Short-range tank duel: a good reason to use "target arc" (video)

[Bahger]

In a small attack QB (armor) I've been fighting as Blue, my vehicles are assaulting downhill through fairly densely-forested farmland.  My Bradley has spotted a Russian T-90 (I think...can anyone confirm?) but I did not want the M3 to chase him down the reverse slope so I left him in defilade with area-fire orders, hoping to push the tank back.  There was no way I could advance my forces down the road (by far the best available axis) without finding and killing that tank and there was no available spotter LOS for a precision round, so I had to risk a short-range tank vs tank encounter.  I sent my M1 down the road with hunt orders but made sure I gave him a target arc ninety degrees to the left of his direction of travel before he got to the opening between the buildings.  As my little video establishes, the M1's turret swivel in anticipation of finding the tank was what gave him the first shot and may have saved his life, as the T-90 had heard him come down the lane and was in the process of adjusting fast from his orientation on the Bradley.  I reckon he was about half a second from getting a shot off of his own.  A minor skirmish, I know, but really quite satisfying, as I have two victory zones out of three and with at least two Red tanks gone, I have to feel I have the tactical edge...as long as I do not do anything stupid or impulsive.  

 

What a great game this is, an evolutionary leap-frog over SF, in my opinion.

 

Edited February 3, 2015 by Bahger

[db_zero]

I have mixed feeling about targeting arcs. This is based on the WW2 games. The only real test would be to run the same turn without an arc and see what happens. It would also be interesting to see if the M1 stops and faces the target before firing without a targeting arc.

[CPC922]

Nice!

[Bahger]

I have mixed feeling about targeting arcs. This is based on the WW2 games. The only real test would be to run the same turn without an arc and see what happens. It would also be interesting to see if the M1 stops and faces the target before firing without a targeting arc.

 

Interesting point; with all the C3 comms between these linked units, you'd expect the tank commander to orientate his gun in the right direction and in a timely manner because, despite never having had a direct spot on the T-90, he would have been in contact with the Bradley over the net and received a pretty precise SITREP.  However, disconcertingly, that TC is rated -1 in this mission so I figured I had better give him a bit of an assist.  If the encounter had gone the other way, so would the battle.  This may prove to be the tipping point.

[BlackAlpha]

 

I have mixed feeling about targeting arcs. This is based on the WW2 games. The only real test would be to run the same turn without an arc and see what happens. It would also be interesting to see if the M1 stops and faces the target before firing without a targeting arc.

 

Not sure what you mean, I don't know about world war 2, but the way it works in real life (and in game), as you come around the corner you would rotate the turret towards the next corner if you suspect there might be an enemy there and if your front is (mostly) clear. The video shows why you want to do that, it allows the tank to react faster and get the first shot off. Whoever shoots first wins, so it's pretty important to do that.

 

It's a bit similar to infantry tactics, you want someone to cover every angle. The difference is that if you come to a crossroad, you need to take a risk, because there usually isn't enough space to have one tank watch left and at the same time have one tank watch right. However, if you got a whole bunch of armored vehicles, you can then do this thing that infantry does where one vehicle quickly goes a bit left and covers left, while another goes quickly a bit right and covers right, while the rest move in between them forwards. It's not perfect, but it can get the job done if you suspect there are enemy tanks nearby.

 

That's not the only way of doing things, of course. There are different tactics/SOPs for different situations.

Edited February 3, 2015 by BlackAlpha

[Nerdwing]

As far as I'm concerned OP, you used the mechanics exactly as intended and received the result you deserved.  I imagine the T-90's reactionary turn was probably caused by the LRF-warning system, but by then it was too late at such a range and heading.

 

Excellent demonstration, I'd say.

[Bahger]

Thanks, Nerdwing!  It was a risky move at such short range and blind.  However, I felt I had insufficient time to bypass the tank if I wanted to get within striking distance of the final objective and I had no infantry, no Javelins, no precision artillery shot in this instance, and terrain limitations on long-range spotting against well hidden, mainly static defenders inhibit much decisive use of TOW.

Edited February 3, 2015 by Bahger

[womble]

Ooooh, you so nearly overran that TA. Just a bit more momentum on the Abrams and you'd've coasted right past the T-90 and sat there waiting to be drilled. To avoid this, you can set as wide a TA as possible, but still with its midpoint oriented to where you want the tube pointed. There's no need or advantage to constraining your TA to only where you think the target actually is, in this case. Since you had a good strong fix on where the enemy was, you could also have taken a curved path off to the right then turning left to be pointing the whole tank at where you wanted to shoot. That might've been exposing vulnerable flank armour though, I suppose. Depends on whether you were worried about other threats that needed the glacis pointed at them; it's not like even the Abrams frontal armour would have done very much against a T-90's AP at that range.

[Bahger]

Thanks, Womble, valuable advice.

[agusto]

180 degree targets arc definately helpful for tank vs tank action. I use them very often, basically always when i want the turret to be pointed in a specific direction.

