500 meters.
Few are familiar with German kit so it's harder to prove that teoretical values are wrong.

2.
Military history is full of overrated but defeated enemies. it is understandable that the victor tries to focus on enemy strenght rather than their own failings.

If we want a Historical correct outcome you either reduces US Kit and keeps the Experience factor or Improves the Kit and lowers the Exp.

I feel that most US game designers favors to blame the engineers designing the weapon systems rather than the men fighting and dying.

From sources like Max Hastings, Keegan etc. I got the belife that most US officers had less time in training than the average German counterpart had combat experience.
This and the Western Allieds respect for own losses, In the game a US GI should cost five times the price of a German.
The Allied did not want to waste lives while the Germans had twelve years of "Nothing for You, All For Germany" Propaganda to stiffen
the resolve to sustain casualties.
And of course this can't be changed with keeping play balance as long we want to play
Meeting engagement with same number of build points. The "true value" option is in the right direction but does not model the reluctance to get your men wasted.
To model that you need a Buy point and a Killed Point(enemy VP) value for each unit.
Example:
US Inf Buy 3, Killed 15
US M4 Buy 35, Killed 8 (Ie the Vehicle doesn't count for VP, it just the men)
GE Inf Buy 2, Killed 4
USSR Buy 1, Killed 1(0.5?)

(This can be done in the Scenario editor but not in generated battles)

/John T.

Originally posted by Arralen:
There's an "AT" and an "AA" version in the OOB, which describe basically the same gun, but with different ammo loads and some tweaked stats to reflect the "prime use".

The "AT" version is classed as "AT-gun" and has more AP shells; it will show up in the At-Gun selection.

The "AA" version is rated as "heavy AA" and will only show up in a special "88 AA battery", it has very few AP shells at all and some modified RgF/FC value to make it more suitable to the AA role.

Remember - the AT gun will not shoot at a/c !!

The "range" given in the unit stats is never either the maximum range or the effective range you may find in a technical description/manual, but depends on various factors.

Arralen

Yes. yes. I know about the difference in the game between the AT and the AA guns. But this is not quite relevant to my point.



------------------
"Mediocrity carries its own price."
It is my pleasure to communicate with you.
Greg - "Hammerhead"

Originally posted by Charles22:
hammerhead: If I recall correctly, the original complaint was that the 88 had too great a range. No, in fact it's actually too short id we're comparing it's range to it's role against enemy air. I would certainly suggest that while the 88 may have had the longest range or similar to other heavy guns, it couldn't shoot as far horizontially as vertically and achieve a smidgen of accuracy. The 80 range you pointed out is probably quite fair for it, however, as I said, the range is quite moot anyway, because it bascially cannot exchange fire with it's lengthy range.

On the subject of the US 90mm, it probably doesn't deserve the 88 flak's range, but it's still superior beyond the range of the current maximum visibility, so that it too is being punished so to speak, and has to exchange fire with mere 37mm (some of them have range of forty with maximum visibility of 45).

Few people know this, it would appear, and I didn't know it until recently, but the Germans actually had an 128mm flak gun as well, but you never hear many stories about "the dreaded 128", as I would suspect the Germans never used it in an AT role, or did so, so infrequently, that it was only if it was stuck in a city's AA defense and found itself being stormed by ground forces, at the same time there were no air units to shoot down.

.

GI's called any german direct fire cannon an "88". The 128 was the gun used on the Maus, which was an experimental German tank not actually in production by the end of the war.



------------------
"Mediocrity carries its own price."
It is my pleasure to communicate with you.
Greg - "Hammerhead"

Originally posted by John T:
Hammerhead
I find two more reasons why German equipment are a bit overrated.

1.
US kit is well known, both pros and cons so it is easier to treat them correct.
If the tracer is spent at 1500 meters this is a good argument that the effective combat range is aprox 1500 meters.
Few are familiar with German kit so it's harder to prove that teoretical values are wrong.

