Panther optics inferior to those of the Sherman?

[Bulletpoint]

2 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said:

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

No problem, I don't mind a bit of digression. Main point has been debated anyway

[Bulletpoint]

19 minutes ago, Erwin said:

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.

I used to believe it worked like that, but there was some guy recently who demonstrated that trees and forests in this game are somewhat abstracted, so it's more a game of chance if you can trace LOF through X-number of forest tiles.

[domfluff]

"Some guy" was Steve commenting on how the game works

Trees block LOF by their depicted trunks - exactly as if you turn the foliage off. That's why you can shoot trees. Cover, not concealment, if you like.

Trees also block LOS through the trunks, if that's enough to block LOS. That could happen, if they were dense enough or far enough away, but often will not be.

Then, there's an additional degradation of spotting through the terrain, that seems to be on a per-tile basis. This is the same way that this works in various hex-and-counter wargames, more notably Advanced Squad Leader (and less notably Combat Commander). There, buildings provide morale, essentially, since troops are degraded by their morale state, and the intervening terrain lessens the incoming fire (so is easier to resist).

In CM, the only part of that which is true is the spotting cycle, which is clearly somewhat randomised, and degraded by a number of things, like suppression on the spotter, light conditions, and intervening tiles.

[Vanir Ausf B]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

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?

"no line of sight". Note that if the hull machine gunner has LOS he may fire on his own even if the target tool says "no line of sight" (very rare, but can happen through trees with low canopies).

[Vanir Ausf B]

• You must lead with strength. At least two tanks must be forward, and the trail platoons must be held far enough forward to support the lead platoon. The more guns that fire in the first minute, the quicker the enemy will be defeated and the fewer losses you will suffer.
• When breaking cover, do it quickly and together. The more targets the enemy is shown simultaneously, the harder his fire control and distribution will be, and the more guns you will have in effect on the enemy.
• You must continually keep a broad interval between vehicles. This splits the enemy's defensive fire and complicates his fire control. Narrow intervals must be avoided at all costs, especially in critical situations, or it will cost you losses.
• Never split your combat power; that is to say, do not employ parts of the company in such a manner that they cannot support each other. When your attack has two objectives you should attack first one and then the other with all weapons.

https://www.feldgrau.com/WW2-German-Panzer-Tank-Tactics-Training-Guide

 

[MOS:96B2P]

Thanks @Vanir Ausf B.  Interesting stuff. +1 

[Rinaldi]

1 hour ago, IanL said:

LOL I've been repeating myself have I?

Stuff that's true is worth repeating.

[MikeyD]

This reminds me why seeking hull down positions during active combat is so problematic. Situational awareness drops when your vehicle is moving and the opponent's ability to spot you goes up sharply if you're moving. So you're in a catch-22 situation. 

[Michael Emrys]

19 hours ago, Bil Hardenberger said:

You increase your odds by separating more as you give yourself the advantage of having two potentially wildly different spotting solutions.

Implied in this but not explicit is that by increasing the spread between your tanks, you increase the probability of getting a flank shot.

Michael

[Bil Hardenberger]

On 3/24/2018 at 6:52 AM, Michael Emrys said:

Implied in this but not explicit is that by increasing the spread between your tanks, you increase the probability of getting a flank shot.

Michael

Exactly right, armor tactics is all about angles.

[rocketman]

On 2018-03-25 at 4:38 PM, Bil Hardenberger said:

Exactly right, armor tactics is all about angles.

I just had to quote this because it sums everything up so well.

I'm just in the finishing stages of playing the scenario (PBEM) @Bulletpoint refers to, as the Germans, and I can't say I had any spotting problems like mentioned and my Panthers "worked" as I expected, even got a spot of a TD that was just unbelievably narrow, almost unfair, but still awesome.

One thing I have not read anything about, and if CM models it, is what happens to a crew's ability to spot and return fire when being shot at first. Even a non penetrating shot must be stressful and mess routine up, especially for green crews. My impression is that if both tanks spot each other roughly at the same time, the one that gets the first shot off in time will a lot of times also get the second shot on target before return fire is achieved. So my question is, taking all things in account mentioned before in this thread, will taking a non penetrating hit disrupt spotting and prolong time to a successful spot?

Edited March 26, 2018 by rocketman

[Bulletpoint]

2 hours ago, rocketman said:

I'm just in the finishing stages of playing the scenario (PBEM) @Bulletpoint refers to, as the Germans, and I can't say I had any spotting problems like mentioned and my Panthers "worked" as I expected

Which direction and distance did you approach from?

I was able to win the scenario by going along the road, which meant engaging at much closer ranges. At about 1000m my panthers spotted as I expected them to (not always first, but at least after bouncing a couple of rounds).

[rocketman]

3 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Which direction and distance did you approach from?

I was able to win the scenario by going along the road, which meant engaging at much closer ranges. At about 1000m my panthers spotted as I expected them to (not always first, but at least after bouncing a couple of rounds).

*********SPOILERS********************

I divided my force of Panthers so that two thirds went down the central road or to the left/right of it. I took a chance with the good off road capability of the Panthers that some of them wouldn't bog down as long as I stayed out of muddy looking ground. The other Panthers went wide left and wide right to outflank the more than congested center road. The first engagements were at about 1750 m against TD and Sherman (Jumbo?). Most encounters were head to head, me 2 to his 1, or me getting flank shots on him. So either wore him down, divided attention and mass of fire, or straigth out getting a better position. Problem for the allied player is getting hull down as the map is flat and the risk of bogging down in the available ditches etc.

[Bulletpoint]

15 minutes ago, rocketman said:

The first engagements were at about 1750 m against TD and Sherman

At that range, you must be in about the same area as me (given the layout of the map)

It's in this situation I either can't get a spot, or when I do get a spot, it's lost a couple of seconds later..

[c3k]

7 hours ago, rocketman said:

I just had to quote this because it sums everything up so well.

I'm just in the finishing stages of playing the scenario (PBEM) @Bulletpoint refers to, as the Germans, and I can't say I had any spotting problems like mentioned and my Panthers "worked" as I expected, even got a spot of a TD that was just unbelievably narrow, almost unfair, but still awesome.

One thing I have not read anything about, and if CM models it, is what happens to a crew's ability to spot and return fire when being shot at first. Even a non penetrating shot must be stressful and mess routine up, especially for green crews. My impression is that if both tanks spot each other roughly at the same time, the one that gets the first shot off in time will a lot of times also get the second shot on target before return fire is achieved. So my question is, taking all things in account mentioned before in this thread, will taking a non penetrating hit disrupt spotting and prolong time to a successful spot?

The suppression meter will go up when a hit occurs. Now, does that mean that they perform worse? I think so. A test or three would be in order...

[rocketman]

17 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

At that range, you must be in about the same area as me (given the layout of the map)

It's in this situation I either can't get a spot, or when I do get a spot, it's lost a couple of seconds later..

If you post some screenshots of the positions where the problematic situation arose and I can compare to my game. I played PBEM, so that might lead to other situations than vs AI.

[Bud Backer]

I played this scenario vs @IanL.

I played the US, and he the Germans. It was my impression that I’d usually get the drop on his Panthers (and the initial flock of Lynxes) but that to me was to be expected as I, the defender,  was able to either start in positions I wanted to await the enemy, or to move into those positions several minutes before he was anywhere near being able to have LOS.

On the other hand, it was rare that I’d get off more than 2 shots before being spotted. And that typically spelled death for my tanks. Some he even spotted before I saw his. 

In the battle he split his forces into two principal forces. One advanced down the central road and took the brunt of my artillery. That caused a lot more grief than my tanks.

The second force, also including Panthers, advanced to the US left (German right) along the edge of the map, so that he was splitting my fire and also obtaining many different angles to my forces. I think that facilitated his ability to spot and react effectively. I had a great deal of trouble spotting HIM there. When I did, the distances were so long that my hits merely scuffed Zimmeritt. Not so for his return fire, which gutted anything they hit.

IIRC I eked out a draw, more due to time than any cleverness on my part. 

Edited March 27, 2018 by Bud Backer

[A Canadian Cat]

Indeed that pretty much sums things up. My moving Panther's often got hit first but none of the Sherman's lasted long once they started shooting. And the fact that I had forces along two prongs meant that I frequently had multiple angles to shoot from. None of the Panthers had any kind of difficulty shooting at targets around the map, as appropriate anyway. @Bud Backer did well by slowing me down for sure. I was not able to seal a win.

[Bulletpoint]

3 minutes ago, IanL said:

Indeed that pretty much sums things up. My moving Panther's often got hit first but none of the Sherman's lasted long once they started shooting.

Hm yeah, that's just the problem - my tanks never got to that important last step, no matter how many times they got shot at. Still a mystery to me.

[A Canadian Cat]

12 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Hm yeah, that's just the problem - my tanks never got to that important last step, no matter how many times they got shot at. Still a mystery to me.

Me too.

[Duckman]

On 2018-03-23 at 5:43 PM, Vanir Ausf B said:

• You must lead with strength. At least two tanks must be forward, and the trail platoons must be held far enough forward to support the lead platoon. The more guns that fire in the first minute, the quicker the enemy will be defeated and the fewer losses you will suffer.
• When breaking cover, do it quickly and together. The more targets the enemy is shown simultaneously, the harder his fire control and distribution will be, and the more guns you will have in effect on the enemy.
• You must continually keep a broad interval between vehicles. This splits the enemy's defensive fire and complicates his fire control. Narrow intervals must be avoided at all costs, especially in critical situations, or it will cost you losses.
• Never split your combat power; that is to say, do not employ parts of the company in such a manner that they cannot support each other. When your attack has two objectives you should attack first one and then the other with all weapons.

https://www.feldgrau.com/WW2-German-Panzer-Tank-Tactics-Training-Guide

 

I've noticed over the years that there is often a disconnect between the things discussed by wargamers and the things discussed in manuals and memoirs. Wargamers (and history buffs in general) often turn tactical discussions into technical ones that focus on gun size, armour thickness, etc whereas tactical instructions stress things like speed, surprise, coordination, and violence of action. On defence the main things points are usually fire discipline before opening fire and volume of fire after opening fire. 

One of the many good things about CM is that the increased fog of war compared to most wargames (both board and computer) can lead to a more realistic mentality in my opinion. More overall planning and less micromanagement, if you will. I quite like real/continuous time for this reason.

[Bil Hardenberger]

56 minutes ago, Duckman said:

I've noticed over the years that there is often a disconnect between the things discussed by wargamers and the things discussed in manuals and memoirs. Wargamers (and history buffs in general) often turn tactical discussions into technical ones that focus on gun size, armour thickness, etc whereas tactical instructions stress things like speed, surprise, coordination, and violence of action. On defence the main things points are usually fire discipline before opening fire and volume of fire after opening fire. 

One of the many good things about CM is that the increased fog of war compared to most wargames (both board and computer) can lead to a more realistic mentality in my opinion. More overall planning and less micromanagement, if you will. I quite like real/continuous time for this reason.

Good observations there Duckman, you are preaching to the choir.

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, Duckman said:

I've noticed over the years that there is often a disconnect between the things discussed by wargamers and the things discussed in manuals and memoirs. Wargamers (and history buffs in general) often turn tactical discussions into technical ones that focus on gun size, armour thickness, etc whereas tactical instructions stress things like speed, surprise, coordination, and violence of action. On defence the main things points are usually fire discipline before opening fire and volume of fire after opening fire. 

I completely agree. Only posted this thread to make sure there wasn't any historical reason why I got the results that I got in this particular scenario. Usually, I'm more concerned with tactics than weapons/optics trivia.

[Erwin]

1 hour ago, Bil Hardenberger said:

Good observations there Duckman, you are preaching to the choir.

Yes, totally agree...