Mobius' Dispatches from the Front

April 18, 2018
I thought I was done with the NAAB2.0 update but two things keep it going.   One is that it was requested that I add a bombing section.  This seemed a possibility by using homogeneous penetration calculations for deck armor.  Then use the ballistics from a free fall from the apogee of a ballistics curve.  This proved possible and the bombing section is in testing.   The other is that Nathan Okun said the program is missing the FaceHard 7.9 update.  I'm still looking into this as there are several sections of FH that are rewritten and I'd have to test my translation from BASIC. 
One difficulty I have with the bombing logic is what to do with GP/HE bombs when confronted with two armored decks.  With AP and SAP shells it is pretty easy.  Use the remaining velocity and exit angle from upper deck penetration to attack the lower deck.  Right now the GP/HE bomb attacks the upper deck with kinetic energy then attacks the lower deck with explosive energy.  But, that supposes that the bomb does not detonate in the space between decks.  Some decks have larger spaces than others.  This may not have an engineering solution but a probability solution.

April 11, 2018
One question that was asked was why is Face hard penetration more than homogeneous penetration.   Shouldn't it be harder to penetrate face hard armor?  I suppose it should be but a capped shell will penetrate more facehard armor but the cap slightly absorbs some energy in homogeneous armor.  At least that is what calculated armor penetration puts it.  Here is a link to a comparison of armor penetration for 76mm and 90mm tank guns.

April 8, 2018
So the Naval Armor and Ballistics program update is complete.  Link to NAAB2.0 download.

March 27, 2018
More work is being done on Naab 2.0 and further testing.  Here is a look at the documentation for the project.  Link

March 19, 2018
The update of NAaB 2.0 is winding down.    The project has taken longer than I hoped.  Now, working on stuff outside the last version.  Making up HE penetration.  There is a formula for that but I found it doesn't jive with my data.  I am trying to match it up with TM 9 1907 firing tables of concrete penetration.  If concrete is 1/15 the armor of armor.  Now there is some debate of the concrete to armor multiple so 1:15 is my compromise.  One online table has it at 1:10.  The FaceHard program itself rates cement as 1:25 of armor, while TM 9 1907 armor to concrete ratio of AP gun penetration is 1:6.  The other problem hcwclcr unlike Facehard rates all shells as perfect indestructible bodies.  But there are Common, and SAP shells which are weaker than AP,  So, I may have to add some factor to weaken these.

March 4, 2018
Been working on this project for over a month now.   I hate programming.  It is too consuming of my time.  I work on it to the detriment of any life outside programming.  Well the hcwclcr was fixed and NAaB is almost done.  It needs some more testing and cleaning up,   

Feb. 6, 2018

The HCWCLCR armor penetration program into windows is on hold. After converting it to TP I used the code to create a Delphi windows program,  Unfortunately there seems to be a bug HCWCLCR so I have to await an update on that before I can complete it.

Jan 22, 2018
I'm trying to complete another project which is translating Nathan Okun's HCWCLCR armor penetration program into Turbo Pascal.  It eventually  will be converted to Delphi windows program to be incorporated in NaaB.  The Naval Armor and Ballistics program.   Right now it

is going slowly as old BASIC isn't the easiest to make into a structured program.
Jan 16, 2018
The sighting error system is being updated.     The 'Research' link shows the menu of the ballistic engine listing some of the standard deviations of the range error of German sights.   The values are partially based on British Error Estimation memo AORG #514 excerpt to the right.  Per conversion the standard deviation is 1.25331 times the mean deviation. 
If one is interested it can be seen the 'even chance' is the 50% zone and this is 1/2.438 x the 90% zone.   This is important in converting British 90% accuracy deviation to 50% zone deviation.

Nov. 16, 2017
New rule in Panzer War, Command Range.
  This is not Communication range which is a physical element, but is more of an awareness range.  A range that a command element could determine the whereabouts and
predictability of sub unit actions.  There is no morale breakdown when sub units are beyond this range but the sub units actions are delayed half a turn.   This idea comes from the computer game and hopefully will work in the miniature table.

August 8, 2017
It looks like there was no merit to the British data on the dispersion of the KwK 42 shell. Miles Krogfus came through with the actual firing table for the gun. H. Dv. 119/325 link

July 24, 2017
The idea of having a two tier ranging error based on the sight range is a no go.  Sight pictures for sights where the text says they only go to 1500m or some small distance shows they are calibrated beyond 2000 and many cases
3000m.  The text on the Russian SU-152 sight, ST-10 says it's range is 900m and the ST-18 is up to 1500m.  The sight itself reveals that it is calibrated to over 5000m.  This is optimistic to say the least.  So I guess I'm back to a single standard deviation for a sight.   Now this assumes the sight pictures found on World of Tanks or War Thunder are accurate.  The text descriptions of the sights on these two telescopic sights say that they have limited range but the periscope sight goes to 5000 meters.  Maybe the game makers melded the two sights into one for game play.

July 17, 2017
Page 32 has a picture of the updated menu for the Ballistics program.   The range estimation error is now a product of the guns sight of the weapon.  The base factor starts off as Field of View times magnification x ratio of calibration range.  Then other subjective factors like milli-radian, glass clarity or range and lead marks ease of use.  This yielded a single factor.   But, I was thinking that it might be two factors.  One would be a ranging error up to the limit of its range calibration then thereafter there would be a higher ranging error as the gunner would have to estimate the range even more.  This would result in a step in the to hit curve where the first ranging error ends and the second begins and continues. 
Then there's the problem that if they have say a range error do they know when they are beyond the range marks of their sights?
This may be over thinking something that is more in the realm of crew quality and not tank attribute.


June 14, 2017
Working on updating Naab naval ballistics program.   It is based on an old version of Nathan Okun's facehard basic