2.
Military history is full of overrated but defeated enemies. it is understandable that the victor tries to focus on enemy strenght rather than their own failings.

If we want a Historical correct outcome you either reduces US Kit and keeps the Experience factor or Improves the Kit and lowers the Exp.

I feel that most US game designers favors to blame the engineers designing the weapon systems rather than the men fighting and dying.

From sources like Max Hastings, Keegan etc. I got the belife that most US officers had less time in training than the average German counterpart had combat experience.
This and the Western Allieds respect for own losses, In the game a US GI should cost five times the price of a German.
The Allied did not want to waste lives while the Germans had twelve years of "Nothing for You, All For Germany" Propaganda to stiffen
the resolve to sustain casualties.
And of course this can't be changed with keeping play balance as long we want to play
Meeting engagement with same number of build points. The "true value" option is in the right direction but does not model the reluctance to get your men wasted.
To model that you need a Buy point and a Killed Point(enemy VP) value for each unit.
Example:
US Inf Buy 3, Killed 15
US M4 Buy 35, Killed 8 (Ie the Vehicle doesn't count for VP, it just the men)
GE Inf Buy 2, Killed 4
USSR Buy 1, Killed 1(0.5?)

(This can be done in the Scenario editor but not in generated battles)

/John T.

Hastings and Keeting are both quite questionable sources for an evaluation of US training, morale, and effectiveness. They are both British and have made some rediculous statements about almost every aspect of the French campaign. Thier defense of Monty in most cases is pure poppycock! See Carlo D'Estes books ...in particular "Decision in Normandy" I find most British publications lack authority and contain poor bibliographys and source data.
BTW The Brits still keep their archives on WW2 sealed. Tip of the day.

As far as your numbers for buys and kills ...although I play these games a lot, I would have to spend some good amount of time in determining whether such a scheme would be valid.


------------------
"Mediocrity carries its own price."
It is my pleasure to communicate with you.
Greg - "Hammerhead"

Originally posted by BA Evans:
Hey Hammer,

If you want to help with the OOB 'clean-up' process, become familar with the way the OOB works (stats., formations, unit type, etc.)

This way you can offer 'improvements' instead of 'critisisms.' Instead of saying that the Tiger tank's armor is wrong, tell us how how it is wrong (be specific) and tell us exactly which game stats. to affect. Something like, "The Tiger tank's front turret armor should be increased to 176 @ 12% slope because such and such source states that the armor mantle covered the entire front of the turret."

I think that you will have more success with this tactic. By giving us detailed information we will be able to examine the specific game mechanics involved. After consulting the available sources, we can probably do a good job representing the unit in question.

BA Evans

Very well, here you are!

I had said in an earlier post that I would compile a list of 'constructive inputs' to the US OOB/t/o&e issues I had mentioned I felt needed LOTS of work. However, in order to be taken seriously about some of the problems and my proposed solutions, I feel that professionally accurate methods of authorities should be used. Therefore it will not be possible to provide a list of summarized "constructive inputs" as each issue should contain as many authoritative sources as I can gather.

Below I address the 90 mm M3 US Antitank gun.

Using both official and unofficial sources:

"United States Army in WW II - The Ordnance Department -Planning Munitions for War" , Green, Thompson, and Roots. Office of the Chief of Military History, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C. 1955.
We have, "For when firing the most powerful ammunition, tungsten carbide core [ which the US held a far larger quantity the Nazis], the most powerful German tank gun [excluding the 128mm Maus gun -only experimental before the end of the war], the 8.8cm Kw.K.43 (L71) of the Tiger II, or Royal Tiger - and the U.S. 90-mm. gun M3 - of the gun motor carriage M36 and the Pershing tank - had almost identical velocities: the German [8.8cm] gun obtained 3,240 f/s and the American [90mm] 3,350 f/s."

And from, "Standard Catalog of US Military Vehicles -1940 - 1965" , T Berndt. Krause Publications. 1993.
We have, "The main armament on the M26 Pershing was a 90mm [same 90mm M3 as on the M36 Jackson] with a muzzle velocity of 3350 feet per second; it could penetrate about seven inches of armor at 1000 yards."

And from a British publication [always questionable]: "The Tank Story - History of the World Wars" , Ed; A. Kershaw. BPC Publishing, London. 1972.
We have, "Moreover, its [Pershing] 90mm [M3] gun enabled it to outshoot its main rival, the German Tiger Mark VI." Rarely do the Brits give any credit to US arms!

While the SP W@W menus provide incredible differences in these two guns in terms of range and penetration. [Sorry if the matrix below gets messed up. This is not wysiwyg. But I hope you get the idea.]

Gun Range Penetration

Kw.K.8.8cm 88 or 80 hexes 35/225


M3 90mm 56 hexes 35/147
177.8mm@1000yards
per sources above.

I do not know [as I write this post] what the SPW@W penetration numbers convert to in terms of millimeters. But the other numbers provided on the 90 and 88 must now come into question in my mind - such as the fire control and accuracy of these guns.
I will agree that the US avoided using sabot rounds, as they were dangerous to handle. The attitude of the Germans were somewhat different ...and example is that during the war some 15,000 German soldiers were executed for "punitive reasons' , whereas the US shot one and the Brits shot some 100 soldiers.

My research shows that the data on these guns as provided in SPW@W are inaccurate. Such significant errors ( two of the most important guns on tanks in WW2) should be addressed. IMHO. It and other such errors as I have seen have led me to the radical idea that the Nazi weapons have benefited from a certain bias in subject game[s]. This may be due to a lack of interest in US weapons by game designers, . This may be due to the easier availability of books and lastic models on German weapons. Or it might be that as youngsters we all just thought the German stuff was somehow cooler, and never grew up, or had the frame of mind and skill to investigate our own country's weapons systems. Or we just thought that the Nazis were Neato. I find the wealth of knowledge on the German stuff and the disinterest or lack of knowledge on the US stuff a little disturbing.

I anticipate some irrelevant arguments to these data, but I feel that those who wish to get to the bottom of such issues will respond appropriately. Since such research is time consuming, and since I am not a member of your staff [no time to meet your work hour requirements] I hope you who are able to, and have the authority to do so, will respond appropriately.

I intend to bring other issues to your (forum) attention as I have time to do so [and you have the patience to allow]. As a retired engineer in the American defense contractor field, I like to get stats and data correct ....whether the government stipulates so in his contract, or not.

Again...DO NOT MISREAD ME! I love these games. But I have no pity on the guy who will be broken hearted if his neato Nazi weapons are not as cool and 'superior' as he might wish.

I do feel that many of the earlier egregious errors in the SP games have been corrected. To wit: -10 for German artillery and air crews late in the war, fair acc and fc on the US 37 mm gun, fair treatment of the Bofors 40mm gun. Better treatment of the US 76 mm and 3 inch AT guns, and much more.

However, I think there is still a lot to be done! But, based on some of the responses I have gotten [ not yours!], I wonder if some of the folks on the forum are understanding what I am trying to say.

Tip of the day.
Did anyone know that the engine for the FW 190 came from an American design?




------------------
"Mediocrity carries its own price."
It is my pleasure to communicate with you.
Greg - "Hammerhead"

Originally posted by hammerhead:
Below I address the 90 mm M3 US Antitank gun.
...
I do not know [as I write this post] what the SPW@W penetration numbers convert to in terms of millimeters.

Millimeters.

It and other such errors..

You yourself are in error - you better have a closer look .. the M3 gun is rated with PenAP 185.

as I have seen have led me to the radical idea that the Nazi weapons .

These where GERMAN weapons, not necessarily NAZI weapons.

Not every german was (or even is) a nazi.

If you continue to call all Germans "Nazi", I'll start taking this personally ...

