Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sign in to follow this  
chebuRUSHka

How not to post in Mechanized Warfare

Recommended Posts

I really don't understand your objection.  Part of the reason for this is that you are monumentally bad at communicating in English, but I see that you are broadcasting from a German IP, so that is understandable.

If the Germans are using a 50% hit criterion for their gun accuracy tests, while the Soviets are using a dispersion criterion, what is wrong with determining what the man dispersion is and saying that's the 50% limit?  All artillery manuals I've read from the 1940s assume that shell error is normally distributed, so the method should be a statistically sound means of converting dissimilar data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Collimatrix said:

I really don't understand your objection.  Part of the reason for this is that you are monumentally bad at communicating in English, but I see that you are broadcasting from a German IP, so that is understandable.

If the Germans are using a 50% hit criterion for their gun accuracy tests, while the Soviets are using a dispersion criterion, what is wrong with determining what the man dispersion is and saying that's the 50% limit?  All artillery manuals I've read from the 1940s assume that shell error is normally distributed, so the method should be a statistically sound means of converting dissimilar data.

This is where I'm at too. 

The discussion about optics seems rather odd too as he seems to be comparing early Soviet optics to later war German optics. Nevertheless I don't see a reason why German optics would be markedly superior based on anything other than hearsay, which we all decided to disregard. Also later war optics in German tanks really didn't mean a whole lot, even if they were better, because of the lack of a gunner's periscope to actually find things to shoot at. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

 The tanks were shipped to the US in 1942, before the allies had captured any tanks that would have the TZF 9, and before the TZF 12 was even introduced into service!

Which means, even if we ingore the lack of evidence behind the claim, the statement "T-34 optics were the best of those known worldwide" is a meaningless anectode parroted by slavaboos.

Quote

Your examples of the TZF 9 and TZF 12 gunsights are irrelevant.

The anecdote is irrelevant, not my objection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, chebuRUSHka said:

Which means, even if we ingore the lack of evidence behind the claim, the statement "T-34 optics were the best of those known worldwide" is a meaningless anectode parroted by slavaboos.

The anecdote is irrelevant, not my objection.

So kinda like claims that German optics were the best? 

"Slavaboos" doesn't sound ethnocentric at all by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

If the Germans are using a 50% hit criterion for their gun accuracy tests, while the Soviets are using a dispersion criterion, what is wrong with determining what the man dispersion is and saying that's the 50% limit?  All artillery manuals I've read from the 1940s assume that shell error is normally distributed, so the method should be a statistically sound means of converting dissimilar data.

The problem is that you can't compare deviations values for the 50% criterion directly with ones for "Срединное отклонение". You need to multiply by 2 first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bronezhilet said:

Really now?

Nice made up quote. Unable to read the entire sentence? Some people in this forum are just monumentally bad at reading English.

2 hours ago, chebuRUSHka said:

Actually you didn't provide anything but the report's name. Too bad quoting an unsubstantiated report doesn't prove anything and satisfies the definition of hearsay. You really don't know how to handle historical data.

Btw the German WW2 optics which are considered to be the best, were not built by Zeiss. You really know nothing about this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, chebuRUSHka said:

The problem is that you can't compare deviations values for the 50% criterion directly with ones for "Срединное отклонение". You need to multiply by 2 first.

You're terrible at communicating, and what you say doesn't make any sense.

I am going to patiently explain why you're terrible and suck, and if you don't start improving I am going to take unfair and hilarious punitive measures, like editing your posts in ways I find humorous and disallowing you to edit them yourself.  This is more warning than anyone deserves or generally gets, but it's monday and I'm lazy and hungover, so I have no inclination to do more productive things than argue on the internet.

Which value needs to be multiplied by 50%?  Why?  As EE explains it, the Soviet criterion is a circle within which you would expect 50% of the hits to land (it's exactly the same thing as Circular Error Probable).  The German criterion is a rectangular shape within which you would expect 50% of the hits to land.  Nothing about this screams that there is a dropped factor of two in this conversion.

If you actually have a point, you need to clearly and completely articulate it, or nobody will take you seriously.  If you complain that nobody is taking you seriously, you should seriously consider the possibility that you suck at communicating.

If, for instance, you had pointed out that German AFV optics had thin-film electro-deposited coatings while others did not, and linked this excellent report on the history and physics of thin-film optical coatings, that would have been a useful contribution.  Or if you had found a table comparing light transmission of AFV optics (these exist, some of the Aberdeen reports measure it, for instance).  Or magnification vs field of view.  Any of those things would have contributed to the conversation.

