ALLIED : Gustav Line BETA AAR Round Two - Eye of the Elefant

[GreenAsJade]

Movie 49, 0:28-0:29

While we're on game mechanics, I do have an actual bug to report this turn.

As you know (if you read from the beginning) I did some preparatory testing of how this new machine the "AAHT" works before playing the game - figured out the ROF and angle of fire.

The nice thing is that it can fire through a very wide angle - right up to about 45 degrees of straight ahead.

Unfortunately, it gets stuck when on one side and ordered to swing to the other. Here we see an AAHT firing forwards at it's extreme limit of forward fire:

Now look what happens when it's ordered to fire on the other side:

... the gunner sits there "Rotating", but not moving. It's easy to see how this happens: the AI computes the rotation, then the gunner obeys, but his poor little AI brain doesn't know what to do next when the gun hits the stop. This doesn't happen if you order fire into an unavailable sector (eg straight ahead): then the driver turns the vehicle before the gunner starts rotation. The problem is only when the gun needs to go 'the long way around'.

Well, this is what happened to my AAHT in Tame this turn. It pulled out, but had the gun on the wrong side ... so it didn't commence area fire as ordered.

As a bug, it's not the end of the world: I'm sure it will be easy to fix, and to work around it you just need to give a fire order to the rear before changing sides. Something to be aware of if you've been inspired to try to use this beast more effectively than I've been able to

So back to the actual game: my M10 pulled back out of Tame without being wacked by the PzIVh, so that is something.

Bil is now taking advantage of his unfettered movement options up the middle, and it sounds like he's rushed a tank up towards to top of Tame. As I mentioned last time, I could hear it before, and tried to take a passing shot at it with my M10, by popping over into the cover of a building (cover from the right hand nasties, Elefant etc). But it moved forwards too fast: my M10 didn't get a look at it.

On the left, my forces in the valley are now encircled.

GaJ

[Michael Emrys]

Driving late at night on a highway that has almost no traffic, no lights, no nothing (I do like living in the woods!). I was alert, but my attention was forward to look out for deer/moose. Next thing I know there's a car passing me on my left. FREAKED ME OUT because I didn't notice it in the review at all, yet I check it constantly. You'd think it would be impossible for me to miss the headlights, but it happened. And I was relatively well rested, well fed, relaxed, etc.

Isn't it tragic when senility sets in at such an early age?

Michael

[poesel]

While we're on game mechanics, I do have an actual bug to report this turn.

Already reported

[John Kettler]

GreenAsJade,

I know BFC models a no shoot area to the front arc (shouldn't affect engaging slightly higher aerial targets) for your AAHT, but I wonder what might happen with your AAHT on a downslope. Would that angular difference be enough to unmask the weapon mount so that, say, targets across the dell on the next hillock could be engaged? In any event, the 3-view would appear to indicate the AAHT CAN shoot even dead ahead parallel to the ground. What it can't do is depress. for which the driver is doubtless grateful!

http://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints-depot-restricted/tanks/tanks-m/m16_gmc_halftrack-41062.jpg

Was the M10 crew drill stuff of any help to you in getting a handle on M10 spotting ability in the real world vs the game? From what I can tell, tweaks may be needed as to how this is handled in the game. From what I've read, you're also missing some heads when unbuttoned. I think it advisable for me, though, following my overdoing it a bit on the 3-inch AT ammo thread, to chill, regroup and carefully choose my next CMx2 "cause." I've said what I'm going to on M10 spotting.

Sorry you didn't frang anything with your all too rare firing! Most unsporting of Bil not to give you more targets to shoot at than he has so far presented!

Regards,

John Kettler

[c3k]

BTW, I have Alt-T'ed of course - I mostly play with trees on. There are leaves intervening, but no more than the amount that Bil's tanks had when they picked off mine.

Curse him and his hawk-eyed Nazi commanders...

GaJ

It's the monocles which give them the advantage.

[Michael Emrys]

It's the monocles which give them the advantage.

