Georgie Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 I wonder if in CMFI there has been any changes made as to weapons effectiveness. Especially the ATGs and tank guns? Are any changes needed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 I wonder if in CMFI there has been any changes made as to weapons effectiveness. Especially the ATGs and tank guns? Are any changes needed? I don't believe ATGs and tank guns need much in the way of tweaking. I haven't seen any suggestion that BFC do, either. Unless you're talking about firing on the move, and I've not seen any news that they've solved that little wrinkle yet, which I think would have been prominently featured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 Off the top of my head I cannot recall being informed of any weapons changes, I can't recall any requests for weapons changes either. Even with the new weapons, which is a bit of a surprise, nobody has posted a "Woa, what happened there?" complaint. Solothrun anti-tank rifle does just about what you'd expect it to do, 37mm and 47mm guns seem to be operating pretty much to spec. Which is a good thing, they've had a lot of new-and-interesting stuff to code and test in the game. Having a stabile weapons penetration model has freed them up for more pressing concerns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 There is an on-going discussion in the CMBN forum on sub-machine gun and light machine gun vs. heavy machine gun effectiveness. There does seem to be some room for improvement there. Cannon fire seems solid enough, but there are a couple of issues with armor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgie Posted July 8, 2012 Author Share Posted July 8, 2012 Having a stabile weapons penetration model has freed them up for more pressing concerns. I recently made some tests utilizing the Panther and some US antitank guns and the results were both surprising and gratifying and I hope that they stay that way. So it is a relief that they are a result of using a penetration model and not biased by someones idea of what should happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 I recently made some tests utilizing the Panther and some US antitank guns and the results were both surprising and gratifying and I hope that they stay that way. So it is a relief that they are a result of using a penetration model and not biased by someones idea of what should happen. CM had, AFAIK, always used a penetration model for projectile-armour interactions. Right from CMBO; it was kindof the point. Or have I been drinking the Kool-Aid again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgie Posted July 8, 2012 Author Share Posted July 8, 2012 CM had, AFAIK, always used a penetration model for projectile-armour interactions. Right from CMBO; it was kindof the point. Or have I been drinking the Kool-Aid again? No, come to think of it, your right AFAIK. But, the model seems to have been altered a bit in "my favor" much to my delight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 No, come to think of it, your right AFAIK. But, the model seems to have been altered a bit in "my favor" much to my delight. Heh. Is suspect you can be smug that what you would have "favoured" was closer to the reality of AP-armour performance then, since the extra 10 years research should have brought things closer to real life performace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgie Posted July 8, 2012 Author Share Posted July 8, 2012 Heh. Is suspect you can be smug that what you would have "favoured" was closer to the reality of AP-armour performance then, since the extra 10 years research should have brought things closer to real life performace The test that I ran was to see how easy it was for a tank to spot an ATG but was surprised at the outcome. I used a map, 320mx1100m with a 50m elevation at one end. I selected for the Germans two Panthers of the common model for the game and for the US I selected three 57mm ATGs. I placed the two Panthers on the 50m elevation and the ATGs on the flat at about 1050 or so meters away. I ran the test in "hot seat" several times with the same result. Give it a try, you will, I think, be surprised. I never ran this test in CMBO but will as I am curious if there has in fact been a well researched update in this area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Give it a try, you will, I think, be surprised. I never ran this test in CMBO but will as I am curious if there has in fact been a well researched update in this area. Ah, I have too many other things on the go... How about you give us a summary;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgie Posted July 10, 2012 Author Share Posted July 10, 2012 Ah, I have too many other things on the go... How about you give us a summary;) Hello ian.leslie and womble and all others, I been off the net for a day or so but back on. The test was as follows. 1100m x 320m map with a 50m elevation at one end. Placed two Panthers on the elevation facing the low end of the map and 3 57mm AT guns at the other end about 1050 or so meters away and facing the 50m elevation. Ran the test several times in " hot seat". The Panthers never did , as far as I could tell, spot the guns. The guns spotted the Panthers right away and all were soon on target. The Panthers tried to shift position to get away from the fire but there was no place to hide. The stress level of the Panther crews was maxed out and the 57s finally killed both Panthers without a shot being fired from the Panthers. Flank shots, I couldn't tell, killed the Panthers? I ran this test several times on several different occasions with the same results. Ran the same test, as close as I could get it, with CMBO and the Panthers destroyed all three guns with no problem. I love CMBNs version and its one reason that I like large or huge scenarios. The gun vs tank encounters are different and seem more real to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Hello ian.leslie and womble and all others, I been off the net for a day or so but back on. The test was as follows. 