A distant relative of mine ended up as a tanker in the SS - he wasn't even "in the party (?)" ... he even didn't wanted that war but had the choice to either serve as a tanker or be shot .. he choosed to serve, and as he did well, he was send to the SS div. as a "reward".

He ended in the SS because short time after his "promotion" he was captured by the Red Army and shot for wearing the black uniform.
(At least, I hope he was shot emidiatly )

Did anyone know that the engine for the FW 190 came from an American design.

Really? Who cares? And how many designs based on some german invention?

Stefan (Arralen)

Sorry - I don't have much time to respond lately, but wanted to quickly chime in here.

The M36 seems to have the wrong 90mm gun designated. THis will be fixed, but hopefully one can understand the problems trying to rate everyt weapon form every country to the level of detail we have tried to go here. 10's of thousands of data points, even if we are 99% accurate hundreds will have typos, like the M36 given weapon 64 instead of 65. I'm sure this will get fixed.

To the specific point, Please read the designers notes and look back at some of the threads on how the weapons are rated. IT is not just by using "book" penetration data.

One can't just take book numbers and compare them at ace value becasue every country had different (and sometimes multiple) definitions of "penetration" that differed in effect by 25% or more. The data I have from multiple sources indiates teh 88 had significantly better AP penetration than the M3 - an example is the www.wargamer.org/GvA data, several other sources corroborate this data. The figures used in the game are backed off form 30 degrees vertical slope at 500m to o slope at 0 meters using the same proceedure for all weapons. The result is consistant - but generally will not match any book data exactly (much of which compares apples to oranges based on differeing definitions of penetration).

The game uses a database of "book values" and two different threoretical estimators to come up with penetration. Fire control and accuracy are guesstimates. There is simply insufficient data to reliably set accuracy numbers that aren't skewed by crew proficiency, so these are often based on the original values in the game extended. FOr every instance of a gun being "accurate" are anecdotes to the contray, so barrel length and muzzle velocity are used to baseline raw gun accuracy. Using www.wargamer.org/GvA data as an example - the 88 APCBC ammo MV=1000m/sec down an L71 barrel, while the M3 APBC MV was 808 m/sec down an L52 barrel. Given that data I fudged the M3 to the HIGH side becasue I felt it was more accurate than the raw numbers gave it credit for.

There is no "ground truth" metric that can be objectively be debated, hence you have the editor to change them to your taste.

But one needs to be careful to judge context when throwing quotes around, and in the context of rating scores of weapons for many of which there is little or no data, a schem of rating values based on info common to them all must be used. That means outliers will exist, and many of those have been argued vociferously (see tiger front turret debate:-) and we change things as deemed appropriate by the OOB working group.


As to OOBs and formations one has to remeber that we are under some severe limits based on what teh game allows us to do. We can't just change EVERYTHING as teh bugs that crop back up after being stomped, and persistant "toughies" point out. SO we have to live with "inaccuracies" form strict history (which I would argue is in many ways moot becasue "book" TO&E went out the window by contact with the enemy...but we need some sort of baseline and "book" TO&E - or as close as we can come was chosen. We also have a body of scenarios with which combatibility must be maintained.

I submit given the time expended and scope of work undertaken, that the current result is about as accurate as can be had, and we will continue to improve them - a process that could easily take years as data is found and reviewed and discussed.

We welcome questions about where the stats come from, and strive to make the OOB's better, but they can never be "perfect" only interanlly more consistent...

...but I do take a bit of offense to being caste a Nazi-phile. I did all the weapon numbers and have gone out of my way sometimes to give credit to the US and UK equipment even when the raw data tended to indicate otherwise. Honest disagreements ABOUT DATA are welcome, but lets keep the snide remarks out of technical debate, eh Greg?



[This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited October 17, 2000).]

I agree with Paul, Nazi and German are indeed two different things but for the sake of brevity are often used interchangably on this board. Let's all play nice and not get into splitting hairs, because for all intents and purposes for the years 1933 to 1945, all Nazi weapons were German, and all German weapons were Nazi.

Not true for people, as most were not in the Party, but weapons were a different story as not too many private citizens bought and paid for a Tiger II or a Flak 88.

Just my thoughts...

JIM

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
Sorry - I don't have much time to respond lately, but wanted to quickly chime in here.

The M36 seems to have the wrong 90mm gun designated. THis will be fixed, but hopefully one can understand the problems trying to rate everyt weapon form every country to the level of detail we have tried to go here. 10's of thousands of data points, even if we are 99% accurate hundreds will have typos, like the M36 given weapon 64 instead of 65. I'm sure this will get fixed.

To the specific point, Please read the designers notes and look back at some of the threads on how the weapons are rated. IT is not just by using "book" penetration data.

One can't just take book numbers and compare them at ace value becasue every country had different (and sometimes multiple) definitions of "penetration" that differed in effect by 25% or more. The data I have from multiple sources indiates teh 88 had significantly better AP penetration than the M3 - an example is the www.wargamer.org/GvA data, several other sources corroborate this data. The figures used in the game are backed off form 30 degrees vertical slope at 500m to o slope at 0 meters using the same proceedure for all weapons. The result is consistant - but generally will not match any book data exactly (much of which compares apples to oranges based on differeing definitions of penetration).

The game uses a database of "book values" and two different threoretical estimators to come up with penetration. Fire control and accuracy are guesstimates. There is simply insufficient data to reliably set accuracy numbers that aren't skewed by crew proficiency, so these are often based on the original values in the game extended. FOr every instance of a gun being "accurate" are anecdotes to the contray, so barrel length and muzzle velocity are used to baseline raw gun accuracy. Using www.wargamer.org/GvA data as an example - the 88 APCBC ammo MV=1000m/sec down an L71 barrel, while the M3 APBC MV was 808 m/sec down an L52 barrel. Given that data I fudged the M3 to the HIGH side becasue I felt it was more accurate than the raw numbers gave it credit for.

There is no "ground truth" metric that can be objectively be debated, hence you have the editor to change them to your taste.

But one needs to be careful to judge context when throwing quotes around, and in the context of rating scores of weapons for many of which there is little or no data, a schem of rating values based on info common to them all must be used. That means outliers will exist, and many of those have been argued vociferously (see tiger front turret debate:-) and we change things as deemed appropriate by the OOB working group.


As to OOBs and formations one has to remeber that we are under some severe limits based on what teh game allows us to do. We can't just change EVERYTHING as teh bugs that crop back up after being stomped, and persistant "toughies" point out. SO we have to live with "inaccuracies" form strict history (which I would argue is in many ways moot becasue "book" TO&E went out the window by contact with the enemy...but we need some sort of baseline and "book" TO&E - or as close as we can come was chosen. We also have a body of scenarios with which combatibility must be maintained.

I submit given the time expended and scope of work undertaken, that the current result is about as accurate as can be had, and we will continue to improve them - a process that could easily take years as data is found and reviewed and discussed.

We welcome questions about where the stats come from, and strive to make the OOB's better, but they can never be "perfect" only interanlly more consistent...

...but I do take a bit of offense to being caste a Nazi-phile. I did all the weapon numbers and have gone out of my way sometimes to give credit to the US and UK equipment even when the raw data tended to indicate otherwise. Honest disagreements ABOUT DATA are welcome, but lets keep the snide remarks out of technical debate, eh Greg?

[This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited October 17, 2000).]

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
Sorry - I don't have much time to respond lately, but wanted to quickly chime in here.

The M36 seems to have the wrong 90mm gun designated. THis will be fixed, but hopefully one can understand the problems trying to rate everyt weapon form every country to the level of detail we have tried to go here. 10's of thousands of data points, even if we are 99% accurate hundreds will have typos, like the M36 given weapon 64 instead of 65. I'm sure this will get fixed.

To the specific point, Please read the designers notes and look back at some of the threads on how the weapons are rated. IT is not just by using "book" penetration data.

One can't just take book numbers and compare them at ace value becasue every country had different (and sometimes multiple) definitions of "penetration" that differed in effect by 25% or more. The data I have from multiple sources indiates teh 88 had significantly better AP penetration than the M3 - an example is the www.wargamer.org/GvA data, several other sources corroborate this data. The figures used in the game are backed off form 30 degrees vertical slope at 500m to o slope at 0 meters using the same proceedure for all weapons. The result is consistant - but generally will not match any book data exactly (much of which compares apples to oranges based on differeing definitions of penetration).

The game uses a database of "book values" and two different threoretical estimators to come up with penetration. Fire control and accuracy are guesstimates. There is simply insufficient data to reliably set accuracy numbers that aren't skewed by crew proficiency, so these are often based on the original values in the game extended. FOr every instance of a gun being "accurate" are anecdotes to the contray, so barrel length and muzzle velocity are used to baseline raw gun accuracy. Using www.wargamer.org/GvA data as an example - the 88 APCBC ammo MV=1000m/sec down an L71 barrel, while the M3 APBC MV was 808 m/sec down an L52 barrel. Given that data I fudged the M3 to the HIGH side becasue I felt it was more accurate than the raw numbers gave it credit for.

There is no "ground truth" metric that can be objectively be debated, hence you have the editor to change them to your taste.

But one needs to be careful to judge context when throwing quotes around, and in the context of rating scores of weapons for many of which there is little or no data, a schem of rating values based on info common to them all must be used. That means outliers will exist, and many of those have been argued vociferously (see tiger front turret debate:-) and we change things as deemed appropriate by the OOB working group.


As to OOBs and formations one has to remeber that we are under some severe limits based on what teh game allows us to do. We can't just change EVERYTHING as teh bugs that crop back up after being stomped, and persistant "toughies" point out. SO we have to live with "inaccuracies" form strict history (which I would argue is in many ways moot becasue "book" TO&E went out the window by contact with the enemy...but we need some sort of baseline and "book" TO&E - or as close as we can come was chosen. We also have a body of scenarios with which combatibility must be maintained.

I submit given the time expended and scope of work undertaken, that the current result is about as accurate as can be had, and we will continue to improve them - a process that could easily take years as data is found and reviewed and discussed.

We welcome questions about where the stats come from, and strive to make the OOB's better, but they can never be "perfect" only interanlly more consistent...

...but I do take a bit of offense to being caste a Nazi-phile. I did all the weapon numbers and have gone out of my way sometimes to give credit to the US and UK equipment even when the raw data tended to indicate otherwise. Honest disagreements ABOUT DATA are welcome, but lets keep the snide remarks out of technical debate, eh Greg?

[This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited October 17, 2000).]

It seems my efforts on this subject are perhaps fruitless. I am not talking about "Perfection". I am talking about getting things right as well as one can expect. I put a great deal of my own rather precious time into attempting to address ONLY ONE of the errors I see in this game. It was suggested here that I provide 'constructive ' and detailed input into these 'apparent' or percieved errors. 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?

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.
I might add that unless the US 90mm shell was far larger than the 88mm, which seems to make little sense, or the German [ don't say the "N" word ] shell was somehow far more areodynamic than the Ami shell, the laws of physics require the ranges to be somewhat the same ... not 33 percent different. I was talking about range. That is all.

It is becoming clearer to me with responses of each post that, to change the mind-set of this group may take more time and patience than I can muster.

Again, I realize the immense amount of work that goes into the process of making this game real. I have enormous respect for those who work on it day in and day out. I was only trying to correct, one by one, the detailed errors, as I thought it would improve the quality of the game. I have no axe to grind and no vendetta to pursue. And I do not wish to creat one here.