[womble]

I'm trying to think of a situation where you'd want a tank to have less than a 180degree arc set... I suppose if you're looking at two potential targets, one of which can't hurt you, but might distract the tank from a later-appearing target that can retaliate effectively. Rare, though, that sort of dilemma.

[agusto]

When you shoot and scoot with the intent to take out a specific target that is part of a larger group. Recently i played a QB where i was playing as defending Ukrainians vs attacking Russians. For the whole thing to be interesting i gave the attackers a signifcant advantage in everything: tanks, BMPs, infantry, etc. The AI at some point during the battle had put 5-8 BMPs on top of a hill + 3 T-90s. When i ordered my BM Bulat tanks to counterattack, i gave them a small target armor arc to ensure that they kill the T-90s and dont attack the BMPs.

[Bahger]

Well, my reasoning was that a wider arc would encourage a bigger sweep of the turret and therefore a greater likelihood that the gunner might not spot the target in time if he had been commanded to monitor a wider field of view.  A 180 degree sweep might have entailed him having to yank the turret back about 90 degrees if he did not spot the target on the first sweep and ended up with his gun pointing in the direction that the M1 was travelling before he could haul it back; this might have delayed his shot just long enough to let the nearby T-90 cover that ninety degree angle and get a shot off.  I calculated the target arc on the basis of the maximum total distance of turret traversal required to sweep once, or even twice if necessary, across the narrow lateral area, i.e. the "keyhole", that the tank was going to encounter when it exposed itself to the area containing the T-90.  You may be right, Womble, this may well be faulty technique but it was based on minimising margin of error.  It was certainly a close-run thing and next time I will give the target arc order earlier in the tank's movement across the keyhole so that he's lined up more promptly.

 

It's interesting that the T-90 responded to the threat (a sound cue I think) by attempting to present a frontal aspect to it.  While this is good doctrine, it must surely have slowed him down.  I would have thought that a traversal of his turret in the direction of the threat would have given him a better chance to get the drop on me, even at the risk of presenting a more vulnerable aspect.

Edited February 3, 2015 by Bahger

[womble]

Well, my reasoning was that a wider arc would encourage a bigger sweep of the turret and therefore a greater likelihood that the gunner might not spot the target in time if he had been commanded to monitor a wider field of view.  A 180 degree sweep might have entailed him having to yank the turret back about 90 degrees if he did not spot the target on the first sweep and ended up with his gun pointing in the direction that the M1 was travelling before he could haul it back; this might have delayed his shot just long enough to let the nearby T-90 cover that ninety degree angle and get a shot off.

That'd be all fine and dandy, if that was the way TAs worked, but it's not (unless they've changed it in BS, at which point this is all out of date! But carefully watching your vid, I don't see any evidence that the gun "sweeps" its assigned arc). The turret swivels directly from its previous bearing to the midpoint of the arc, which is in the same place whether it's a 10deg or a 180deg (though perhaps a bit easier to judge with a narrower arc, granted) and stays there until it sees a valid target or the arc is cancelled. The crew don't scan any more or less with their optics; though the turret rotation does get the ones with a limited field of view pointed in a more useful direction, again this would be true with a narrow or broad TA. So given that you got the direction pretty bang on, the turret would never have to be "yanked back". A Target Arc is primarily a restriction on where targets are valid, rather than a "focus" to identify and prioritise seeking targets in that arc.

 

 

I calculated the target arc on the basis of the maximum total distance of turret traversal required to sweep once, or even twice if necessary, across the narrow lateral area, i.e. the "keyhole", that the tank was going to encounter when it exposed itself to the area containing the T-90.  You may be right, Womble, this may well be faulty technique but it was based on minimising margin of error.  It was certainly a close-run thing and next time I will give the target arc order earlier in the tank's movement across the keyhole so that he's lined up more promptly.

It was based, also, on a flawed understanding of the way TAs work; it bears emphasis, since this is a common misapprehension. One thing you can do with vehicles is give them many short movement legs with changes of orientation of their TA at every opportunity. They don't stop at each waypoint, like infantry do, so it doesn't slow them down (assuming you make all the legs the same speed ), and it means you could even more precisely pre-lay your gun's bearing for "quickdraw" contests like this.

 

 

It's interesting that the T-90 responded to the threat (a sound cue I think) by attempting to present a frontal aspect to it.  While this is good doctrine, it must surely have slowed him down.  I would have thought that a traversal of his turret in the direction of the threat would have given him a better chance to get the drop on me, even at the risk of presenting a more vulnerable aspect.

It's a perennial complaint about the turret rotation selection algorithms of the tanks. First, that they try too hard to get their glacis pointed at the threat, prioritising that sometimes over rotating the turret and taking the shot, and second that the turret cannot counterrotate to keep the gun bearing while the hull rotates. The models can only do one at a time, and that has saved my bacon on a number of occasions, and frustrated me on a number more. It's a game artefact that you have to take into account (by, for example, using TAs to fix the gun in the right direction and stopping hull rotation), and that the AI can't/doesn't is a contributor to its downfall as an opponent.

Edited February 3, 2015 by womble

[c3k]

Womble has it.

[Bahger]

Fair enough. This is valuable information for the intermediate player (i.e. self) who aspires to play the game well. Thanks!

Edited February 3, 2015 by Bahger

[c3k]

The hull rotation algorithm seems MUCH better, btw.

[womble]

The hull rotation algorithm seems MUCH better, btw.

That can only be a good thing.

[slysniper]

Covered arcs will bite you at some point, just a weakness in the game system really.

 

I know very well to never limit my tanks attack options with making small cover arcs. (never want a enemy to pop up outside of it}

 

BUT TO GET YOUR TURRET TO TURN AND FACE A KNOWN DANGER IT IS ALL YOU HAVE. SO MAKE THEM 180 DEGRESS AND TRY NOT TO CUT OUT ANY POSSIBLE LOCATION YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO DEFEND FROM.

 

Anyway, there will come a time you use it, a enemy tank will show up just outside of it and your unit will sit there and not react at all because that is how the command works. It just will happen.

[c3k]

^^^

 

If the unit is "threatened" (I don't know how that works, I've just seen it work), it will ignore the covered arc.

 

But, yeah, 180 arc out to the map-edge. Then, when it reaches the endpoint, a FACE command (which erases any covered arc and aligns hull and turret towards the desired direction).

[AlexUK]

Thanks for the tip. I am sure that there are lots of other command combinations that I am missing out on. I saw one on one of Chris's videos - Hide plus cover arc, which I think he said would mean they would disregard the hide command if enemy in that area?

[womble]

^^^

 

If the unit is "threatened" (I don't know how that works, I've just seen it work), it will ignore the covered arc.

I reckon the M1 in the video might've decided to drop its TA if the T-90 was only just out of the designated arc. Pretty threatening to have an MBT at 10s of metres range pointing its main gun at your side armour!

Edit: units cleaving too hard to their TAs is a downside of taking very high motivation troops. They won't disobey your orders even if it's suicide to keep obeying them... and that includes firing on threats outside their TA.

But, yeah, 180 arc out to the map-edge. Then, when it reaches the endpoint, a FACE command (which erases any covered arc and aligns hull and turret towards the desired direction).

Best, if you can manage it at all, is to have the vehicle come out from behind cover facing the way you want it pointing, as best you can manage. There was a good example of someone losing a tank by having it arrive at its fire point, then pivot, in the RT demo AAR. Most armour can drive in reasonably tight 'curves' at a fair lick. IanL was the one who first set that out in a way that made a lightbulb come on in my head, IIRC. Edited February 3, 2015 by womble

[slysniper]

^^^

 

If the unit is "threatened" (I don't know how that works, I've just seen it work), it will ignore the covered arc.

 

But, yeah, 180 arc out to the map-edge. Then, when it reaches the endpoint, a FACE command (which erases any covered arc and aligns hull and turret towards the desired direction).

Sometimes I have seen tanks override the covered arch, but I think that is after the crews AI takes over the commands which normally does not happen until something hits them,  which in CMBS is not a good thing to have happen.

 

I am also not sure using the face command is a good decision also. Once a tank starts rotating the hull, it slows down its ability to react and fire as quickly. I stopped using that when I lost duels to the fact that the hull would rotate, making the turret have to readjust. But that was in WWII stuff, IN CMBS I really do not know how much it would impact it.

 

The best approach is if you have to move into position, have your hull and Turret in the correct position when you expose yourself. make the move fast and get into position as quickly as possible and hope to get firing as soon as possible.

 

If the hull is going to be in a poor position, then it is maybe a good time to use shoot and scoot tactics , so that you are not easy prey for the return fire..

 

Of course much of this stuff really works much better in the WWII stuff. IN CMBS, THE REACTIONS TIMES ARE SO QUICK.  Most of it is useless.

 

I am finding the best tactics for is  to position yourselve to spot first. Spotting first is what matters. That normally means, you are sitting and waiting on them to move into sight. And if you are the one moving, then you better make sure you are moving enough stuff into sight  at once that you overwelm the target with firepower. Because it will be seldom you get the first shot off.

Edited February 3, 2015 by slysniper

[tankgeezer]

Wombie;

Anybody out there besides me that misses the hotkey to automatically constrain a 180 degree  target arc?  (I do like the 'shift-360°)
 

[womble]

Wombie;

Anybody out there besides me that misses the hotkey to automatically constrain a 180 degree  target arc?  (I do like the 'shift-360°)

It's marginal, for me. I wouldn't object to it, but I think the recent idea, born of a misapprehension, of having an option to set a 360 arc, with an off-centreline gun bearing (towards where you clicked to set the range of the arc) would be an even better idea. Should be separate command to the generic shift-click, so you can set a normal gun-forward 360 arc without having to worry about getting your mouse dead-ahead of the vehicle.