And the Schnapps. Mustn't forget the Schnapps.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks for the encouragement - sorry about moaning and groaning as I play your beautiful game. As I've said before, it's pretty hard not to moan and groan when you're being whupped. I am not complaining about the spotting mechanics, only my bad luck.

GaJ

Heh... well, someone has to lose, right? And I say that knowing that some of you would claim it is possible to have a Draw in CM. Well, technically I suppose that's true. But the way you guys fight to the death I think any senior level commander in real life would not see it that way

Keep your chin up. You'd not be the first guy to cause your opponent some serious losses in the final phase of a battle. Nothing like a cocky attacker losing more in the final 5 minutes than he did in the previous 50

Steve

[Thomm]

... this is a live battlefield and moving large objects at quite close range - 800ft. I don't hold with it being a difficult spot.

Reminds me of the recent video from the Turkish demonstrations in which a guy hiding behind a dustbin could not hear or see the police truck coming straight at him and hitting him in the end.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Morthomme]

Anecdotes about headlights aside this is a live battlefield and moving large objects at quite close range - 800ft. I don't hold with it being a difficult spot.

Non-spotting for non-moving targets for days or hours I have no problem with but not spotting vehicles moving close too!?

Hello,

Well i was a NCO in a French armor Rgt, i was in a recce platoon and i remenber very well not spotting moving AFV in gully before they moved out at 50 meters of my position.

Normally you heard motors noise or see gaz smoke, but sometimes wind and sun are not with you.

I think the CM spotting engine are good.

In an WWII AFV you have not a good fieldview, you didn't heard anything, and your generally very busy on your work. not very easy to spot another tank on the field.

Hope my english not to bad

Philippe

[womble]

...quite close range - 800ft...

That's not close. Any amount of dust or other obscurants, and the general noisy hell of combat, I'd be entirely unsurprised if an AFV wasn't heard or seen at that range. On a quiet firing range I'd be surprised if it wasn't seen at three times that, but on a battlefield, under combat stress? Not surprised at all.

[pord]

When there are multiple AFV's on the battlefield (friendly or not), I imagine it could be hard to pinpoint the location of a single one by sound even if it is close. I of course have no experience, so I could be totally wrong, but I have been around noisy machinery before.

[gunnersman]

Which map is this? Im having a heck of a time finding it. I've figured out its oriented N and S. I think it would be fun to do a replay of this battle.

[Hister]

Not included since it has never been finished.

[Michael Emrys]

In an WWII AFV you have not a good fieldview, you didn't heard anything, and your generally very busy on your work. not very easy to spot another tank on the field.

I think your comments are right on. But what players are reporting is that spotting from AFVs, especially closed, moving AFVs, is too good in the game.

Michael

[dieseltaylor]

Hello,

Well i was a NCO in a French armor Rgt, i was in a recce platoon and i remenber very well not spotting moving AFV in gully before they moved out at 50 meters of my position.

Normally you heard motors noise or see gaz smoke, but sometimes wind and sun are not with you.

I think the CM spotting engine are good.

In an WWII AFV you have not a good fieldview, you didn't heard anything, and your generally very busy on your work. not very easy to spot another tank on the field.

Hope my english not to bad

Philippe

Good to hear an original anecdote. And your Anglais is better than my Francais: ) Just a couple of queries. Was the gully to front or side? Was it a friendly tank? Was it unseeable in the gully from where you were situated? It might help me get a handle on RL.

[Battlefront.com]

Good to hear an original anecdote. And your Anglais is better than my Francais: ) Just a couple of queries. Was the gully to front or side? Was it a friendly tank? Was it unseeable in the gully from where you were situated? It might help me get a handle on RL.

I can't answer these questions, obviously, but I can say that this is pretty normal. Look at AARs and you won't have to look far before you find examples of close in surprises. Plus, as others have said, 800m is not close in

And why just look at combat situations? Look around in your regular life in the wonderfully peaceful country you live in. There's all KINDS of things you will find that support a more flawed spotting model than the one you think should exist. For example, how many people are struck by cars each year? And when they are struck, what do both parties usually say? "I never saw (person or car) coming". Drivers are supposed to be looking for pedestrians, pedestrians should be doing the same for cars.

