Vehicle reaction time

[SlowMotion]

When playing CMSF2 and maybe earlier modern time CM games also I've noticed that especially western tanks and vehicles can have very rapid reaction times.
I've seen cases where an enemy unit moves on map and opposite side's armored vehicle seems to spot it immediately and also act on this without ANY delay.

I have no real life experience of such vehicles, but I assume that crew members have to communicate when they spot something and shout orders so each crew member knows what to do. IMO it seems that often no such communication delay is involved, but things happen as if everything was controlled by a computer in a fraction of a second.

Any comments?  Especially from people with real experience from tanks etc. How long does it take from the moment when a crew member spots an enemy let's say on the right side of the vehicle to the moment that the vehicle has turned its hull (like happens in CM) and turret and is ready to fire at the enemy?

[The_MonkeyKing]

My experience comes from being a CV9030 gunner.

 

Let us start with a very real live example. CV9030 company is moving along a road surrounded by dense forest. Enemy contact is possible but not imminent. The company is "traveling" so mounted and expected to move somewhat quickly. Leading CV9030 is moving slow enough to be 100% ready to open fire instantly, the gunner is constantly "pre-aimed" to the next corner on the road ext. and the gunner will engage on his own initiative.

So let us say a meeting engagement happens. What happens in the lead tank?
- Gunner sees the enemy AFV and opens fire.
- Commander knows without words what is happening (gunner shooting + direction the gun is pointed) and acts out his part of the script. Says to the intercom: "reverse, fast!" and flips a switch that pops smoke. Gunner gives a report as fast as he can while/after shooting: "IFV, destroyed"
- Commander informs the platoon/company radio shortly: "contact, heavy" (heavy meaning mechanized force) Also sometimes lead tank intercom is directly connected to platoon radio so the information is as fast as possible and if the lead tank is lost the information is not.
- Commander gives the driver instruction on the reversing (left, right, hard left...)
- Commander and driver have packed up a short distance to the side of the road and the commander gives "dismount, left" order for the dismounts. Same time more information to platoon/company radio.

[Mattis]

Like already stated gunners when instructed or in case of direct danger can open fire without permission. Triggering the laser range finder gives you normally an instant result and manual or computerized lead for moving targets also is adjusted pretty fast or in most cases (especially the short engagement ranges of CM) not even needed due to the high velocity of the rounds.

An further possibility that may contribute to the speed is that some of the modern Western battle tanks (not sure about other vehicles and don´t know about Russian) also have an override function that in case enemy contact allows the gunner or commander to instantly slew the turret/cupola of the other crew member to his bearing. In most cases this happens when the commander spots and target and then slews the gunners turret towards the target. Taking into consideration that both crew members are likely looking towards the expected enemy contact this form of target aquisition takes not even a second.

Further account goes to the fact that CM assumes that most Western vehicles in the theatre have superior technology in comparsion to the Soviet/Russian vehicles and also simulates highly likely superior Coalition crew training when compared to their Syrian crews.

[SlowMotion]

Thanks!  Great examples. What about this situation I encountered while playing CMSF2 demo:

A vehicle like CV9030 is stopped on street in urban environment (might be a bad idea, but that's how the scenario is). Buildings on both sides of the vehicle.
Gun pointing forward. Then someone else than gunner or commander spots enemy infantry moving in one of the buildings on the right side. Maybe 2 o'clock.
How much slower would things go when the gunner didn't spot, but he has to hear it from someone else and then spot it himself before he can fire.

Can you give some estimate how many seconds it might take from the moment someone spots enemy infantry to when the gunner can open fire?

 

Edited October 25, 2018 by SlowMotion

[Kaunitz]

See me reacting!  The AI-tank-commander announces the targets and override-points the turret in the right direction for me (the gunner).  

https://youtu.be/ubncD6I1SqM?t=181

 

Edited October 25, 2018 by Kaunitz

[SlowMotion]

13 minutes ago, Kaunitz said:

See me reacting!  The AI-tank-commander announces the targets and override-points the turret in the right direction for me (the gunner).  

https://youtu.be/ubncD6I1SqM?t=181

 

Interesting as well. That APC case seemed to take about 10 seconds. If the target had not moved maybe 5 seconds.

BTW: I was surprised to see how curved the shell trajectory to 2.3 km was. 

[Mattis]

24 minutes ago, SlowMotion said:

BTW: I was surprised to see how curved the shell trajectory to 2.3 km was. 

Because it was a HEAT round

Edited October 25, 2018 by Mattis

[The_MonkeyKing]

We were instructed to not use laser rangefinders when possible. Because of time you lose by using it (around a second or two) and the new detection systems. CV9030s bushmasters APFSDS-T rounds are so fast (near flat trajectory) that you can set the guns range to 700m and hit any AFV sized target from 0-1500m when aiming center mass. We called this "battle sight".

Edited October 26, 2018 by The_MonkeyKing

[Mattis]

3 hours ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

We were instructed to not use laser rangefinders when possible. Because of time you lose by using it (around a second or two) and the new detection systems. CV9030s bushmasters APFSDS-T rounds are so fast (near flat trajectory) that you can set the guns range to 700m and hit any AFV sized target from 0-1500m when aiming center mass. We called this "battle sight".

He definitely knows what he is talking about, which is a rare trait in the internet.

Also there is no reason instantly start fiddling around with your stopwatch just because you´ve seen a random Steel Beasts video. It is perhaps the most definitive tank simulation but still far from reality, at least the version for the private sector.

For example a military grade joystick may give better results than a lagging mouse simulating this joystick, also the override... I think it isn´t potrayed completely correctly but damn close. Then imagine a fellow that probably spent countles hours with a virtual simulator, in the life tank with sim equipment, and then in life fire excercises.

Beside this not all tank features especially newer inventions and confidental ones are represented in Steel Beasts L2A4, C2, and the other tanks there.

Furthermore most commanders wouldn´t call out a slow HEAT round for a >2k meters moving APC target like SB´s AI does there but just stick to the high velocity KE-based rounds like APFSDS. You hear occasionally stories about the danger of overpenetration without causing any damage but these people have no clue. Hits are highly likely mission kills. Yes it will overpenetrate but you and your friends inside that APC definitely will notice when a 120mm KE says hello when passing by and you´ll consider twice if you continue your journey if you´re even in the state then to do so.

Edited October 26, 2018 by Mattis

[SlowMotion]

I understand that simulation is different from real battle. I just get impression that some things happen too quickly and too reliably in the game.

Human like behavior must be really difficult to simulate. I watched some Youtube footage from current Syrian conflicts and things seemed to evolve much more slowly than in the game. Of course real battles may take several days instead of an hour or two.

here's one example
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb1M1wbEj0U&t=30s

 

[The_MonkeyKing]

Modern mechaniced combat (Syria is far from that) is extremely fast, violent and deadly.

[SlowMotion]

It seems to me that because of this lethality most wars/conflicts on this century have been such where the other side is clearly weaker. Older gear, worse training etc. Whether it's air warfare or land based, the good gear rarely meet. So we have little actual experience of how well those things really work against same level opponent. 

BTW: Syria's situation may be changing now that Russia has brought newer technology. Anti-aircraft, electronic warfare etc.

Edited October 26, 2018 by SlowMotion

[tpr]

1 hour ago, SlowMotion said:

Human like behavior must be really difficult to simulate.

Definitely.

One crew may aquire and kill a target in matter of seconds the other may struggle to do so. So many circumstances, you never know.

Also you´re probably right with the asumption that operations in CM play out fast. Some of the scenarios you´re playing would in real life not take hours but probably days and also the casualties rates in many CM sorties weren´t acceptable at all for many real commanders. I think this is a welcome abstraction for us gamers. Still CM is the closest to the real thing when it comes to ground ops.

Edited October 26, 2018 by The Wolves of Steel

[SlowMotion]

13 minutes ago, The Wolves of Steel said:

Also you´re probably right with the asumption that operations in CM play out fast. Some of the scenarios you´re playing would in real life not take hours but probably days and also the casualties rates in many CM sorties weren´t acceptable at all for many real commanders. I think this is a welcome abstraction for us gamers. Still CM is the closest to the real thing when it comes to ground ops.

Yes, playing a 3 day battle using one minute turns would make gamers fall asleep   Despite this time compression, I think CMSF2 and the other newer CM games are a great gaming experience.

[Kaunitz]

The thing I keep asking myself though is what exactly makes Combat Mission games so "compressed"? I don't want to bash the game or anything, I'm just genuinly interested in that question. 

Some thoughts: The vehicles are moving at the right speed, rates of fire seem quote realistic. Communication and ease of coordination (player=god-issue) might be a big factor though. I also think that many quickbattle maps are not scaled realistically. E.g. for CM:BS, if you take a look at the eastern Ukraine on google maps, you can easily find fields that are about 1x2km or so. In the game, a map of this size usually holds several hills, fields, tiny tiny woods (rather: patches of trees, really) and a village. I've also fiddled around with a realistically scaled CM:FB map in the editor, and it feels very different and vast compared to most quickbattle maps. So the terrain might be a bit narrow/compressed. It gives advantages to infantry and reduces engagements to point blank/ambush ranges. Realistically scaled maps look quite bland in the game, but I suppose that this is a quite a big factor? With longer engagement ranges, battles would probably be a bit slower and less lethal (at least for WWII titles)? Lack of protection/fortifications is certainly another point that leads to extremely bloody battles, especially for infantry. And last but not least, it's a game. Players can risk a lot without any consequences. Retreat is not an option in a quickbattle. It would be different if there were also an "exit" objective for the defender in quickbattles (under certain conditions). What you usually get in quickbattles is a fanatical last stand. 

 

Edited October 26, 2018 by Kaunitz

[SlowMotion]

I think map dimensions may be compressed because map makers are trying to create a map for interesting battles for gamers more than simulate real terrain. And since this is a game I can fully understand that. Although I do know there are very realistic maps (as far this is possible using current CM technology), mostly included in stock scenarios of some WW2 CM games.

As for time, players won't play battles that last too long.
Also they can take much higher risks because there is no benefit from saving your units to next battle, like it was in CMx1 operations.
In a way the whole war lasts just one battle. That's why casualty rates are enormous.

Edited October 26, 2018 by SlowMotion

[The_MonkeyKing]

One big one is that in CM, game starts when contact is made/imminent. All the sleeping, traveling, rotating, holding ground, eating is not happening. No probes, no recon and no supporting efforts. Both sides are going for victory here and now and as SlowMotion said this battle with these units and goals wins/loses the war. No neighboring units exist and the future doesn't exist. Both also know both can win.

[A Canadian Cat]

31 minutes ago, Kaunitz said:

The thing I keep asking myself though is what exactly makes Combat Mission games so "compressed"?

I think it comes down to information and attitude.

In CM the player has all the information at hand right away. Even if you have to click around to get all the details. IRL for any decision above the platoon people have to talk, explain and discuss at least a little bit if only because there are multiple actual humans that need to be coordinated. In the game we need none of that.

The attitude of the pixel soldiers is the other big factor. Most humans spend a large amount of time taking care of their buddies. Once the pressing issue of someone shooting at you in the moment is taken care of people want to know their friends and colleges are taken care of. Not to mention when the bullets start flying those loosing the firefight don't want to stay in close contact - whomever is loosing the firefight is going to break contact and regroup. Then those that are moving forward are not going to just run across that field right away. They have no idea if the enemy is still there hidden away - we do. I think IRL there is a lot more shooting at where the enemy used to be to make sure before jogging across the field. I suspect there is little jogging either.

[Wicky]

"I've seen cases where an enemy unit moves on map and opposite side's armored vehicle seems to spot it immediately and also act on this without ANY delay."

Sensors

Saw some clips of Gen 5 military thermal imaging camera footage used for forthcoming BBC wildlife program that was jawdropping.

This is an example from 2014

and 2017

 

Edited October 26, 2018 by Wicky

[Mattis]

Like already mentioned map size and the quicker communication and command play a key role why everything plays out faster here.

Also most of the time in real combat operations there are no air or cavalry conveniently around the corner to provide support. You may stir up a hidden nest, call in support, and then hit the deck for several hours before they come to solve your problem.

Also many things in CM die alot faster, especially infantry in buildings or other cover.

To visualize this:

There was a night where nearly an complete operation was hold up because of incoming small arms from a five-story compound in high density urban territory. Hours of shooting at nothing and dark spots that may be somebody peeking or just NOD shenanigans, thousands of round were put into this building but they simply denied to stop shooting. Cavalry was called in and also put another pack of heavy ordnance into that building (many buildings don´t collapse that easy), even calling further support was considered. