• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

"Distance is not a range" a gunnery guide for Soviet WWII Tank simulator

"Distance is not a range" is a guide for WWII Soviet armor simulator gun sights and covers 20 different tanks. Unlike Germany or the US, the Soviets during WWII had many different gun sights, all based on the Stadia metric system. "Distance is not a Range" is the explanation of the stadia metric system, how to apply that system to Soviet sight successfully to increase the accuracy of each shots, to reach an average of one shot one hit instead of 3 shots one hit, in SP or MP confrontations.

This book represent a year of full time labor of research, writing and drawing. I am happy it is finally published.

For a more complete review, you can also Google it, where parts of the book are reproduced.


Sincerely,

Links for the cover/teaser:

Download Link:
http://www.4shared.com/photo/YxidZAqyba/SKU-000969768_COVER__2_.html

Direct Link:
http://www.4shared.com/download/YxidZAqyba/SKU-000969768_COVER__2_.jpg?lgfp=3000

Enjoy!
 
https://books.google.pl/books?id=KbXGCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1
I see nice stuff is coming :cool:
What will be possible price of e-book?
Hello Morticore,

The book is already for sale from Lulu.com, Amazon.com,...

The prices are : Hardvover: $28.85
E-Book: $ 3.00

Parts of the books are reproduced when you GOOGLE it and also in Amazon (US). So between GOOGLE, Amazon and the cover, it offers an accurate preview of how the book is written and what it is about.

Thank for being interested in my work.

PFC
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This book just gives a basic insight into the MILS system, for beginners i would certainly recommend it. However it is very superficial and does not go into technical and scientific detail too much. Furthermore, it just perpetuates myths without using any real reliable data on the actual AFVs and it gets its information almost exclusively from questionable secondary sources (not to mention that there is actually no true Tanksim out there to begin with, perhaps only Steel Beasts ProPE which is modern warfare. Steel armor is cold war and Kharkov 42 made a lot of embarrassing mistakes including utilizing wikipedia as their source :rolleyes:).

5/10
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GunnyHighway
Upvote 0
Read again. I merely stated that Steel Fury Kharkov 1942 used Wikipedia sources and that there is no realistic WW2 tanksim to date which does everything correctly (impossible anyway, not to mention that Ro is not a tanksim and depicts mechanized warfare rather poorly). There are people who are part of the HCsim genre for over decades (military, engineers, historians, so this does not make you unique in any form or way). Mils is a unit of length, 0.0254 mm for one unit or 1/6400 in angular measurement. The text does not provide an indepth definition (for example the swiss 32" system) or its mathematical derivation. Short: It is trigonometry, chronometry/RADs formed into a simplification by using the intercept theorem (as a handy tool for the commander, today you have IRLS and a ballistics computer), minimalizing the angle necessity (ever heard of limes?). That is more than just giving people [MILS/1000 = width on the straight/distance to target] (the term "mils system" exists and it was written in capital letters in the handbook).
There are just blatant statements (not even comparisons) about "this is better than that" by using russian terms and thinking "must be original because i used them to impress people", basically something anyone who read Tankovy udar could do without looking at TOE or providing any combat values (for example values the russian military or dupuy institute use). It felt like reading some lines directly taken from people like Samsonov or Kadidal. In other words: Bias. Experts on tanks (just to name a few) would be Ian Allen (partially, made also tons of mistakes), Isaev, Zaloga, Michulec, Kavalerchik etc etc for the Germans it would be Spielberger and Jentz (or getting information from the "Fibels") - others generally base their knowledge off mindfarts.
Another thing. Personal attacks will only reveal your true intellect and might seem like a distraction. For your information: I am not from the english speaking world and you should be open to criticism (especially when advertising something in this forum). Your postulation makes people think that Soviet sights were unique and differed substantially from others in that era which is wrong and another oversimplification - the only difference lies in the so called "Gitternord", grid imaging. Furthermore, the Soviets primarily adopted German, French, British and American systems and struggled with their optics during WW2 until maybe 44 after introducing the TSh-16 stated in their own sources. I could go on for hours and hours but i would have preferred a bit more NARA, ROSarchive/TSAMO, Askey or Journal of Slavic Military studies data but that would go far beyond the things gamers are looking into.
Additionally, i would like to point out that the A-32/T34 series has more deficits than just a missing radio (at least till 43) which pretty much sums up the quality of the presented content.

Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GunnyHighway
Upvote 0