But you haven't contributed at all.  You have claimed that there are "facts" backing up your point of view, but you have so far refused to provide them.  That's youtube comments section level of retarded flailing.  I have no time for youtube comments section retards.  So shape up or suffer my depravity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bronezhilet said:

Wow, you really are Grade A Retard. Do you know how English grammar rules work? Apparently I dont, so please, please, enlighten me.

I'm a Grade A retard, because you misquote me an leave out the important part of the sentence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, chebuRUSHka said:

I'm a Grade A retard, because you misquote me an leave out the important part of the sentence?

 

1 minute ago, chebuRUSHka said:

It's pretty obvious i don't think all German ww2 optics were the best, so that interpretation is not possible.

See these?  These are strikes one and two.  Your posting still sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, EnsignExpendable said:

Contemporary report by expert = meaningless anecdote

A guy on an internet forum = rock-solid fact

http://www.75thguards.com/ww2online/downloads/Zheriz_Ziess_Sight_Guide.pdf

http://www.liberatedmanuals.com/TM-9-258.pdf

http://www2.avs.org/historybook/links/tfexh96.htm

https://archive.org/details/GermanTechnicalAidToJapan

  1. Best coating
  2. Lanthanum glass
  3. triangles which made range finding easier
  4. better combination of mangification and FOV

All facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

 

See these?  These are strikes one and two.  Your posting still sucks.

I stated that i don't consider the TWZ-1 to be one the best sights. The TWZ-1 was a German sight. Therefore we know i don't consider all German sights to be the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your first link is a guide to a game called Battleground Europe.  Your second link is a general primer on optics design, and the only time the document contains the word "German" at all is in reference to Johannes Kepler.  Your third link is a piece of general information on thin-film coatings in optics.

None of this supports your assertion that German coatings were "the best."  None of the documents even mention lanthanum.  Soviet optics also had stadiametric rangefinders, which would you know if you had read anything that actually compares German and Soviet gunsights.  None of these documents compare magnification and field of view.

Stop posting useless shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:


Which value needs to be multiplied by 50%?  Why?  As EE explains it, the Soviet criterion is a circle within which you would expect 50% of the hits to land (it's exactly the same thing as Circular Error Probable).  The German criterion is a rectangular shape within which you would expect 50% of the hits to land.  Nothing about this screams that there is a dropped factor of two in this conversion.

I didn't write anything about "multiplied by 50%". I wrote " You need to multiply by 2 first " and i was talking about the deviation values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, now we're getting somewhere.  You're right, I mistyped, but in fairness, if we're trying to compare one data sets on a relative basis, multiplying one by 2 is the same by multiplying the other by .5.

Now why would the deviation values need to be multiplied by 2?  What is the mathematical basis for this assertion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

Your first link is a guide to a game called Battleground Europe.  Your second link is a general primer on optics design, and the only time the document contains the word "German" at all is in reference to Johannes Kepler.  Your third link is a piece of general information on thin-film coatings in optics.

 

The first shows how ranging with the triangles works.

Generall information is usefull too.

I'm still adding sources btw.

You deny the fact Germans used Argon gas to create ultra thin coatings or that those were better conventional coatings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe stop posting until you actually have some sources that prove your statement? That's how the rest of us do it.

We're aware of general information. Focus on posting things that actually back up what you are claiming. If you have generally interesting documents, we have a different thread for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, EnsignExpendable said:

Maybe stop posting until you actually have some sources that prove your statement? That's how the rest of us do it.

We're aware of general information. Focus on posting things that actually back up what you are claiming. If you have generally interesting documents, we have a different thread for that.

Where's your source? Make an image of the part of the aberdeen report which is supposed to proof that the T34's optics were the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By Peasant
      > A6M Zero
      > Yamato
       
      Oh.
       
      Zeroes main issues in combat had a lot more to do with situation, pilot training, flying culture of IJN air arm, and technological issues. In reality, the Zero could fight toe to toe with an F6F.
       
      Technological is radio issue, leading to difficulty co-ordinating battles.
      It might not help the Japanese used a lot of hand signals in dogfights, so when the Americans increased the battle area by going faster and higher, they ran into serious issues.
      Stuff like splitting up Japanese fighter groups was much easier than it's American counterpart.
      Also being handicapped by weak engine tech.
       
       
      Yamato best BB ever built.
×
×
  • Create New...