As far as 'snide' remarks... I can only say that such was not my intention. I used the term for the Germans that was used by Allied soldiers throughout the war. Apparently this has become unacceptable with this gaming group. I continue to puzzle over the favoritism and admiration most gamers seem to have for the German [don't say the "N" word] army and equipment, while being surprisingly ignorant about their own nation's soldiers and armament.

If such issues cannot be discussed here, where a game displays an SS soldier [Nazi] on its opening screen, I must say that this also puzzles me.

I spent a year living in Germany with German friends and relatives, touring in Europe, and interviewing German soldiers and SS soldiers. They all admitted that during the war they felt love and absolute support for the Fuehrer and his goals. This was not coerced. This only changed as they realized they could not win the war. If they were fooled, they were fooled as a nation, by their leaders, whom they elected.
As I have still many friends in Germany, I can say with some certainty that THEY would be concerned if people in the US failed to learn from Germany's mistakes. If calling the weapons and armies and slave labor that fed and supported them during the war a NAZI system makes anyone on this Forum upset, then I would suggest that they look into their own hearts and minds, [or simply request that I be removed from the list]or perhaps read a few more words about what course Garmany took willingly during the war and where it got them. If history must be blurred to allow some to be comfortable while playing these games, then so be it.
As for me, I have no problem enjoying the game and respecting some of the awesome weapons and excellent command system and soldiers that were produced under the Nazi regime. But my eyes are not dimmed as to how they came about. I have read hundreds of books on the subject, and had thousands of hours of talk with those who were subjected to the regime or were willing members of it.

So no more 'snide' remarks from me. It's just real difficult to read some of the complacent remarks by some.

This will be my last comment on the subject. [Whether it be by my removal from this forum or my own promise to avoid this puzzlingly uncomfortable subject.]

I will stick to writing lists of the corrections I feel need addressing in the game.

I will provide no source references unless they are requested.

I will become poitically correct and not use the "N' word.

I will be a good soldier.



------------------
"Mediocrity carries its own price."
It is my pleasure to communicate with you.
Greg - "Hammerhead"

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).]

hammerhead: I don't kow if you realise it or not, but though some US soldiers might have referred to all AT fire as 88s, they weren't all the same gun, even if what was shooting at them was an 88. The 88 on the Tiger is quite different from the one on the flak gun, which was different from the one on the King Tiger, and so on (sometimes the only real similarity was the size of the shell, but the velocity and barrel length were another thing entirely.

As well, if you're suggesting that since the Maus didn't see action, that the 128mm flak gun never saw action, that is quite erroneous. I would also suggest that the Maus gun wasn't the same as the 128mm flak. As with the 88 comparison above, it was likely just the same shell, but I would suspect it had nowhere near the barrel length the flak mount had.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Charles22:
hammerhead: I don't kow if you realise it or not, but though some US soldiers might have referred to all AT fire as 88s,

One might suppose that the average US tanker was no different from a Canadian tanker.

According to a report "Analysis of 75mm Sherman Tank Casualties Suffered Between 6th June and 10th July 1944" in which the REME studied 45 destroyed tanks, 82% of those hit by AP fire were from 75mm (77% penetration) and 18% from 88mm (18% penetration).

In a note it states "estimates by fighting soldiers were found to be unreliable since many reported they had been knocked out by an 88, when in fact it had been 75mm shot, while the reverse mistake has not yet been discovered".

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pbear:
Thank you, from what you are saying there is no restriction on which OOB you use to create a unit such that the Italian OOB could be used to make new German units. Correct?

Yes in scenario design, if you want, you can create a German unit with Italian weapons from the Chinese OOB- so long as the China OOB has those Italian weapons available. However, I believe the Germany national characteristics will apply to the new unit and not the China characteristics- and of course you would want to change the name of the leader.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dice4Eyes:
Yes thats right, the 10,5cm and 128mm Flak guns were orgenised in GrossBatterien for the protection of German cities. From what i can surmise they were quite effective against allied raids. I think they were radar controled, but i dont now.

