ATGs again...

[Bulletpoint]

43 minutes ago, Anthony P. said:

Imagine un-boxing dozens of deformed AT shells when dozens of T-34s appear out of the snow on a cold morning around the Stalingrad pocket.

I thought about it the other way - red hordes on their way and you need those heavy boxes by the gun ASAP.. maybe time to bend the rules a bit and slide them on the snow. I think lots of improvising took place and definitely a lot of rules were broken.

[Michael Emrys]

3 hours ago, Anthony P. said:

Imagine un-boxing dozens of deformed AT shells when dozens of T-34s appear out of the snow on a cold morning around the Stalingrad pocket.

Do you really thing that packed ATG ammo was all that fragile? I don't. Being loaded on and from trains and trucks usually involves a lot of being slung about, especially in those situations where it might be done by slave labor. This was a well known fact and the packaging was designed to protect the rounds during rough handling.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

15 hours ago, Lt Bull said:

Not really. ATGs have their place.  They are way cheaper and easier to design, fabricate, crew and maintain than a mobile ATG platform.  Mobile ATGs have many disadvantages that ATGs don't have.  Everything has it's place, hence why they exist in the first place.

You seem to have misunderstood me. You are quite right that ATGs were far less expensive to manufacture, even when you throw in the cost of a vehicle to tow it. They are also smaller and easier to conceal, at least until the last years of the war when the size of the most powerful ones grew to the point of being as big as a small or even larger vehicle. But the advantages of greater mobility were such as to mount the gun and its ammo on some kind of automotive chassis were held to be so great that it was done as often as the producing nation could afford it right from the beginning of the war.

Michael

[Anthony P.]

Well, regardless of how well the content of a shell crate holds up to being dragged by some lazy Landser who can't carry roughly 30kg, I'm still waiting for what I've asked since my first post in this thread: Decent sources from OP.

[WynnterGreen]

4 hours ago, Anthony P. said:

 I'm still waiting for what I've asked since my first post in this thread: Decent sources from OP.

 

You do understand that sometimes better sources are unavailable, and that we have to infer likelihoods and probabilities from the somewhat limited resources we have?

 

It's perfectly valid to make inferences on less than ideal source material, so long as we're prepared to adjust our thinking when better information becomes available.

 

Do you think Combat Mission is based on nothing but flawless data and pristine source material?

 

You hate the sources, we get it.

Table something more valuable and we'll all happily reference it.

 

If you don't like the analysis, add yours to the discussion.

Otherwise you're not contributing much, other than negativity.

[Anthony P.]

Again, I'm not the one demanding something be changed here, so why is it this is the second time I'm being asked to provide the sources to justify this change?

And we are talking about WW2 here, not some ancient mystery. I'd be surprised if not a single German, Soviet, British or American ATG veteran wrote a fairly detailed memoir for example.

[Lt Bull]

39 minutes ago, Anthony P. said:

Again, I'm not the one demanding something be changed here..

Who is?

[Pak40]

21 hours ago, WynnterGreen said:

I'm assuming the 50 feet [15m] is hyperbole?

I find it extremely difficult to believe a 57mm ATG could be moved that far unless it was off a ledge or down a steep slope.

Recoil springs and rails take up a huge portion of the energy.

Is it possible the person was hit by the barrel blow back and not carriage movement?

A quote would be awesome, just to satiate curiosity.

OK, maybe a bit of bad memory, not 50 ft but it did bust the guy's knee cap. The quote can be read here. Pages 322 and 323.

The 50ft remark may be from another incident involving a British 17lb gun at Arnhem near the drop zones. I'll try to find a source when I have some time.

The recoil springs do take up energy but they are also part of the gun. The gun still takes the full portion of the energy no matter if there are recoil springs are not. The springs just help spread the delivery of the energy over time (a fraction of a second) instead of all at once, probably so the gun doesn't crack under pressure.

[WynnterGreen]

10 hours ago, Anthony P. said:

Again, I'm not the one demanding something be changed here, so why is it this is the second time I'm being asked to provide the sources to justify this change?

And we are talking about WW2 here, not some ancient mystery. I'd be surprised if not a single German, Soviet, British or American ATG veteran wrote a fairly detailed memoir for example.

You're not demanding change, but you are continuously asking for better evidence in an environment where none, or little, may exist.

 

Nor is anyone else 'demanding change'. 

Arguments have been made [based on evidence currently available] that modelling of ATGs in CM under-represents the assets real world capabilities.

Some of us would like to see change, but that's far from demanding anything. 

Battlefront may saunter in here at any time and say "this is what I know about ATGs, and this is why I've chosen to model them the way they are".

Further discussion may ensue, or they may close the matter with their godlike power over how ATG mechanics work in THEIR game .

 

Those advocating for change are asking for more realism [in their view] and they hope BF will see it the same way. That's all.

 

You seem to be asserting that the evidence presented by Lt.Bull isn't good enough to demonstrate the conclusions he's come to?

Interestingly, you "definitely agree that ATGs ought to be allowed faster movement speeds if some realistic provisions could be made for it". 

You agree with the conclusion, but disagree with the quality of evidence provided to support the conclusion?

 

So, you're basing your belief that ATGs ought to be allowed to move faster on......... what exactly?

 

Can you understand why Lt.Bull might find your desire for him to provide better evidence perplexing?

 

10 hours ago, Anthony P. said:

And we are talking about WW2 here, not some ancient mystery. I'd be surprised if not a single German, Soviet, British or American ATG veteran wrote a fairly detailed memoir for example.

Any number of things might exist.

 

.

Edited May 25, 2016 by WynnterGreen

[Lt Bull]

On 24/05/2016 at 4:06 AM, Baneman said:

I seriously doubt that dragging a wooden box across the ground ( only one end actually in contact with the ground ) will damage or deform the shells inside which even in the model picture have a wooden former to hold them motionless inside.

I'm actually surprised anyone would think they would even think they would be damaged.

I just upgraded to v3.12 and can report the following.

The rotation speed of a deployed Pak40 has gone from 43 sec to turn 180 degrees to around 85 sec to turn 180 degress.  Basically half the speed it was.

Just keep in mind the video shows an undeployed Pak40 on wet grass taking 13 seconds to be rotated 180 degrees, 6.5x faster.

Obviously someone at BFC had good reason to change this in the latest patch.

What was this reason?

[Bulletpoint]

6 hours ago, Lt Bull said:

Obviously someone at BFC had good reason to change this in the latest patch.

What was this reason?

I can only guess, but I suppose it might be to match the very slow rotation speed of tanks in this game. So basically a gameplay balance consideration, rather than a realism one.

[Gazmaps]

Hello all,

I found this thread on AT guns very interesting.

I believe that those arguments - "AT guns are under modelled in the game" have strong merit.

In summary;

battlefront have accepted previously that AT guns have been under modelled and made changes, namely by adding the ability to move guns without packup.

I would suggest (as have others in this thread) that the following factors are still under modelled in the game;

1.  AT / Inf gun movement speeds

2.  AT / Inf gun pack up and deployment times

3.  AT / Inf gun rotation speed

4.  . AT / Inf gun concealment.

I will just focus on issues 1-3 at this time.

In addressing issue 1. Below are a number of links which show live footage of the movement of AT guns. Most are short snippets from longer pieces of film - as it is hard to get footage solely of AT gun deployment. It is mainly operational WW2 based film.

I have also added in a link to gun run competition conducted by the New Zealand Artillery Regiment in May 2016.

To address issue number  1 would proposed the following;

a. increase the movement speed to say 24m / min.

b. add in the modelling of fatigue to gun crews - so as to see crews progressively become exhausted from say 0 to 100m depending on size of the gun.

c. remove the need for the crew to rotate the gun in a given direction before movement begins or;

d. model gun rotation and traverse separately.  Perhaps model the gun as a tank ie with a movement and rotation speeds (modelled as the tanks hull) and a separate traverse speed (modelled as say a tank turret).  

In addressing issue 2. The gun run video shown below show a deployment time of 1min after a manual  move  for a 105mm gun. This is much quicker than current modelled times as used in the game even accounting for factors such as fatigue, fog of war etc...  

Im assuming (and Id love for Battlefront to let me know if the assumption is correct) that the pack up and deployment time are likely based on preparation for carriage on a prime mover of some description.

They still seem to long to me but its very hard to find any sources or footage of guns being deployed.

however the following US army publication for the 57mm AT guns does go thru the actions required;

https://archive.org/stream/FM23-75_1944#page/n1/mode/2up

57mm AT Gun manual

Page 27  - Start of Gun Deployment actions

These actions do not I think line up with current pack up and deployment times.

In short - not sure how to address Issue 2 - other than the times seem to long - particularly for the medium sized guns.

In addressing issue 3.  just looking at the video link below I suspect rotation speed is heavily under modelled in the game. My assumption is that currently AT guns have to traverse to track and engage a target - regardless of how far they have to traverse  - when in reality I suspect if the target is outside the guns traverse, the crew would manually rotate the entire gun (as opposed to traversing the gun barrel). I suspect the traverse speed is likely not far off - it appears rotation of the gun for targets outside the traverse limits is not modelled .

So to address the rotation issue ;

a. model gun rotation and traverse separately.  Perhaps model the gun as a tank ie with a movement and rotation speeds (modelled as the tanks hull) and a separate traverse speed (modelled as say a tank turret). - which as per above would also help with modelling of gun movement.   

Some have mentioned movement of ammunition.

I think this is detracting from the wider issues. A the end of the day this a simulation, a model. And a very good one. One that give me hours of enjoyment. My motivation is to see it become as good a representation of reality - so I can feel like a real tactical genius - and destroy all my opponents with a wide variety of semi - real world tactics:)!!!!!!

Some things in a model have to be abstracted. I think ammo portage is one of them. this limitation should not be used as a justification to under model more important aspects of the simulation - such as gun movement and rotation speeds. Tactical logistics (as opposed to operational and strategic) is still logistics and gladly left out of the game, mostly  - though I do think  the use of ammo bearers is pretty good and appropriate for a tactical level simulation.

I think maybe tweaking the use of ammo bearers or increasing the number of ammo bearers could help alleviate this issue.

In reality I suspect gun crews would have ammo dumped 20-100m away with potential secondary gun positions sprinkled around the ammo dump. I'd also be surprised if gun crews didn't have hand carts - weather form the army supply system or acquired by other means.   

Anyway cheers and see the links below;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdnlWUNoq6U

16 Field Regiment (NZ Artillery) - 105-mm L119 Hamel Light Gun (approx 1900kg)

Note this is approx 500kg heavier (25%) than the Pak40.

Also  of note is that the red / brown team - get their gun into position at approx the 20sec mark in the video. They seem to have it prepared and ready to fire in approx 60s - this being a 105mm gun, which Im assuming takes longer than an AT gun to deploy for firing.

This was an actual military event - with actual army gun crews. I suspect the drill carried out for gun runs is in line with actual combat drills - because military's always like training this and doing it in competitive environments like the above. (the point I'm making these are not re-enactors - who I by the way actually place some weight on when discussing subjects such as modelling WW2 gun movement speeds, concealment and pack up times - but actual military professionals, likely performing actual combat drills- in a very close to operational manner. I'm not sure how far they have pushed these guns - but expect it to be 200m or over. The ground is not ideal - it is wet and likely soft as this was done just this Autumn in NZ)

Below are links to a some WW2 (mostly operational footage from what I can tell, of a mix of German AT guns being moved by hand) - they typically all have in common movement quicker than 8m / min!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=592ZXOuG7yE

Looks like a Pak40 undergoing a tactical movement - using manpower only... (starts from the 1:10) mark. Note broken ground - fast movement - gun is camo'd. Looks like this is actual battlefield footage.

Gun is being man handled by 4 soldiers - potentially two more on the limbs that are out of camera shot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c3o8RJPlfc

Looks like another Pak40 being man handled into position (starts from 9:11)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9yecemugWo

Lots of tactical movement of the Pak36 by hand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz4VD7m8X74

Tactical movement of Pak 38  or Pak 40 by hand - 4 to 5 man crew (starts from 2:40)

[Wicky]

"add in the modelling of fatigue to gun crews - so as to see crews progressively become exhausted from say 0 to 100m depending on size of the gun.|

If you have that then it would have to also take into account the number of crew - as after testing even if crew is cut (by careful application of a sniper) to two they'll continue pushing at a normal rate of knots without getting exhausted from being handicapped. Also the only movement speed currently employed for ATGs is the general 'move' order - there's no option for slow, hunt, quick or fast movement orders which if also implemented would necessitate different rates of exhaustion depending on how the movement was tasked. .  

[Anthony P.]

All other units suffer penalties from carrying different quantities of ammunition, so disabling this for those who carries the heaviest ammunition would be odd.

I would imagine that the number of ammo bearers are based on some source, not just "eh, let's make it 2". I don't think this game should be based on assumptions regarding how many ammo bearers there are, how ammo was transported, stored, etc.

 

As for concealment, I must say that it's good the way it is. Un-moved ATGs are sometimes ridiculously hard to detect. E.g. the infantry guns in Fortress Grosshau have made me stop even trying that mission, because despite sitting in the middle of an open field they spot my 2 man scout teams crawling up in a forest with very dense undergrowth before the scouts even suspect there's anything there. Same thing with a Pak40 placed in a small hedgerow in Ecoqueneaville, I knocked it out with an infantry attack believing I was attacking a HMG position. Not until I had troops within 20m of it did they spot it, despite it having fired 2-3 rounds. Fairly ridiculous, both those cases. I'd rather not think of how challenging locating ATGs would become if they got an even larger concealment bonus for remaining stationary.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I went back and re-ran my old tests and confirmed that trenches do confer some type of concealment bonus. I tested Pak 40 at 800m (hiding). Without trenches they can be spotted, although it can take a long time in some cases so this is probably near their max spot distance. In trenches I have yet to see any spotted.

[Sublime]

On 5/24/2016 at 0:37 PM, Bulletpoint said:

I'm genuinely wondering if WW2 was really like that, especially for the Germans, or if your line of thought is influenced by modern American warfare with hot showers and cheeseburgers and guided missiles and video games and lots of time to polish your boots and do things by the book?

Hot showers cheeseburgers and video games? Maybe for the lWehrmacht troops not in combat.

Most of the vets Ive talked to who were in combat, especially Vietnam, ODS and the 03 invasion ( the counter insurgency too butobviously occupying a country where the terrain makes extended field ops much rarer than Nam means more creature comforts at the FOB.

I recommend you watch a documentary or read about what it was like for modern American combat troops in front line areas that saw frequent combat. Hardly cheeseburgers and video games and chickensh#t.

Or watch Restrepo about Afghanistan. Thats a real documentary and its all about troops in a combat base. Still they get to essentially build their position up and its still very close to living homeless with people shooting at you and tryn to kill you. Which has basically been the infantrymans lot forever.

P.s.  I havent been in the service or combat but I have been homeless. And being a front line infantryman sounds exactly like being homeless except way worse because people are trying to kill you and everything associated with it.

Thats my issue with the reenactors too. Noones trying to kill them. They know this. You.re not going to see how such men really behaved or used things. Sure it may have some use and Im glad it propagates interest in mil. History but using it as evidence for what happened in combat? Its the same as using videos of some countries military parade or a well rehearsed exercise versus the real thing.

[Michael Emrys]

4 hours ago, Sublime said:

...except way worse because people are trying to kill you and everything associated with it.

I agree. Knowing that there are a bunch of guys at the other side of this field/valley/river/whatever who are seriously trying their best to kill you and may be very skilled at doing exactly that—or just plain on a lucky streak—makes the whole game feel entirely different. Snuggling up really close to Mother Earth begins to feel like a really good idea. For the bolder and/or more experienced, blowing those other guys away before they get around to doing the same thing to you also has its attractions. Man, I don't much envy the guys who find themselves in that position.

Michael

[Sublime]

Agree completely. Even worse for the untested. Every vet I ever met said theres just no way to tell hiw someone will act until they saw combat. Some.ppl do great in training and war. Some suck at one and not the other..some suck at both.

You just never know.  But besides getting a feel for how the weapons rlly look or weigh etc reenatments for historical proof are useless.

For one they have to be setup so thw crowd can see. 2 theyre firing blanks   3 everyones a lot older   4 they know they arent gonna die and when theyre going home   5 theres no great unknown or fear bc noone knows whats going on on the left or right

 

Also all this talk of reenactors moving atgs quickly so the game should - blanks cause significantly less recoil than the real thing. Men walk and do EVERYTHING different under fire. ANY time you watch reenactors or read abt US or Russian tests sayn they could limber the weapon or turn it in X amt of seconds isnt reality. The men arent in fear for their lives. Theyre not under fire. Even men not under fire but close to the front are muxh more cautious and hesitant to expose themselves to enemy fire.  Things like that could alter the deployable times and times to rotate quite a bit.

The list could be endless really. Wickys pic of the guy on the German motorcycle says it all.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Sublime

[John Kettler]

Here's an official then-RESTRICTED War Department 1943 training film sequence on the handling of the 57 mm ATG. Note how fast the gun's firing sector can be changed. Seconds! See for yourselves starting ~22:29. That's with trails already extended and the lifting bars in place.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

8 hours ago, Sublime said:

4 they know they arent gonna die and when theyre going home

Hmmm, the thought occurs to me that the quality of re-enactments might be improved if every fifth round was actually live. Of course, I expect most of those bastards are such lousy shots that it really wouldn't change much. But just the thought that maybe......

Michael

[Sublime]

Ill do you one better. All blanks should be replaced with ww2 vintage ammo they can find thats been poorly stored. Some wont fire, some will, and some will blow up in your hands

Everyone should be sufficiently on edge to get a closer approx. Of the nervousness of men walking around the front.

Edited June 7, 2016 by Sublime