Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'atg'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • CM2
    • Combat Mission - General Discussion
    • Combat Mission Shock Force 2
    • Combat Mission Final Blitzkrieg
    • Combat Mission Black Sea
    • Combat Mission Red Thunder
    • Combat Mission Fortress Italy
    • Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
    • Combat Mission Shock Force 1
    • Combat Mission Afghanistan
    • Combat Mission: Touch (iOS / Android)
    • Combat Mission 2 Archives
  • CM1
    • Combat Mission Campaigns
    • Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
    • Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
    • Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord
  • Repository Updates
  • Strategic Command
    • Strategic Command - World War 1: The Great War 1914-1918
    • Strategic Command - Assault on Communism
    • Strategic Command - Assault on Democracy
    • Strategic Command - GLOBAL CONFLICT
    • Strategic Command - PACIFIC THEATER
    • Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg and Weapons and Warfare
    • Strategic Command 1
    • StratCom Design Challenge
  • TacOps
    • TacOps 4
  • General Discussion Forum
    • General Discussion Forum
  • Opponent Finder Forums
  • Archives
    • CM Archives
    • T-72: Balkans on Fire!
    • Dan Verssen Games
    • Theatre of War
    • DropTeam
    • Assault Wave
    • Empires of Steel
    • PT Boats

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location:


Interests


Biography


Location


Interests


Occupation

Found 3 results

  1. Hello, I know that there have been some very intense discussions in the past about the modelling of ATGs in CM, primarily related to their concealability, the speed at which they can be manhandled by their crews (including rotation) and their deployment/packup times. One of the more significant discussions can be read in this very well represented thread: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/111333-at-guns-problems-and-how-to-solve-them/ I have had reason to question various aspects of the way CM models AT guns recently. A PBEM opponent of mine in a QB actually recently posted about the "concealability" (or lack of) of four Flak38 88m guns that featured in a QB we recently played. We discussed his post after the battle and we both considered how things might have gone had he in fact used 75mm Pak40 ATGs instead of the Flak 88 guns. The Pak40, based on tests, seem to have a huge advantage over the Flak 88 as far are concealment. We both tended to agree that ATGs in general seem to "have it tough" in CM for some reason and not just in concealment. Movement speed, deploy/packup time. To make matters even more grim for ATGs, the latest CMBN patch 3.12 actually, (for some unknown reason) has reduced the rotation speed of ATGs. Does anyone know why and what the basis of this change in the latest patch anyway? Regardless, I went ahead and just did some investigating and testing myself. First of all, I checked the rotation speeds of a deployed 75mm Pak 40, a Flak 88 and a Flak 37. The results are as follows: To rotate 180deg: Flak 37 = 12sec Flak 88 = 32sec Pak40 = 43sec NOTE: WynnterGreens rotation speed tests conducted in that thread above lists the speed of rotation of a Pak40 in that version of CMBN as being an incredible 114sec to rotate 180deg! BFC must have found reason to increase the rate of rotation of a deployed Pak40 since that thread by about 265%. However as mentioned, as per patch 3.12, they have now seen reason to however reduce the rotation speed of all AT guns (can't check yet as I have yet to install the patch). I am curious to know what reasons they had for that. I haven't found any reference to compare these values against but I have found these videos of a surviving Pak40 being handled by re-enactors on flat ground that is more wet/soft/slippery than it is hard/dry. (I do not think these videos of a Pak40 being handled were ever referenced in the thread I linked above. Similar videos were shown but of a Pak 37mm ATG), Throughout the video they do not seem to be in any haste at all and seem to be going a a rather calm/relaxed pace. I could only imagine that in a combat situation, they would not be so calm/relaxed/unhurried as they are in the videos you will see. starts at 2:05 This video clip shows an undeployed Pak40 being rotated 180deg in about 12 seconds. Compare that to 43 seconds in CM for a deployed Pak40. For what it's worth the Pak40 is not deployed either at the start of it's rotation or at the end of it's rotation whereas the CM Pak40 in the test was. How much does this matter? Hard to say. Curious, I did another CM test this time with an undeployed ATG. It took 37sec, which is still over twice what we see in the video. But it was when I compared the speed at which the undeployed Pak40 was being moved by it's crew of six along the wet (almost muddy) grassed ground (might even be on a slight incline) that I just had to compare this to what we see in CM. It is very easy from the video to get a very accurate/precise estimation of the speed at which the crew are moving the ATG at what appears to be a very average/casual/relaxed speed. This speed turns out to be about 67m/minute. starts at 1:43 If you check the speed at which an undeployed