Panther optics inferior to those of the Sherman?

[Bil Hardenberger]

3 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

It's a nearly flat map crossed by various fences etc, so it looks like both sides are very slightly hull down to the other side. There are some lines of sparse trees separating the sides too. Shermans were stationary and Panthers moving into position, so it's natural that the Shermans spot the Panthers first. However, the issue was that the Panthers never seem to spot back.

I agree of course that many factors go into an armour match up, and I'm just trying to find out what I'm missing here.

It's starting to make sense.... the following are in the order of my highlighting above:

1. Both sides hull down?  I doubt your Panthers were hull-down as they were moving.  I DO believe the Shermans were hull down.  The Sherman also has a small turret, and hull down tanks can be very tough to spot.  In my very first BETA AAR (for CMBN) I had a hull down Pz-IV that shot up my opponent's armor and he never located it.
2. Trees, even sparse trees can add to the complexity of the spotting solution.  Ask C3K how effective tree-lines can be. 
3. If the Shermans were stationary, then they had all of the advantages in this fight, stationary tanks spot best.  This is why if you must move your tank, leap-frog them so you always have at least one stopped and covering for the other.  Always move in pairs at least so you can provide a proper overwatch.
4. Your moving Panthers will NOT spot very well at all.  Movement is the worst thing you can do if you can't spot an enemy tank.  In these instances, stop, go hull down facing the direction of the enemy fire, and wait.  It could take two or more turns to even get a sound contact.
5. I am not surprised that your Panthers never spotted the Shermans... you didn't give your tanks any advantages.  Even the best tank can be killed if you are cavalier with them and think they are invulnerable.

One more thing from one of your posts... you said "I had three Panthers in a tight group...", of course all you did was make them that much easier to spot by bunching together.  

Bil

 

[Bil Hardenberger]

10 hours ago, c3k said:

Having played @Bil Hardenberger in an AAR and watched all of his other ones, I can attest to the fact that Bil hits more than just nails smack on the head. If your tank even peeps out a little bit...he's there with a hammer. Sigh. The worst part? How polite he is about it. 

Yeah I have fond memories of the tank fight in that AAR  , not so much the infantry battle that followed. 

[sburke]

22 minutes ago, Bil Hardenberger said:

Trees, even sparse trees can add to the complexity of the spotting solution.  Ask C3K how effective tree-lines can be. 

Salt in the wound. maybe he isn't as polite as you think c3k, just more subtle.   

[Bulletpoint]

8 hours ago, Bil Hardenberger said:

It's starting to make sense.... the following are in the order of my highlighting above:

1. Both sides hull down?  I doubt your Panthers were hull-down as they were moving.  I DO believe the Shermans were hull down.  The Sherman also has a small turret, and hull down tanks can be very tough to spot.  In my very first BETA AAR (for CMBN) I had a hull down Pz-IV that shot up my opponent's armor and he never located it.
2. Trees, even sparse trees can add to the complexity of the spotting solution.  Ask C3K how effective tree-lines can be. 
3. If the Shermans were stationary, then they had all of the advantages in this fight, stationary tanks spot best.  This is why if you must move your tank, leap-frog them so you always have at least one stopped and covering for the other.  Always move in pairs at least so you can provide a proper overwatch.
4. Your moving Panthers will NOT spot very well at all.  Movement is the worst thing you can do if you can't spot an enemy tank.  In these instances, stop, go hull down facing the direction of the enemy fire, and wait.  It could take two or more turns to even get a sound contact.
5. I am not surprised that your Panthers never spotted the Shermans... you didn't give your tanks any advantages. 

 

 

I think I mis-explained. The Panthers HAD moved into position, but of course they were stationary in the spotting situation  Again, I wouldn't be surprised the Shermans spotted the Panthers first and got off several shots before the Panthers could react, but it just seems unusual that they sit there for about 5 turns getting hammered and never return fire.

Quote

One more thing from one of your posts... you said "I had three Panthers in a tight group...", of course all you did was make them that much easier to spot by bunching together.  

 

I doubt this is modelled in the game. Having tanks travel together in a "fist" is usually a good tactic.

Quote

Even the best tank can be killed if you are cavalier with them and think they are invulnerable.

Agreed, but I think engaging Shermans head-on at long range by Panthers is a quite sensible idea.