I spoke recently with one veteran of such a battery. He was stationed in Denmark. He told me that although he (and the rest of his crew)was only 16 years old, the 10.5's were easy to use and they could shoot down Allied bombers as well as any other crew. He did not mention radar.

Regarding 128 mm German flak-gun.
That is NOT the same gun as used in the Maus or jagdtiger, same caliber but quite a different mount.

Originally posted by hammerhead:
If such issues cannot be discussed here, where a game displays an SS soldier [Nazi] on its opening screen, I must say that this also puzzles me.

This is one place where I fullhartedly will support Hammerhead. *The Logo* Does look like a Waffen SS Recruitment Poster.

I Does *not* imply that anyone at matrix are nazis, just that the logo put SS in the limelight and the Limey are in the background. You are looking for trouble, not only by Political correct Americans, but from most who understand what tremendous effort the Nazi party invested in their symbols.

(IMO The Best logo of all SP games are the one used by the Franko-Russian edition.)


Cheers.
John T.

Man, we all just gotta relax a little. Everyone likes the German (Nazi is a party, not an army. I think when people say Nazi, they are likely refering to the SS, which is an army, no direct connection with the party per se) side when playing the game because they have the coolest toys. You do have to respect the engineering and leadership of the German army and its resourses.If Germany had the resourses the Americans or other allies had, they would have won the war without question, in my mind. Near the end of the war Tigers and Panthers were being abandoned on the battle field for lack of Gasoline. I know this thought is uncomfortable for many people but I beleive it to be true, Germany, with its technology and military prowess, should have won the war (yes, a few very bad mistakes on the part of High Command did not help matters). Have you ever heard of an ex Tiger commander saying he was scared when he saw an American Sherman? No. Ever hear his counterpart say he was scared when he saw a Tiger? You bettcha.

My point is that this game accurately portraits the one sidedness of the military tools at each participants disposal. By having the German machines kick ass is not Nazism or any other such fool thing, its just history. In fact if anything, the game is in favor of Allied weaponary. Even with that, when playing German v Allies, you have to really pile on the Allied troops or the game is a walk over.

One final thought...People, if you want history, I posted some really great sites about the second world war a few days ago, go have a party and experience all the history you want. Dont try to recreate it in a game. This is an excellent game that really should be more about stratagy and defeating an oponet, just like chess. The fact that it is based on historical events is really the bees knees, but we cannot recreate history. No matter what you do with your troops on the board it will not be the same as history, it will always be loosely based on it.

So relax, have fun and stop trying to change a game that is closer to perfection than any game I have ever seen. (Now look, you guys got me into a rant, I hope your happy )

surfer

I'm sorry, I gotta make just one more point about people saying the game is too one sided towards Germany. A 30 year old tiger tank platoon commander scored 129 kills in one day not long before the battle for Caen. He was awarded the Knights Cross and was shortly thereafter killed at the battle of Caen. He faced a Canadian company the day he got all his kills, many of them were Canadian, like me, and the prisoners were not treated too well at all, many were killed out right. This does not make this guy any big hero in my eyes to say the least, but, Damn, you gotta respect those 129 kills in one day. Just goes to show, the German machines could really kick butt. (I hope I got the history right, I'm sure someone will correct me if I dont )

[This message has been edited by silentsurfer (edited October 18, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by silentsurfer (edited October 18, 2000).]

A small bit about logos/symbols here. The subject of the SS soldier has come up. Yes, it is actually from a SS recruitment poster. On the other hand, the side of the helmet you are seeing actually has occultic runes, as indeed is the swastika. I'm not sure, but it seems to me as though the SS had the SS runes on both sides of the helmet, whereas, if we had a picture of a normal Wehrmacht soldier there, one side had a swastika on it; surely more indicative of Nazism than the runes we are seeing on this page.

[This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited October 19, 2000).]