Pak40 in CM can be moved in one minute on even flat dry paved roads, they move no faster than 16m/minute! That's about 24% of the relaxed pace you see in the video (or four times slower). Interesting to note that infantry in CM on dry paved ground walk at about 56m/minute. NOTE: According to tests conducted by WynntrrGreen during the writing of the thread I linked above (basically whatever version CMBN was in Nov 2013), the speed of moving a Pak40 was then 8m/minute which is an astounding 8x slower than what you see in these videos. Since that thread, BFC apparently saw reason to double the speed at which a Pak40 can be manhandled/moved. If this doesn't raise the questions as to the appropriateness/accuracy of the movement speed assigned to at least the Pak40 in the game, then I don't know what else would. The only explanation I have is that in the game, the wheels of the ATGs do not rotate when they are being moved so maybe BFC are actually modelling the speed at which ATGs can be moved/dragged with wheels locked! (OK I am being silly here but if that were the case then the in game movement speed seems realistic enough!) The mass of an AT gun definitely figures in to how "easy" it is to manhandle, but so do the size/width/type of wheels mounted to them (ground pressure), it's geometry and location of centre of mass . To keep things in perspective, here are the masses of key representative AT guns and other heavy things on wheels (albeit 4 wheeled varieties) you may have had to push around at times: Pak36 37mm (light): 327kg "combat" or 450kg "travel" (not sure what "combat" and "travel" weights are...I'm guessing "travel" includes ammo. 327kg sounds precise ie. of gun alone) Morris Mini-Minor: 650kg Pak38 50mm (light-med): 830kg QF 6pdr (med): 1140kg Compact car: 1354kg Pak40 75mm (med): 1425kg Midsize car:1590kg Midsize truck or SUV: 1936kg Large car: 1985kg 3inch Gun M5 (med): 2210kg Large truck or SUV: 2460kg QF 17pdr (heavy): 3050kg Pak43 88mm (heavy): 4380kg We all know many people have chimed in on various threads about the modelling of ATGs in CM in the past. From what I have read, the overiding reason given to explain why ATGs are significantly less "mobile" (at least up to 4 times less in the case of a Pak40) as what you see in videos like this is because "if modelled ATGs were more mobile players would "abuse" them" or some other "game specific" reason/justification not based on actual field data. Significantly under-modelling the mobility of AT-guns across the board in CM has typically caused players to ignore the large variation in actual local mobility amongst the different sizes of these weapons and the significant tactical advantages these differences would otherwise infer to some of the smaller calibre weapons. The under modelled mobility of the lower calibre AT-guns results in all AT-guns being treated as if they are the same thing: A static weapon that once deployed is going nowhere and just waiting to be die in place. I think if the local mobility of a Pak40 or anything lower should be a factor in the units tactical deployment and survivability. I am sure there is data/records/doctrine that would confirm the local mobility of these assets as being part of their tactical deployment. Consider tactical ambushes where you might have a med-light AT-gun in wait out of LOS behind cover (such as a building, crest etc), with it's ammo crew slightly forward spotting enemy, ready to give the signal for the weapon to be quickly pushed only a few metres forward into a deployed ambush firing position perhaps behind a hedge fire a few shots, then perhaps be pulled back out of LOS within a reasonable tactical time frame, to be redeployed elsewhere or to avoid the inevitable "whack a mole routine" of incoming arty that is such a staple of CM gameplay. CM under-modelling of AT-gun mobility simply did (does) not even make this kind of utilisation of these weapon systems possible. It really is a drag knowing that the only way to really use any AT-gun in CM is to just find a spot on the map that has both LOS to potential enemy and has some local concealment/cover, plonk it there, and hope and prey it doesn't get spotted before it has a chance to at least take a shot at an enemy. Being able to tactically deploy it in defilade and quickly move in and out from a firing position would greatly increase the survivability and effectiveness of otherwise "sitting duck" med-light AT-guns. Probably can get this discussion going in the right direction by asking the following question: What core data/source/information/modelling have BFC primarily used to base/assign movement speeds/rotation speeds/deploy/packup speeds of say the Pak40 (and all other ATGs for that matter) on? If it has ever been presented I have yet to see it.
  2. CMFB relevant discussion at CMBN forum: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/122944-atgs-again/
  3. In a failed attempt to locate firing footage of the US M5 3-Inch Gun, I came across this mostly right survey (doesn't understand effective range vs max range) video, which has lots of grog juiciness. Sadly, the ATGs go up only to 37 mm as far as footage, and somehow the 57 mm is skipped altogether in stills and video, but there is footage of both the 57 mm and 75 mm recoilless rifles. Regards, John Kettler
×
×
  • Create New...