Edited March 23, 2018 by Bulletpoint

[Bulletpoint]

Here's some more Panther fun from the same mission:

 

 

 

Fritz, go check on that weird banging sound we've been hearing for the last five minutes. Starting to get a headache!
 

 

Well, nothing to see here, nobody could shoot through all those trees.

Press alt+t you dolt!

 

Oh, it's one of those funny little battle wagons...

Well, do something. Shoot!

 

 

Sorry sir, can't shoot back. There's no line of sight. Not sure how I'm even seeing that thing.

 

[Rinaldi]

The commander can see, the gunner cannot. Easy explanations to what you want to vent about. Its time to stop thinking about the tank as a single borg-like entity (and before you say "I don't" - you just did). 

Also yes - it is modeled in the game, the more individuals or vehicles in a position the easier they become to spot. Hence why a 3 man FO team in a hedge may go unnoticed the entire game versus a 9 man squad. Same with vehicles. Law of averages.

Edited March 23, 2018 by Rinaldi

[domfluff]

Yeah, I don't think there's a model for "more tanks = easier to spot", but there's definitely a percentage chance of seeing each tank individually, each spotting cycle. Three of them together make it more likely that one will be spotted. If one is spotted, the spotter will be looking directly at where the other two are, making it easier to spot those as well, especially when the fighting starts.

The LOS/LOF for tanks creates these problems all the time. You'd have the same problem in reality, of course, but you'd hope that a decent real-life crew would sort this out amongst themselves. The Combat Mission TacAI (as in, choosing which weapon to use, how to react on an individual level) is really pretty great - it's rare that you see individual soldiers doing anything really odd, unlike on the larger scale. This is one of those edge cases where the sim breaks down a little, but it's far from fatal.

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, Rinaldi said:

The commander can see, the gunner cannot.

When the game says "no line of sight", that is supposed to mean it's impossible to see anything in that location - for all crew members. If it's just LOS blocked for one of the crew, you'd get a grey targeting line. If it's not possible to see the ground, but possible to see a location higher up, you get the "no aim point" message.

Also, it's obvious that the scout car can draw LOF to the Panther gun level, so why not in reverse?

1 hour ago, Rinaldi said:

Also yes - it is modeled in the game, the more individuals or vehicles in a position the easier they become to spot. Hence why a 3 man FO team in a hedge may go unnoticed the entire game versus a 9 man squad.

For infantry, yes. Because they still count as a team. But three separate vehicle in three separate squares don't affect the spotting of each other, as far as I am aware.

[Bil Hardenberger]

43 minutes ago, domfluff said:

Yeah, I don't think there's a model for "more tanks = easier to spot", but there's definitely a percentage chance of seeing each tank individually, each spotting cycle. Three of them together make it more likely that one will be spotted. If one is spotted, the spotter will be looking directly at where the other two are, making it easier to spot those as well, especially when the fighting starts.

The LOS/LOF for tanks creates these problems all the time. You'd have the same problem in reality, of course, but you'd hope that a decent real-life crew would sort this out amongst themselves. The Combat Mission TacAI (as in, choosing which weapon to use, how to react on an individual level) is really pretty great - it's rare that you see individual soldiers doing anything really odd, unlike on the larger scale. This is one of those edge cases where the sim breaks down a little, but it's far from fatal.

This is correct.  Spread your tanks out, as was and is done in real life.. a cluster of vehicles in this game makes them all easier to spot.  Especially if they are all moving.

Bulletpoint, we weren't there, all we can do is give you some theories as to what happened in this particular instance from the descriptions you provided.  Take from it what you will, or ignore all the lessons, the choice is yours.

[Rinaldi]

18 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

When the game says "no line of sight", that is supposed to mean it's impossible to see anything in that location - for all crew members. If it's just LOS blocked for one of the crew, you'd get a grey targeting line. If it's not possible to see the ground, but possible to see a location higher up, you get the "no aim point" message.

 

1) LOS is drawn from the ground, its not an infalliable measuring tool.

2) The M8 is not a Panther; its gunner may be able to see in a situation where a Panther's gunner cannot and vice-versa. 

3) The logic of "if it can shoot me, I can shoot it" is not borne out in reality. That's the textbook definition of defilade.

Edit: Bil has beaten me to the punch, but his parting sentiments are mine own: we can only spitball. This seems like, as @IanL is fond of saying, a circumstance where one side got burned and the other didn't, so we're getting tunnel vision on perceived problems.

Edited March 23, 2018 by Rinaldi

[Bil Hardenberger]

2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Having tanks travel together in a "fist" is usually a good tactic.

You are taking that too literally.. Guderian said "You hit somebody with your fist and not with your fingers spread."  That doesn't mean drive into them in a tight mass, it means to ensure the individual tanks/units can mutually support each other and provide converging fire as needed.

[Bulletpoint]

5 minutes ago, Bil Hardenberger said:

You are taking that too literally.. Guderian said "You hit somebody with your fist and not with your fingers spread."  That doesn't mean drive into them in a tight mass, it means to ensure the individual tanks/units can mutually support each other and provide converging fire as needed.

Hm yes, good advice, and this is what I am trying to do. But leapfrogging overwatch and covering fire depends on the overwatch element actually being able to spot and engage enemy positions that open up.

I've reloaded the original situation of this post a couple of times and tried various things out. It's clear that the LOS/LOF is not optimal because of the distance and various trees and a tiny bit of slope in the way. But it still seems the Shermans are dealing with these conditions way better than my tanks. The only thing that really helps me is to drive my Panthers closer. At around 1500m they start to engage "normally" - they start to spot and to keep their spot for more than a few seconds.

[Bulletpoint]

17 minutes ago, Rinaldi said:

This seems like, as @IanL is fond of saying, a circumstance where one side got burned and the other didn't, so we're getting tunnel vision on perceived problems.

That's definitely a factor often in play. I did notice a similar problem earlier in the same scenario though, where I was benefiting from it: One of my Lynx tanks somehow got a spot on an enemy Stuart through what seemed like a lot of trees.

The Lynx started firing and just kept shooting for many turns, all shots getting stopped by the trees. The Stuart sat there and never spotted my Lynx and never returned fire.

Eventually the Lynx destroyed enough foliage that a few shots started to get through, causing the Stuart to back off.

It seems like this situation is like the M8 situation above, just in reverse. One vehicle gets a very unlikely spot, and somehow manages to stubbornly keep that spot indefinitely, whereas in other situations, normally targets drift in and out of active spotting.

I'm not yelling this is a bug, but it's something that seems very odd to me.

[Vanir Ausf B]

2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

When the game says "no line of sight", that is supposed to mean it's impossible to see anything in that location - for all crew members. If it's just LOS blocked for one of the crew, you'd get a grey targeting line.

LOS for crew-served weapons is traced from the gunner's point of view specifically. A grey target line means the gunner has LOS but at least one other crew member does not.

2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Also, it's obvious that the scout car can draw LOF to the Panther gun level, so why not in reverse?

LOS/LOF are sometimes non-reciprocal. It seems to happen more often through foliage.

[Vanir Ausf B]

2 hours ago, Rinaldi said:

1) LOS is drawn from the ground, its not an infalliable measuring tool.

LOS is drawn from the height of the spotter.

[MOS:96B2P]

4 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Having tanks travel together in a "fist" is usually a good tactic.  

+1.  This is an interesting, respectful, civilized conversation.  Nice to see.  

There is always the balancing act of trying to have many of your vehicles against fewer of the OpFor vehicles in an engagement vs not bunching your vehicles up.  The fist vs spreading out.  How much to spread them out depends on the situation and something I struggle with.  To have many of your vehicles against fewer of the OpFor your vehicles must see the same OpFor vehicles which generally mean your vehicles need to be closer together to have the same LOS/LOF.  So in general how close should they be?  I have one rule from playing the modern title CMBS that there should be at least one open action spot in- between vehicles since I have had one vehicle exploding and damaging another vehicle that was next to it.  I read somewhere (I think Tigers in the Mud) that the Germans in Russia kept at least 80 meters between the tanks (of course this was in open terrain).  If you spread your tanks out to 80 meters in most CM games you're probably not going to get the many vs few tactic to work.  In general how tight of a fist for most CM games?  From play experience I suspect well under 80 meters.      

 

2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

When the game says "no line of sight", that is supposed to mean it's impossible to see anything in that location - for all crew members. If it's just LOS blocked for one of the crew, you'd get a grey targeting line. If it's not possible to see the ground, but possible to see a location higher up, you get the "no aim point" message.  

This is my understanding of how it is suppose to work.   

PS - As I was typing @Vanir Ausf B replied with more information on the game mechanics.  Excellent information as usual. 

 

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

3 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

When the game says "no line of sight", that is supposed to mean it's impossible to see anything in that location - for all crew members. If it's just LOS blocked for one of the crew, you'd get a grey targeting line.

LOS for crew-served weapons is traced from the gunner's point of view specifically. A grey target line means the gunner has LOS but at least one other crew member does not.

So if the gunner does not have LOS, but at least one other crew member has, does the game then display "no line of sight" or a grey targeting line?

[Bulletpoint]

53 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said:

+1.  This is an interesting, respectful, civilized conversation.  Nice to see. 

*tips hat*

Did you play the mission in question yourself? Meijel Madness. Would like to hear your take on it, and if you had the same targeting issues that I have.

[MOS:96B2P]

11 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Did you play the mission in question yourself? Meijel Madness. 

No, sorry, I don't think I've played this one.   

[Bil Hardenberger]

59 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said:

In general how tight of a fist for most CM games?  From play experience I suspect well under 80 meters.      

There is no need to put a specific number to this... I argue that it is terrain and situation dependent.

For argument sake let's assume you are working with a two tank section:  If your two tanks can mutually support at 150 meters, why close them up to a specific distance?  I would base it on what terrain affords the best protection (i.e. hull-down positions) and still allows both tanks to cover the same ground and also provides a good spread.  That might be 25 meters apart in some circumstances... it might be 80 meters, or it could be 500 meters or more on a very open map.  It is the firepower that is important, not the proximity of tanks to each other.  You increase your odds by separating more as you give yourself the advantage of having two potentially wildly different spotting solutions.

Sometimes you want them tight, but again this is dependent on the enemy situation, your mission, and the terrain.  The more open the map, the more spread you should use, the more closed the terrain becomes the closer they will be together, and that could be wheel to wheel if the situation demands.

[Erwin]

Isn't the issue here the sometimes strange LOS/spotting features of the CM2 engine.  The AI can spot a target through dozens/hundreds of meters of dense woods if there is a 1 pixel gap invisible to the human eye.  So human players cannot see this.

This can work to the human player advantage since one's own tanks also benefit from this superhuman AI spotting ability. 

However, in this example, it seems that the Allied tank is spotting from a level and position so that it can see the one pixel gap.  Am suggesting that the German tank is spotting from possibly a millimeter off that line and so cannot spot the Sherman.

 

 

[A Canadian Cat]

Interesting stuff here. I think I am mostly doing what @Bil Hardenberger suggests but may not be practising it 100% - or thinking about it the right way. I frequently think of my two tanks working together having to be close to each other but I see that is not necessarily the case at all. They have to be able to see threats and targets appropriately. Whether that leads to separations of 100s of m or 10s of m is terrain dependent.

Cool

[MOS:96B2P]

10 minutes ago, Bil Hardenberger said:

it is terrain and situation dependent.

Sometimes you want them tight, but again this is dependent on the enemy situation, your mission, and the terrain.  The more open the map, the more spread you should use, the more closed the terrain becomes the closer they will be together, and that could be wheel to wheel if the situation demands.

I suppose this is the best general answer that can be given and I'm not going to be able to make a general distance SOP.   

Sorry @Bulletpoint I think your wanting to talk about LOS/LOF in Meijei Maddness....................   

[A Canadian Cat]

I love this story. Sounds like the game is working perfectly!

3 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

The Lynx started firing and just kept shooting for many turns, all shots getting stopped by the trees. The Stuart sat there and never spotted my Lynx and never returned fire.

The Lynx crew kept trying to get rounds on target - good for them. They knew they would cut down branches and leaves eventually. The Stuart crew had no idea what was coming. Why would they? Some tree Xm away behind a bunch of other trees was getting chewed up. Even if they did hear it, why would that necessarily have been a bigger threat than something coming towards the in the direction they were supposed to be looking?

3 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Eventually the Lynx destroyed enough foliage that a few shots started to get through, causing the Stuart to back off.

Excellent - the Lynx crew got rounds on and the Stuart crew detected a threat and moved away - since they probably didn't see what was creating a path through the trees.

Awesome story.

[A Canadian Cat]

4 hours ago, Rinaldi said:

Edit: Bil has beaten me to the punch, but his parting sentiments are mine own: we can only spitball. This seems like, as @IanL is fond of saying, a circumstance where one side got burned and the other didn't, so we're getting tunnel vision on perceived problems.

LOL I've been repeating myself have I?