Where I live my nearest neighbor is coincidentally about 800m distant through dense forest. Most of the time I can't hear anything that goes on there, but sometimes it sounds like their kids are in my back yard. I remember the first time this happened to me and I went to see if they were horsing around on my property. The whole time I walked through the forest towards the sound it was as if it wasn't getting any louder or softer. Then all of a sudden BAM... there they were in their own back yard. And the ONLY reason I homed in on them was because I knew exactly where their house was. If I hadn't, I think I'd have been in the woods for an hour instead of just 10 minutes.

My point is that any simulated environment that doesn't have a pretty wide range of possible effects on spotting would be a simulated environment not worth a damned from a realism standpoint.

Again, if anything our spotting system is more often unrealistically quick and exact than the other way around.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Again, if anything our spotting system is more often unrealistically quick and exact than the other way around.

I think that may be true, and especially so for sound contacts. Aside from being drowned out in the murk of competing noise, there is also the question of echoes, which in some environments can seem to be coming from all over the map and make it difficult to figure out what in direction lies the source.

Michael

[Vanir Ausf B]

Some forty German tanks were now clearly visible, and they were indeed busily engaged in destroying these guns. There would be nothing to stop them driving down to Tobruk harbour, only 3 miles away. We swung right into battle line.

I handed Milligan his cigarette, and told him to start shooting. There was no need for me to indicate the target to him. ‘Loaded,’ yelled Adams, and away went another solid shot, tearing at the thick enemy armour. The fumes of burning cordite made us cough, and our eyes water, and soon the turret was so thick with smoke that I could only just make out the figure of Adams as he loaded shell after shell into the breach. We were firing faster than ever before, and so were my other four cruiser tanks.

It must have been a minute before the Germans spotted us, and by then their tanks had received many hits from our shells.

-- Leakey’s Luck: A Tank Commander with Nine Lives, by Michael Carver

[silverstars]

Again, if anything our spotting system is more often unrealistically quick and exact than the other way around.

Steve

Especially infantry. Several books that I've read paint the picture to me that enemy infantry is neigh invisible almost all of the time, even in the midst of combat. Most of the time people are just shooting at the area they think the enemy is firing from, and by the time you are advancing, they are already left at that point.

And while I have never been in a combat situation, I have played a lot of Operation Flashpoint/ARMA. And even in a 100m close engagement, you will be lucky if you spot even one enemy to shoot at. And you almost never see the guy who shoots you.

Frankly, I wouldn't mind a concealment option for Infantry where if they aren't 50m or closer, on a paved surface of some form, or aren't running standing up at full tilt, they should just be a contact icon. Not exactly the most exciting replay to watch granted, but probably closer to the real deal that way.

[John Kettler]

Long Range Target Recognition and Identification of Camouflaged Armored Vehicles

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a077862.pdf

is a study prepared for the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Social and Behavioral Sciences by Human Resources Research Organization in 1979. It presents the results of literature research, scale model target identification tests and field tests on the effects of camouflage, background, target lighting and other issues as they relate to AFV detection and identification. Some insights follow.

"As Pabon1 reported, the Materiel Testing Directorate compared the performance of trained observers (ground and aerial) in detecting pattern painted versus camouflage-augmented M60Al tanks. The camouflage-augmentation techniques used were devices such as nets, brackets, and textured surfaces. Tanks were presented either stationary or in motion. The observers employed ground and aerial surveillance tactics and attempted to detect and identify the target within an array composed of tanks and distractors. The distractors were APCs and a prototype infantry fighting vehicle. The distractors were all pattern painted. The results were:

"Camouflage application degrades the detectability of the stationary tank for both ground and aerial observers.

" During the day the dust and noise signature cues created by moving tanks completely nullified the effect of camouflage.

During night observation trials both stationary and moving vehicles were approximately equally difficult to detect.

* The stationary pattern painted tank was identified more quickly than the stationary camouflage-augmented tank.

In target acquisition (after the tank had been initially detected) the camouflage application in general did not affect the observer's perormance. Acquisition times for both vehicles were not significantly different."

Now, here's what good camouflage (as opposed to pattern painting) on a static tank is worth in terms of both detection range and time to detect.

"In a well-designed field study, Barnes and Doss17 found that pattern painting alone was not sufficient. The researchers found that a camouflage-augmented tank (nets, disruptors, etc.) was more difficult to detect than a pattern painted tank. This report focused on aircrew target detection performance under two conditions:

__________________________________________________________________________

Footnotes for 2-9

"R. J. Pabon. Statistical Analysis Report of the M6OA1 Camouflage

Test, Technical Report 11-76, Directorate of Combat Operations Analysis, US Army Combined Arms Combat Developments Activity, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, November 1976.

17.. A. Barnes and N. W. Doss. Human Engineering Laboratory

Camouflage Applications Test (HELCAT) Observer Performance, Technical Memorandum 32-76, US Army Human Engineering Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving

Ground, Maryland, November 1976.

____________________________________________________________________________

(1) detection while flying a nap-of-the-earth route reconnaissance, and (2) detection while searching from a pop-up position.

Under the route reconnaissance condition, the mean value of the normal straight-line target detection range was 236 meters against the camouflaged tank and 828 meters against the patterned tank. This difference was statistically significant. Mean detection time for the patterned tank was 42.40 seconds, while 75.00 seconds was required for the camouflaged tank. This difference was also significant. Under the pop-up condition the pilot/observer required 36.6 seconds to locate a patterned tank parked adjacent to a wooded area. Only 40% of the subjects detected the augmented tank and it took an average of 95 seconds to locate it."

Translating into CMx2ese, if you will, a helicopter flying at treetop height has to get 3.5 x closer to spot a camouflaged static tank (as opposed to a pattern painted one) and takes 2.5 CMx2 turns to do so. A pattern painted tank that's static not only is seen from much farther out but is detected in a bit over one turn (~40 seconds). The above study, though erroneously asserting the U.S. didn't camouflage paint its AFVs during WW II, nevertheless does explain why OD was an extremely sound overall paint scheme.

As noted above, though, movement, associated dust and noise are the great negators of detection minimization. Recall the "use low speed only" signs at Normandy. Noise doesn't carry anywhere nearly as far as seeing does, except at night. The Germans, when preparing for the Bulge attack, muffled the telltale track sounds by covering the roads near the front with straw. The comment of HSU winner Dmitry Loza, though, on T-34 track noise vs those of the M4A2 Sherman are instructive. He says theirs could be heard from a great distance.

http://english.iremember.ru/tankers/17-dmitriy-loza.html

Pg 1 of link

(Fair Use)

"The Sherman drove like a car on hard surfaces, and our T-34 made so much noise that only the devil knows how many kilometers away it could be heard."

It wasn't merely the lack of rubber treads over their steel tracks, but also the way we held ours together. The Russians used simple steel pins inserted from the back and a flange which, as the track rotated, pushed them back into place. I read this years ago but recently saw it for myself on a WW II production T-34/85 undergoing restoration. Here's how we did our Sherman tracks. It wasn't merely the rubber track pads but the whole technical approach.

http://www.shermantracks.com/history.html

(Fair Use)

Speaking of acoustic detection, during operational testing in Europe, the XM-1, with its low whining turbine engine was effectively a terrifying stealth tank. Rather than announcing its presence with a thunderous multi-fuel diesel, the soft whine (high frequencies don't carry far) of the turbine was all but inaudible, allowing the XM-1s time and again to surprise the "enemy." So pronounced was this effect, in conjunction with better accuracy firing on the move than tanks had previously had while static, that the Army developed a fundamentally new approach to warfare.

I've been around and in a running M48A5 and near (20 feet) both a running Bradley and an Abrams. Both the M48A5 and the Bradley are thunderous, smoke spewing monsters, whereas the Abrams is practically inaudible and doesn't smoke like an old steam locomotive.

My brother, who was an Armored Cav Scout on Bradleys in Germany in the late 80s told of how envious he and his men were of the Bundeswehr Luchs, essentially a rework of the German 234 series 8-wheel armored cars. It was low, quiet, not so heavily armed one might be inclined to fight it like a tank and had the same dual driver configuration of its WW II ancestor. By contrast, the Bradley CFV more nearly resembles a house on tracks and puts out so much smoke you might think it was laying it!

Apropos of visual detection issues (AKA Spotting for us), here is a doctoral dissertation on how human observers really handle the issue of target detection when looking for human targets.

I've only skimmed it, but I can already tell it's going to blow some minds here. Among other things, it shows it takes very little to distract an observer (bullets flying, explosions, people screaming, not just a few extraneous scene elements reported in the dissertation) and that target fixation (long my bane in wargaming and, as Steve will aver, at times in my posts) in a scene can cause the observer to entirely NOT SEE several other threats!

http://edocs.nps.edu/npspubs/scholarly/dissert/2009/Jun/09Jun_Jungkunz_PhD.pdf

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA (Naval Post Graduate School)

DISSERTATION

MODELING HUMAN VISUAL PERCEPTION FOR TARGET DETECTION IN MILITARY SIMULATIONS

Patrick Jungkung June 2009

Here is part of the abstract of a 1959 study

ENGINEERING RESEARCH INSTITUTE

THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

ANN ARBOR

Final Report

THE EFFECTS OF CERTAIN PSYCHOLOGICAL VARIABLES UPON TARGET DETECTABILITY

H;. Richard Blackwell

Vision Research Laboratories

ERI Project 2455

BUREAU OF SHIPS, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

CONTRACT NO. Nobs-72038

WASHINGTON, D. C.

June 1958

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/3681/bab2941.0001.001.txt?sequence=4

"These studies were intended to evaluate the significance of certain

differences which obviously exist between the conditions under which

visual detection is studied in the laboratory, and the conditions existing in military visibility problems. The effect of these differences

is in each case expressed in terms of the contrast factor, that is the

factor by which target contrast must be multiplied in order to compensate

for the presence of the difference.

It was found that when a target appears without previous warning, a contrast factor of 1.40 is required to compensate for the resulting

loss in visibility. Absence of warning that a target is to appear, and

absence of prior information concerning the target's size and duration of

appearance require a contrast factor of 1.49. The absence of knowledge

concerning the precise location to be occupied by the target requires a

contrast factor of at least 1.31 even though the observers know precisely

when to expect the target."

These are but a few studies (and if I could do a DTIC search, I could find hundreds) which illustrate the nontrivial and complex nature of Spotting under real world conditions. To my knowledge, nobody's run these tests in a realistic or near realistic setting. Obviously, this would further degrade performance.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Freyberg]

That was interesting. It deserves its own thread...

[dieseltaylor]

I officially hi-jack the thread. Now called Spotting

[John Kettler]

Freyberg,

Glad you thought so, for there's much to discuss! Perhaps the mods can work some digital magic and set this part up as a thread unto itself? I think the information is both valuable and will serve to illustrate to all of us the complexities of first detecting, then identifying targets on the battlefield.

In the simplest terms, it's a signal processing problem which involves extracting the signal (the target) from the clutter or hash (fire, smoke, dust, explosions, bullets cracking overhead, morale, fatigue, leadership, plus many others, alone or in combination).

It's one thing to be, say, the Germans calmly overlooking Anzio from the mountains and able to rain down fire as heavy as 11' on the Allies below and quite another for the Allies to try to find, never mind neutralize, all those German FO aeries while under fire day and night (to include being sniped at night from inside their own lines) and being practically at sea level. Clearly, the applicable spotting modifier delta would be huge, and historical experience confirms it. You can read for yourself what it was like at Anzio before the breakout.