1100m x 320m map with a 50m elevation at one end. Placed two Panthers on the elevation facing the low end of the map and 3 57mm AT guns at the other end about 1050 or so meters away and facing the 50m elevation. Ran the test several times in " hot seat". The Panthers never did , as far as I could tell, spot the guns. The guns spotted the Panthers right away and all were soon on target. The Panthers tried to shift position to get away from the fire but there was no place to hide. The stress level of the Panther crews was maxed out and the 57s finally killed both Panthers without a shot being fired from the Panthers. Flank shots, I couldn't tell, killed the Panthers? I ran this test several times on several different occasions with the same results. Ran the same test, as close as I could get it, with CMBO and the Panthers destroyed all three guns with no problem. I love CMBNs version and its one reason that I like large or huge scenarios. The gun vs tank encounters are different and seem more real to me. Wow. And people say ATGs don't get a big enough "camo" bonus when they're set up at scenario start. I might just play with my firing range and see when the Panthers actually do start to spot the 57mms... What experience and leadership level were your Panthers? Edit: although... if those Panthers were on a 50m "step", it might be that they simply couldn't look down that far. I'll definitely be trying that in my firing range; I'll get back with results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgie Posted July 10, 2012 Author Share Posted July 10, 2012 Wow. And people say ATGs don't get a big enough "camo" bonus when they're set up at scenario start. I might just play with my firing range and see when the Panthers actually do start to spot the 57mms... What experience and leadership level were your Panthers? Edit: although... if those Panthers were on a 50m "step", it might be that they simply couldn't look down that far. I'll definitely be trying that in my firing range; I'll get back with results. I believe that I set them at Veteran and plus one which is normaly the way that I test equipment. And, to be more clear it was a 50m high slope rather than a step and the Panthers during the test made their way down to about the 30m point where they were destroyed during the last test. Some times they dont make it that far. And to be more exact there was no cover for the Panthers or the 57mms, just grass and flowers and weeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 I tried something similar. I have 15 2km lanes (of dirt bounded by high bocage), so I set up 15 57mm ATGs (Regular, Normal, 0) at one end and 15 Fanatic (so they won't fire if I tell them not to) Panthers at the other. 3 each of Elite, Crack, Veteran, Regular and Green. The better troops started seeing the ATGs at about 1725m. Given long enough, 2 out of the 3 veterans saw their target at 1500m. 10 minutes sitting still wasn't enough for the Greens and Regs. So I advanced them. At 1100m or so, the ATGs opened up, hitting, buttoning and stopping the advancing 6 panthers at ranges between 1000 and 1075m. Once buttoned up, the sole Regular who'd spotted his gun as they rolled that last 500m, couldn't see it any more, and after 5 minutes of being under fire only 1 Regular had spotted his gun again. One interesting observation. The Crack and Elite tanks who spotted their guns while moving at "Hunt" did not stop! I was under the impression that Hunt required the vehicle to stop when it identified enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgie Posted July 10, 2012 Author Share Posted July 10, 2012 I tried something similar. I have 15 2km lanes (of dirt bounded by high bocage), so I set up 15 57mm ATGs (Regular, Normal, 0) at one end and 15 Fanatic (so they won't fire if I tell them not to) Panthers at the other. 3 each of Elite, Crack, Veteran, Regular and Green. The better troops started seeing the ATGs at about 1725m. Given long enough, 2 out of the 3 veterans saw their target at 1500m. 10 minutes sitting still wasn't enough for the Greens and Regs. So I advanced them. At 1100m or so, the ATGs opened up, hitting, buttoning and stopping the advancing 6 panthers at ranges between 1000 and 1075m. Once buttoned up, the sole Regular who'd spotted his gun as they rolled that last 500m, couldn't see it any more, and after 5 minutes of being under fire only 1 Regular had spotted his gun again. One interesting observation. The Crack and Elite tanks who spotted their guns while moving at "Hunt" did not stop! I was under the impression that Hunt required the vehicle to stop when it identified enemy. Apparently the 50m elevation has something to do with the killing of the Panthers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Solothrun anti-tank rifle does just about what you'd expect it to do That's a piece of news I don't think was mentioned before. I didn't see any thing about anti tank rifles in the To&E. Mord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 That's a piece of news I don't think was mentioned before. I didn't see any thing about anti tank rifles in the To&E. The Italian AS.42 has a variant with the Solothurn ATR mounted on it. For now that is the only place it appears, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Yeah...I just read the other thread where it was mentioned. LOL...that's what I get for not reading all the threads first. I misread Mikey's post as well. I am getting dyslexic...LMAO I thought it said a solo-run-thru with the anti tank rifle... And, yes I am sober. Mord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Apparently the 50m elevation has something to do with the killing of the Panthers? It'll certainly have an effect on lethality, since the only Edit: frontal plate that can realistically be penetrated (as opposed to fluked, like a "Ricochet into top front") by AP (as opposed to APDS) rounds from the 57mm at that range is the lower front hull, and shooting uphill at the tanks makes hitting that plate more likely. My test didn't have enough firing in it to determine any kill rate at the given engagement range. I've seen 57mm empty their entire AP allocation at the front of a stationary Panther less than 300m away and not get a penetration (beyond the flukey first shot into the shot trap that persuaded the crew to unass the vehicle). I suspect that might be to do with the accuracy of the weapon at that range; aiming at centre of mass, they'll always hit it, meaning nothing will ever go in on the "lower front hull". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 womble, I'm one of those people, but the ranges I"m talking about for the self same 57mm are more like 300 meters--behind a wall, partially in a gully (with or without trees), in a crater, and so forth. Under those conditions, single ATG's are being eaten alive by buttoned Veteran Panther tanks while the latter are firing on the move. Those same Panthers are hitting M10s and Shermans which are hull down, considerably larger targets, granted, at something like 700 meters. Georgie, I take it from the way you describe your unclarity regarding where the Panthers were hit, that you didn't have Hit Labels turned on? This strikes me as a truly unfortunate loss of valuable test data. That said, it's entirely possible I missed something important in the narrative. Regards, John Kettler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 I'm reminded of a British report I saw long long ago about the life expectancy of anti-tank guns in western desert tank combat. If memory serves, I think they said a gun will fire an average of just six rounds before being knocked out. Of course a couple will fire many-many more and most won't fire any at all. But the average, or typical (I forget which) will only get off six shots. In Normandy towed anti-tank guns, which were fielded by the battalion, had a dismal kill record - mostly because so few enemy tanks ever crossed their paths Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 womble, I'm one of those people, but the ranges I"m talking about for the self same 57mm are more like 300 meters--behind a wall, partially in a gully (with or without trees), in a crater, and so forth. Under those conditions, single ATG's are being eaten alive by buttoned Veteran Panther tanks while the latter are firing on the move. Those same Panthers are hitting M10s and Shermans which are hull down, considerably larger targets, granted, at something like 700 meters. Oh hush. You've been told at least twice that firing on the move is an unfortunate abstraction. When BFC can find a way round it, they will. Hopefully "stopping to fire" will be in one of the engine updates, and if you're really lucky, they'll roll it into all the demos, though I doubt that. And even at 300m, unless it's APDS, they hit the shot trap (<1%, by my estimations) or the lower front hull (mostly getting spalling), they're irrelevant anyway til the tank turns. Be glad the kitty is using HE on 'em and not on your riflemen. Just assume the veteran crew hit the brakes hard, fired, got a first round hit and then hit the gas, real smooth, same as you have to envisage bayonet and entrenching tool work up close with infantry, or that your engineers are prescient about the mix of obtacles they're going to have to breach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 womble, There are two issues here, not one, only one of which is the firing on the move matter. What I want to know now is how a buttoned tank, lashed by MG fire, moving smartly cross country, is able to locate and instantly engage my antitank gun when I've made every effort to make it as invisible as possible, in order to have a chance to effectively engage an all but frontally unkillable target from a favorable aspect? MikeyD, That sounds like a JasonC post, but it could just as easily be Gabel's conclusion on towed TD effectiveness (including the 3-inch) in his Leavenworth monograph "Seek, Strike & Destroy." Combat ineffective compared to their SP brethren! Regards, John Kettler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 ...how a buttoned tank, lashed by MG fire, moving smartly cross country, is able to locate and instantly engage my antitank gun when I've made every effort to make it as invisible as possible... Was it behind bocage? Other foliage? Or was it just sticking over a wall/peeking over the lip of a gully? Cos neither of those give very good concealment at three hundred metre. Once it's located it, of course it's going to instantly engage it. Do tanks have some preternatural spotting abilities that seem to need toning down? Perhaps; there have been some good examples posted on this forum that have been called in for examination by BFC-istas. But your "examples" are not persuasive evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sand digger Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Was it behind bocage? Other foliage? Or was it just sticking over a wall/peeking over the lip of a gully? Cos neither of those give very good concealment at three hundred metre...................................... Why do you say that? Seems to me that the odds are they would not be spotted without very careful and thorough observation, if stationary and camo'd as they usually would be, but of course there is always some chance that they would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts