Follow up shot with Tanks

[shift8]

I dont know if anyone else has noticed this, but I thought I should post on here about it to see if anyone else has this issue. Im trying to make a video of it to post on here but there are so many variables that I havent decided on the best way to present it yet. However, I describe the issue below. It seems like it would be an easy fix imho. 

I have noticed that in CM tanks that have just shot another tank take far too long by any reasonable measure to follow up with a second shot. This seems to occur even a point blank range. For example, in a battle I played in SP, a M4 Sherman hiding behind a hedgerow ambushed a Panther as it passed by at a range of about 20 feet. The round struck, and penetrated. The panther stopped from the hit and almost immediately started traversing its turret to engage the Sherman. The sherman took so long to reload and fire again, that the Panther actually shot and killed the Sherman. The crew was regular, +1 leadership, and high mot. This seems to happen all the time. In fact, I dont think ive seen a tank a close range rapidly pump several rounds into another tanks. There are many historical accounts of this being done. I find this rather odd since tanks in CM do tend repeatedly shoot tanks that arent sure are dead, even when the player can see that they are. 

Please note that I am talking about what is possible withing the constraints of the gun. I am not expecting some kind of full auto belt fed tank guns. 

 

Anyone else seen this? Thoughts? Etc. 

Edited May 22, 2016 by shift8

[George MC]

Wee film you might be interested in:

If you go to around 7:56 you'll see the amount of smoke generated after the Sherman fires it's 75mm gun. That and dust temporarily obscure vision. In addition the gunner after the recoil of the gun etc will have to reset his aim. Hence the delay after firing the first round. I'm sure others will weigh in with their own take. That's my rational for it!

[womble]

2 hours ago, George MC said:

If you go to around 7:56 you'll see the amount of smoke generated after the Sherman fires it's 75mm gun. That and dust temporarily obscure vision. In addition the gunner after the recoil of the gun etc will have to reset his aim. Hence the delay after firing the first round. I'm sure others will weigh in with their own take. That's my rational for it!

I'd agree that target obscuration is an issue to be considered, but would the recoil mechanism of the gun not lay it back pretty much exactly in the place it was before the shot, after each shot? 

[George MC]

2 hours ago, womble said:

I'd agree that target obscuration is an issue to be considered, but would the recoil mechanism of the gun not lay it back pretty much exactly in the place it was before the shot, after each shot? 

TBH @womble I'm not sure  I'm assuming given the technology of the time it might not be as exact as modern tanks? Then you have the quality of optics - guess it's not just the gunner stamping his foot on the firing plate whilst the loader hoofs rounds in as quick as the gunner can fire em. Perhaps someone more in the know can chip in? I would assume (rightly or wrongly!) given the noise and concussion of the round being fired, is it reasonable to expect the gunner to take a short while to refocus and reaquire the target? Add to the dust etc then you have a pause whilst the commander checks for the fall of shot (assuming we have a four/five man crew) issues corrections to gunner who then has to fire again. Also the loader has to find and select rounds.

TBH I don't see there being an issue and I play lot's of armoured actions. For sure crew experience is a major factor. Veteran and above seem to do just fine. Regular and below and I notice slower times for spotting targets, often more rounds to hit the target, slower reload.

[A Canadian Cat]

Seen what? Sorry I see tanks fire as fast as they can and pump round after round into an enemy tank as fast as they can consistently. Are you saying that the Sherman crew reloaded and just sat there instead of firing? If so then there could have been some spotting problems for the Sherman crew.

Firing at the enemy until they know it is destroyed is also normal and seen consistently. I even once reported a situation I thought might be a bug because a Sherman crew fired 7 rounds at a PzIV without killing it. Turns out it was long destroyed my crew just did not know and so contained firing. Things were working perfectly.

If your crews get beat that's just the way the ball bounces and the advantage that tough tanks have - they sometimes survive the first hit. As someone already noticed crew experience influences performance to.

[Erwin]

I wonder if this is less of a problem when playing in RT.  In WEGO any unit will tend to sit there for a minute until new orders are input as opposed to (say) doing something sensible re self-preservation like moving/reversing away during the time the enemy is obscured.

[shift8]

I get the issue in WEGO, I never play RT. So I think you might be right there. 

 

The smoke should not be an issue here, as we are talking about extremely close ranges. Also smoke disperses quite quickly IRL, and is not a perfectly opaque thing either.  I also see tanks fire second shots all the time, its just the speed at which they do it that seems off. It seems almost like they shoot at the same pace at 15m as the would something 1000m off. (for follow up). 

I dont think it would be a factor of experience (or at least should not be). It does not require tons of training or combat time to know that a tank you just shot that is still trying to kill  you will need to be shot again. You would have to have some serious mental disability to not immediately re-shoot. It seems like it takes them ages and ages (compared to what it should) at close range to fire a second or even third shot. Many times the third shot can take as long as the second to fire. When something is that close the rounds should be coming in very rapid succession: essentially as fast as the loader can ram in a new round and the gunner pull the trigger. In other words: like 3-4 seconds. 

Edited May 22, 2016 by shift8

[A Canadian Cat]

I want what you guys are smoking I only play WEGO and tanks often pop smoke and back up on their own. They seem to do just fine at fighting without my intervention. They also fire as fast as they can close range or not.

Look, the OP 's crew got beat. It happens. On another day they might have got the second shot too and won the battle. On another day their first shot might have KO'ed the enemy tank. On this day they failed to beat the other crew and lost their tank because of it. Sounds like the game is working as expected to me. 

The OP thought there might have been something wrong. I highly doubt it but it is worth exploring. But come on guys most of this "analysis" sounds more like sour grapes. "My guys lost so it must be the games fault" Get over it. 

[shift8]

At 3:25 you can see a Sherman fire round after round crazy fast. You can also not how little smoke there is and how fast in disperses. Not that it matters since my example is about very close ranges anyhow. Im posting this only to demonstrate that the gun can be fired much faster than it happens in CM. Not that this rate of fire should be applicable to every tank fight (or even most). Just that it would apply to very close engagements. It doesnt even have to be this fast, just alot faster than they currently to it, which is unreasonably slow. 

[A Canadian Cat]

Ah, I am on my phone so I may be missing something but to me it looked like that tank fired two rounds in under 5s. Did I see that right?

[AttorneyAtWar]

Man they are slamming those rounds into the breach in that clip.

[George MC]

5 minutes ago, IanL said:

Ah, I am on my phone so I may be missing something but to me it looked like that tank fired two rounds in under 5s. Did I see that right?

I think the clip of the Sherman firing was edited. Watch the smoke - there is a wee blip between shots as though the smoke resets. No way could the loader clear the breech, reload and the gunner fire that quick in what is a few seconds.

A link to another discussion regarding main gun loading times in tanks:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=128444

Excerpts from this discussion:

"Based on my own experience, loading and/or firing many 105/120mm tank rounds. 

With larger caliber guns, it is not the speed of loading or the loader that primarily determines your rate of fire , it is the gunner's ability to acquire/reacquire the target(s) through the sight picture and the gun-laying system of the tank to steady the gun after the blast and recoil of firing a previous round. 

For modern 100mm+ AT guns(4"), and probably several of the very high velocity 75+mm WWII AT guns,(3"), you cannot usually crank off an aimed round, at about more than 1 round every 4 seconds, for single pieced cased ammo. "

And from US WWII report about the Panther:

Ready ammunition rack set
up in rear of gunner permits
high cyclic rate of fire.
If necessary the gunner
can load himself in one
sweeping motion. Racks
can be filled from side
ammo compartments as
required. Permits 15
rounds per minute.

 

[shift8]

31 minutes ago, George MC said:

I think the clip of the Sherman firing was edited. Watch the smoke - there is a wee blip between shots as though the smoke resets. No way could the loader clear the breech, reload and the gunner fire that quick in what is a few seconds.

A link to another discussion regarding main gun loading times in tanks:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=128444

Excerpts from this discussion:

"Based on my own experience, loading and/or firing many 105/120mm tank rounds. 

With larger caliber guns, it is not the speed of loading or the loader that primarily determines your rate of fire , it is the gunner's ability to acquire/reacquire the target(s) through the sight picture and the gun-laying system of the tank to steady the gun after the blast and recoil of firing a previous round. 

For modern 100mm+ AT guns(4"), and probably several of the very high velocity 75+mm WWII AT guns,(3"), you cannot usually crank off an aimed round, at about more than 1 round every 4 seconds, for single pieced cased ammo. "

And from US WWII report about the Panther:

Ready ammunition rack set
up in rear of gunner permits
high cyclic rate of fire.
If necessary the gunner
can load himself in one
sweeping motion. Racks
can be filled from side
ammo compartments as
required. Permits 15
rounds per minute.

 

I dont think there is edit there at all, the smoke is still handing in the air when it fires the second round....it is just old footage. 

 

Second, Im not asking the gun to first quite the fast. Just the the follow ups at close range should be very fast, generally faster than the average RoF. 

Yes, 12-15 rounds a minute is typical of 120mm cannon. Or Panther 75mm cannon. But the 6pdr and M3 75mm fire much smaller shells, and should be capable of a bit more for short durations. More to the point, the guns in game generally dont follow up in 4 seconds. Like I said, the tank in question had time to rotate around its turret and shoot the other tank before it could fire a second shot. Clearly not fast enough imo. 

[shift8]

1 hour ago, IanL said:

I want what you guys are smoking I only play WEGO and tanks often pop smoke and back up on their own. They seem to do just fine at fighting without my intervention. They also fire as fast as they can close range or not.

Look, the OP 's crew got beat. It happens. On another day they might have got the second shot too and won the battle. On another day their first shot might have KO'ed the enemy tank. On this day they failed to beat the other crew and lost their tank because of it. Sounds like the game is working as expected to me. 

The OP thought there might have been something wrong. I highly doubt it but it is worth exploring. But come on guys most of this "analysis" sounds more like sour grapes. "My guys lost so it must be the games fault" Get over it. 

I think assuming this is a little bit dismissive. I won the battle in question, and it was in SP. Ive been observing this and similar stuff for over a year, and have been putting off saying anything about it at least partially because I knew that as soon as I posted it someone would accuse me of just being grumpy that my tank blew up. Please do me the courtesy of not presuming I am that short sighted.

[MikeyD]

Real-world, US tankers in the ETO had developed a 'quick-draw' firing technique that impressed the Germans. It involved, I think, one round up the breech, a second in the loader's arms and a third held between his knees. Bang! Bang! Bang! in quick succession. Three rounds landing on target before the opponent had time to get off his first shot. You could only do it once, though. After that you're back retrieving the ammo from the ready racks, normal old reload rate. I've read accounts from more than one war separated by 25 years of loaders being overcome and collapsing from exhaustion. Manhandling 25 pound+ rounds one-after-the-other is grueling work.

[Rinaldi]

11 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

've read accounts from more than one war separated by 25 years of loaders being overcome and collapsing from exhaustion. Manhandling 25 pound+ rounds one-after-the-other is grueling work.

That's  another thing too that's been niggling at me, reading this thread from afar. To my knowledge, tanker's don't fatigue in game when inside their vehicle, right? Would be interesting to see that soft factor have an effect on the turret crew's ability to maintain the maximum rate of fire. 

[IICptMillerII]

I was able to partially replicate what Shift8 is talking about. Here is the video:

 

First thing you'll notice is that the first Panther posed no problem. It was engaged and serviced promptly, before it could even start to get its turret around. 

The second Panther goes differently, but not due to a slow RoF on the Shermans part. I would chalk this one up to poor gunnery/panic in the heat of the moment, as you'll see he fires the second shot at the armored turret and the round bounces. The Panther then returns fire and the result is predictable. 

I believe this is at least part of what Shift8 is getting at, but again here it is due to poor gunnery and not some bug in the spotting/firing system of the AI

[shift8]

Also noted in that video is that it took him 7.7 seconds to fire the second shot. Instead of the 4 seconds that even a 120mm gun can manage. 

[A Canadian Cat]

1 hour ago, shift8 said:

 putting off saying anything about it at least partially because I knew that as soon as I posted it someone would accuse me of just being grumpy that my tank blew up. Please do me the courtesy of not presuming I am that short sighted.

OK good to know . The thing is you didn't really present any evidence that things were slow other than your opinion. Couple that with some previous discussions which saw you requesting uber sharpshooter capabilities people might understand my reaction. I am glad to hear you are cognisant of the big picture. Good. 

Now that video shows something interesting if it is not edited as i also suspect.

Bottom line if people have some good reason to show that the gunner loader should be faster great. But remember that "cause I said so" does not count.

[shift8]

Just now, IanL said:

OK good to know . The thing is you didn't really present any evidence that things were slow other than your opinion. Couple that with some previous discussions which saw you requesting uber sharpshooter capabilities people might understand my reaction. I am glad to hear you are cognisant of the big picture. Good. 

Now that video shows something interesting if it is not edited as i also suspect.

Bottom line if people have some good reason to show that the gunner loader should be faster great. But remember that "cause I said so" does not count.

Wait in what thread did I ever ask for super sharp shooter abilites? In the rifle thread I was staunchly on the side defending the game and pointing out that the riflemen should not be uber accurate......

I said I was still trying to figure out how best to present the issue at hand, and asked if anyone else had encountered anything similar. It is hard to replicate this in a test with enough controls to show what I have seen several times in other games. I am still working on making a video for this. I think captain millers video though shows some of the problems, even with just the aim on the second shot. 

 

Lastly: do you suspect something interesting? or do you suspect the video was edited?

[A Canadian Cat]

1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

Real-world, US tankers in the ETO had developed a 'quick-draw' firing technique that impressed the Germans. It involved, I think, one round up the breech, a second in the loader's arms and a third held between his knees. Bang! Bang! Bang! in quick succession. 

Now this might get some traction. Do we have some sources for this. Have we had this conversation with BFC about this?

[IICptMillerII]

The action shown in the video is unedited. The first Panther was knocked out in the previous turn, and after the Sherman was engaged by the Panther, nothing else of interest happened in the remaining time in the current turn so I stopped recording. If you watch the clock tick down during the action, you will note that it is consistent. 

[A Canadian Cat]

Not your video. The dramatic multi front compilation of war footage with the mood music that was posted earlier.

[Vanir Ausf B]

It is true that tank ROF could be faster in some situations where no aiming or shot adjustment is necessary. As a practical matter it would come into play only occasionally such as a very short ranges where both vehicles are stationary.

Another change that would be beneficial in the situations described in would be to eliminate tanks' instant reaction speed to new threats. That would have a positive impact on a broad range of scenarios. 

BTW, in CM tank rate of fire is modified by the crew experience rating.

Edited May 23, 2016 by Vanir Ausf B

[Michael Emrys]

3 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Another change that would be beneficial in the situations described in would be to eliminate tanks' instant reaction speed to new threats. That would have a positive impact on a broad range of scenarios. 

I am not following you here, Vanir. How would eliminating speed be beneficial? Seems to me like you'd want even more of it.

Michael