Vulnerability of Hanomag halftrack gunners..

[dieseltaylor]

Tarzan - Angle is looking very interesting. V2.xx I assume?

baneman - good spot, good testing!

[Seedorf81]

Bisu,

You were spot on with starting this thread!

And Baneman, you picked it up while a lot of us (including me) thought "Gosh, yes, I experience this problem too; why doesn't anyone -other than me that is - do something."

You two boys show how to handle problems, WELL DONE!!

[womble]

I'd be a bit wary of setting up immobilised vehicles; crew seem to just instantly abandon them, IME - you can't even get on board to snaffle some bullets. Though this might be peculiar to trucks...

The difference in accuracy between shooting at track gunners and "exposed" enemy infantry is certainly difficult to explain. Non-gunner kills less so (though their frequency might be off), as there are view ports in the front armour, and usually there's a passenger in the right hand seat next to the driver.

[Baneman]

Ok, I have setup the test as c3k suggested with 20 lanes.

First test I ran at 200m range ( since the 100m test seemed so lethal ).

Halftracks were : Regular, Fanatic, 0 Leadership. All 251/1, driver and dedicated gunner only.

Enemy were : US army, Regular, Normal, 0 : 6 men, rifles only (B squad).

The halftracks were all Immobilised. In the orders phase they were all given a 100m covered arc to their immediate front and Unbuttoned so the gunner would stand up.

First iteration - the results were NOT what was expected !!

1) 4 x OpeningPenetration : 1 x Ricochet OpeningPenetration

2) 4 x OpeningPenetration

3) 1 x OpeningPenetration

4) 3 x OpeningPenetration

5) 3 x OpeningPenetration

6) 6 x OpeningPenetration

7) 1 x OpeningPenetration

8) 4 x OpeningPenetration

9) 3 x OpeningPenetration

10) 5 x OpeningPenetration

11) 2 x OpeningPenetration

12) 3 x OpeningPenetration

13) 4 x OpeningPenetration : 1 x Ricochet Opening Penetration

14) 1 x OpeningPenetration

15) 4 x OpeningPenetration : 1 x Armour Spalling

16) 3 x OpeningPenetration

17) 2 x OpeningPenetration

18) 3 x OpeningPenetration

19) 3 x OpeningPenetration

20) 2 x OpeningPenetration

NO GUNNERS were harmed in the making of this test !! Not even a yellow WIA.

It seems if you don't fire your gun, you're safe as houses.

- Since this was so unexpected and unusual, I'm afraid I digressed from the test and haven't yet run further iterations because I wanted to see if it was in fact anything to do with firing the gun.

I ran one more iteration taking OFF the Covered Arc so the gunners would fire.

Gunners 1, 2, 7, 11, 12, 13 died. The remainder survived having in most cases, suppressed the enemy.

Then, curious about all that "Opening Penetration" malarkey - wondering if it is indeed "plunging fire" ( even at 200m ), I reran the Covered Arc test with passengers in the first 8 Halftracks.

1) 1 KIA

2) 1 WIA

3) 1 KIA ( in this case, he was a have-a-go-hero, popping up to fire over the side because I didn't give the passengers a CA. Doh! )

4) 2 KIA

5) ok

6) ok

7) 1 KIA

8) 2 KIA ( 1 "hero" )

Above KIA and WIA were all passengers, again all 20 (non-firing) gunners survived.

Edit: Womble, interestingly, none of the passenger casualties were the guy next to the driver, all were in the rear compartment, giving credence to my plunging fire hypothesis - although I still don't know if that should be happening at 200m from rifles. Need a grog on that one.

Also, having the crew Fanatic probably kept them inside despite the immobilisation.

It's all ... interesting. I'll get back to proper iterations of the standard test soon.

[Baneman]

Ok, I have now performed iterations 2-5 of the initial Covered Arc test.

Test 2

#2 KO @ 45. Crew KIA after exiting.

#17 KO @ 50. Driver KIA after exiting, gunner ok.

No other casualties.

Test 3

#3 driver KIA @ 36. Gunner remained at his weapon.

No other casualties.

Test 4

#6 KO @ 41. Crew ok.

No other casualties.

Test 5

#18 KO @ 38. Crew ok.

No other casualties.

So, in 100 cases of Not Firing, all gunners survived at their weapon.

Only casualties were crew outside their vehicle and 1 driver.

Since the Engine and Tracks were already Red due to the immobilised state, it was impossible to determine what caused the Destruction in those 4 cases ( I didn't hear a rifle grenade noise, but that doesn't mean much )

[womble]

At 200m, the angle of bullet drop is still pretty small. I don't really think it could be characterised as having a "plunging" aspect... Bullet trajectories interact in interesting ways with resilient "grazing" obstacles, I gather, so perhaps that's accounting for some of the ones getting into the back. The "interesting" behaviour is the way bullets tend to "skim" pavements and walls once they've ricocheted off. Perhaps near misses to or hits near to the edge of the passenger compartment are dragged downwards by a similar turbulence effect? Hits are meant to be calculated from intersections of trajectories and planes in x2, so either something's "bending" the bullet path downwards, or there's something a bit permeable between the shooter and the softies.

[Baneman]

Right, now to compare with the Non-Firing tests, I ran a full set of 5 iterations in which I had removed the Covered Arc so that the Gunner would fire. The crews' Fanatic status also produced the result that the driver would take over as gunner if the gunner was killed ( with about a 10 second delay for that to happen ). Sometimes that got them both killed.

Test #1

01) ok

02) 49KIA

03) ok

04) ok

05) 47KIA

06) 49KIA, 39KIA

07) 50KIA

08) 37KIA

09) ok

10) 54KIA, 40wia

11) ok

12) 38KIA

13) 03KIA

14) ok

15) ok

16) 49KIA, 38KIA

17) ok

18) 36KIA

19) 15KIA

20) ok

Test #2

01) ok

02) ok

03) 51KIA

04) ok

05) ok

06) ok

07) 41KIA

08) ok

09) ok

10) 06KIA

11) ok

12) ok

13) 47wia, 43KIA

14) ok

15) ok

16) ok

17) ok

18) 47KIA

19) ok

20) ok

[Baneman]

Test #3

01) ok

02) 53KIA

03) ok

04) 50KIA

05) ok

06) ok

07) 45KIA

08) ok

09) ok

10) 05wia

11) ok

12) 43KIA, 22KIA

13) ok

14) ok

15) ok

16) 42KIA

17) 42KIA

18) 51KIA

19) 43KIA

20) ok

Test #4

01) 52KIA

02) ok

03) ok

04) 49KIA

05) 35KIA

06) ok

07) 51KIA

08) 02wia

09) 01KIA

10) 45KIA, 33KIA

11) 52KIA

12) 47KIA

13) ok

14) 53KIA

15) ok

16) ok

17) 48KIA, 31KIA

18) ok

19) ok

20) ok

[Baneman]

Test #5

01) 40KIA

02) ok

03) ok

04) 03KIA

05) ok

06) ok

07) ok

08) ok

09) 33KIA

10) 49KIA

11) ok

12) 49KIA

13) 47KIA

14) 40KIA

15) 51KIA, 38KIA

16) 39KIA, 25KIA

17) ok

18) ok

19) 35KIA, 01KIA

20) ok

So, not counting the driver secondary kills, that's 46 / 100 gunners killed in the first minute of firing - and the bulk of these are in the first 20 seconds which suggests it's before they can suppress the enemy effectively.

Compared with the 100% survival rate amongst gunners who didn't fire, it means that pulling the trigger is practically a death sentence

Next up : US Halftracks.

[Baneman]

Ok, in setting up the test for the US Halftracks, I wanted to keep things as much the same as possible. So I left the opposing force as the 6 rifle-armed US infantrymen.

Then the first test went all wrong as the guys wouldn't fire on the halftracks.

But when I took the Covered Arcs off the Halftracks ... all hell broke loose.

This was enormously puzzling, and, you guessed it, sent me careering down into digression testing

Due to lack of time, I've only tested using the M3 US Halftrack.

Much trial and error later, I have established the following :

1) This oddity only appears to pertain to Rifle-ONLY-armed infantry. When I tested with full squads, they fired at all ranges.

2) At ranges of 150m and greater, they WILL NOT fire on HT's ( buttoned or unbuttoned ) with a Covered Arc ie. that don't shoot at them.

Short of that range, they WILL shoot at UNbuttoned HT's, but not at BUTTONED ones.

Once the gunner is killed, they will again ignore the HT as if buttoned.

3) I never saw a driver take over the gun as happened with the German HT's ( US doctrine ? I don't know ).

4) In the cases when they did not shoot at the HT, they would sometimes - but not always - start the turn by firing a Rifle-Grenade at it - but would ignore the HT thereafter.

This odd behaviour is only likely to affect US v US battles so is not too serious. It does make long range ( >150m ) testing of the HT gunner thing tricky though.

It's a rather strange AI wrinkle.

[c3k]

Baneman,

Great job, and many thanks! Of course, I have a teeny little request. By noting the time of death of the mg'ers, we get a chronological comparison. Of more interest would be a comparison of the number of rounds fired at them. If all infantry is the same in the tests, then their accuracy should be about the same. A round-count would provide protection comparison. E.g., if an mg'er dies at :49, but only 2 shots were fired, that would be far different than one dying at :49 with 250 shots fired at him.

Did you save your test turns?

Very unanticipated results, vis a vis firing vs. hold fire, as well as the refusal to fire on US halftracks.

Hmm...

You've given us something to puzzle over.

Thanks!

Ken

[Baneman]

...Did you save your test turns?

...

Um ...no. I just ran a single minute from the HT side.

But I can run a new set of 5 in hotseat mode and check the round count of the victorious riflemen at the correct moment. Now that I have the scenarios set up, it'll be fairly quick to do that.

I'll try and post the results as an Excel screenshot or similar to save space.

Stay tuned

[Baneman]

Ok, here's the results of another 5 iterations of the "Firing Back" test.

Things to note:

When I looked at the number of rounds in each squad, I noticed that most had 408, but a few had 387. Although there are 6 men in each, it turns out the 387 boys had one Springfield scoped rifle amongst their Garands and the 408 boys had all Garands.

I know it may add a slight variance to the results, but I was so far into the tests that I just marked those rows in grey on the sheet so you know which ones they are. Sorry.

Also, note #1 in test 5 - interestingly, the crew of this HT did not spot the enemy ( although rounds were pinging off all the time ) until second 31. At that point the gunner's icon changed from his pistol to the MG, he started firing it ... and died shortly thereafter. Which may connect to the "Safe if not firing" thing seen in the Covered Arc tests.

[Redwolf]

We should set up a bugzilla to track these things in a more formal manner.

[DasMorbo]

This makes HTs pretty much unusable for a while.

Damn.

Does BF already know about this?

I know the guys have a lok at the forum from time to time, but has anybody noticed them in particular?

Best regards

Olf

[bisu]

Baneman you really did a piece of thorough testing work. I appreciate it. But I also think that at this stage you as the author of these tests should draw some clear cut conclusions which could be then passed to BTF. Having hard data from your tests will make it easier for them to find the cause of the bug and fix it in the next patch.. Maybe we have a broader problem after the last patch with all unbuttonned vehicle gunners/TC who die really fast now - in fact I don't remember any situation where a TC managed to button for protection in response to incoming fire - they always just get killed. I don't know if this is realistic but for sure it is completely different in comparison to CM1, and as far as I remember also in comparison to previous versions of CM2. And I must admit the issue with the Hanomag gunner is quite a battle breaker for me, as is represents an important limitation to my available tactics..

[c3k]

This makes HTs pretty much unusable for a while.

Damn.

Does BF already know about this?

I know the guys have a lok at the forum from time to time, but has anybody noticed them in particular?

Best regards

Olf

Consider my participation to be the initial step of BFC's notice. (I'm a beta. With the yoeman's work Baneman's done, he has helped IMMENSELY.)

Baneman: you've got pm.

Ken

[JasonC]

On drop, the total fall of a rifle bullet from its apex over 200 meters is about 12 inches. At the end of its trajectory, the bullet will be dropping at 8 feet per second, giving a "drop to run" ratio of about 1 part in 300-350. That is for all practical purposes flat at the receiving end.

The accuracy shown for rifle fire at an exposed and located, stationary target at 100 or 200 meters is not all that extreme, for anything like range conditions. If the target is sitting there and at a known position, there is little reason for a man with a rifle to miss at 100 yards. But we all known combat accuracy is something entirely different from range accuracy. It sounds like what you are seeing is vulnerability of the active MG crewman more like range fire conditions, and far from the "most shots miss completely" norm for shooting at ground infantry (though the latter may be intended to include some lack of ability to locate the target, small movements, etc).

What I suspect is happening is that the range - theoretical accuracy of the rifle is so much higher than its practical combat average effect, that everything that happens is in an unknowable grey zone of fudge factor in between, where the programmers have no real guidance to go on.

A useful benchmark might be the hit rate vs standing infantry in the open at the same range. Vulnerability should not go *up* when you get into an armored vehicle and stand behind a gunshield, compared to standing in the open in a wool shirt. But arguably the vulnerability of the ground guys is too low, having been "nerfed" to try to account for small cover seeking behavior, misses on spotting, time gophering actions preventing two dismounts from seeing each other over grass or brush, etc.

[Childress]

What was German doctrine for using these vehicles on unsuppressed enemy? What was the acceptable engagement range?

[womble]

What was German doctrine for using these vehicles on unsuppressed enemy? What was the acceptable engagement range?

It's been asserted here before that by '44, there was no doctrinally acceptable engagement range for the Hanomags. They were backfield buses that gave better protection than a truck against harrassing indirect fire shrapnel.

Of course, us gamey bastidges use them like weak-sauce IFVs And those of us (including the AI) that try and use them like proper IFVs tend to lose a lot of gunners...

[bisu]

It's been asserted here before that by '44, there was no doctrinally acceptable engagement range for the Hanomags. They were backfield buses that gave better protection than a truck against harrassing indirect fire shrapnel.

Of course, us gamey bastidges use them like weak-sauce IFVs And those of us (including the AI) that try and use them like proper IFVs tend to lose a lot of gunners...

Hmm, womble I don't know what is the source of your knowledge about the use of Sd. Kfz. 251.. Backfield buses?

According to my knowledge they were actively used as infantry support on the battlefield. Here is one link with the list of reliable references which supports my point.

http://www.panzerworld.net/mspw.html

I know you are sceptical about the idea of this particular bug from the start of this thread, but even leaving doctrinal discussions aside, Banemans tests revealed something which is completely illogical: currently in game it is more difficult to hit an exposed soldier standing in the open, than a protected halftrack gunner (of course assuming identical conditions). It is as simple as that..

[womble]

Hmm, womble I don't know what is the source of your knowledge about the use of Sd. Kfz. 251.. Backfield buses?

According to my knowledge they were actively used as infantry support on the battlefield. Here is one link with the list of reliable references which supports my point.

http://www.panzerworld.net/mspw.html

My "source", as I stated, was hearsay on these forums. You can use the search function as well as I can. IIRC, the general opinion was that the use in direct combat was largely an early war thing against troops with fewer automatic weapons and fewer and less effective anti-armour weapons than the Heer were encountering in '44. By that stage the threats the light armour was facing, and the close range combat conditions of the Bocage especially, meant that they couldn't operate at the "designed" ranges mentioned in your little article (400-600m). Which is also, you'll agree, much more distant than the tests that Baneman was running.

I know you are sceptical about the idea of this particular bug from the start of this thread...

Indeed, since previous tests and personal experience (though not with 2.0) have tended to suggest that the problem arises (or at least arose; Baneman's test results presented after my scepticism shows there may be something queer going in, which has changed my mind in this case, as I thought was indicated by my later responses) mostly when the shooters had a vertical angle on the "fighting compartment".

...but even leaving doctrinal discussions aside...

A good idea, when the two aren't really connected.

Banemans tests revealed something which is completely illogical: currently in game it is more difficult to hit an exposed soldier standing in the open, than a protected halftrack gunner (of course assuming identical conditions). It is as simple as that..

As I recognised in post #28 in this thread. So what's your point?

[bisu]

Ok, but now you are changing the meaning of your previous post which was more general. Adding more detail clarifies many issues.

...there was no doctrinally acceptable engagement range for the Hanomags....

When you say that the distances in Normandy were to small (sometimes they were I agree), you admit there WAS an engagement distance for Hanomags.

..A good idea, when the two aren't really connected..

No they are not, but on the basis of your original post one might think that he is losing gunners because of bad doctrine and not because of the bug.

..You can use the search function as well as I can. IIRC, the general opinion was that the use in direct combat was largely an early war thing..

Probably I can use the search function even better than you, as it is well known that the early war thing was NOT to use Hanomags in direct combat. For that reason the first versions were called "gepanzerter

Mannschaftstransportkraftwagen" before the name was changed to "Schutzenpanzerwagen" later during the war. The cited field manuals from my little article are from 43-44.

[bisu]

So what's your point?

My point is to rectify the false statements presented in your original post:

1. Hanomags were not only "backfield buses" and were used as infantry support vehicles in combat.

2. Therefore using them in this role in-game is justified and the associated excessive loss of gunners is not amenable to wrong doctrine but to a bug.

[tarzan]

@ dieseltaylor

"Tarzan - Angle is looking very interesting. V2.xx I assume?"

Nope - this was prior to the upgrade.

They were American units with automatic weapons and I could almost see the astonished looks on their faces as the HT just hosed them down and the unkillable usually sitting duck just sat their smiling while he was doing it.

The American units were all within 75 to 100 yds out and the bullets were just bouncing off the fender and shield of the HT