SGT Mohar's Memoirs

http://normanmohar.icwest.com/

silverstars,

It just so happens there's recent combat footage depicting how hard it is to see infantry in combat while not in a city street. If you go over to the CMSF Forum and look at the Incredible Footage thread, you can ask someone there to direct you to a vid showing a Syrian counterattack. It was shot in Hi Def, not from the ground but about six stories up, yet the infantry is still only sporadically in sight and disappears almost instantly as it bounds forward through terrain with small gullies, tallish grass (3'?) and light brush in support of some tanks which are beginning an attack on part of Daraya. So fleeting were the appearances of the infantry that I had to back up the vid to make sure I hadn't imagined seeing the soldiers pop up, dash forward, then go to ground. For that matter, the Syrian T-72s weren't seen all that much and were mainly detectable by their exhaust smoke when they put the power on to move.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(Ahem)

To get back to the main topic, I would dearly love to see you, GreenAsJade, smite some of Bil's Panzers and/or gobble up his relentlessly advancing Landser. It's about time you got to bring the pain and for the "die rolls" to go your way! Sadly, there's nothing I can do to correct the way M10s seem to spot while unbuttoned, but awareness of the issue has evidently now been reflected in your play. OTOH, you now know you've got the good antitank ammo for fighting the Panzers Bil has!

I finally cracked the QB force selection and found the Four Deuces I suggested in the alternative buy I proposed earlier to defeat Bil's present force. The price seems reasonable and the ammo load impressive, with a mix of deadly HE and enough WP to ruin the infantry's day and blind the Panzers. The Four Deuces, firing HE, might even kill some outright. A near miss with HE would probably damage the running gear, perhaps even immobilize the victim.

I salute you for the stalwart way you've endured not merely Bil's meticulous and merciless piecemeal dissection and consumption of your force, but also the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune"--all while under the arc light of providing an ongoing, illustrated account and analysis of the battle, to the accompaniment of everyone from kibitzers to sage observers and beyond.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Morthomme]

Good to hear an original anecdote. And your Anglais is better than my Francais: ) Just a couple of queries. Was the gully to front or side? Was it a friendly tank? Was it unseeable in the gully from where you were situated? It might help me get a handle on RL.

It was june 2002 in Ukraine army camp, near Odessa, there are lot of "balka" deep gully 20-30 meter Under. My men and i werre on observation post, we know a full tank squadron (12 Leclerc AFV) are moving on us.

First we spotted the tank at 1-1.5 kil gaz smoke ! but suddenly they diseppears and we have to wait 10 minutes before they jump from the gully.

Awesome and very dangerous, at time i think an AFV have rolled over one of my guy's !

He was very Lucky, the Leclerc moved right on him but he have cool mind and rolled out in time.... Oupsss !

I didn't have man over the gully because my team was only 3 and my order restrain me on an crossroad area. I didn't have maps and no intel about balka in this aera. When your're on foot all you see is a field flat like hand for kilometers, you found balka only at 10-20 meters.

Another point, another time i was in Africa, it's real operations in urban aera, never have to shoot, but i maked some combat patrol in "hostile" zone, at the moment you enter the "zone" your are more vigilant than ever and i think in combat situation your are more good to spot than in normal life, perhaps 40-50% more !

Philippe

[GreenAsJade]

(I skipped reporting Movie 50, there being nothing interesting to report, and it was quicker to just get the game moving along!)

Movie 51, 0:20-0:19

A modest amount of excitement for my guys this turn, with carefully laid traps being sprung ... but in the end I remained SOL.

Here's an overall orientation:

In the centre, Bil has become gung-ho - as I mentioned, he has largely unfettered movement on the centre right, and he decided to press over the crest to the centre left as well, I guess under the watch from The Spur. A PzIVH along with a gun halftrack rushed past my waiting snakes-in-the-grass, who opened fire :

Sadly, this fire failed to take out the TC, and for some reason they didn't throw grenades. Maybe they were a little too surprised to get those off quickly.

At least they went on to bag one of the crew of the HT, while the PzIVh crew were obviously having conniptions as the driver continued following his orders to rush over the road, while the gunner was trying to return fire on my guys: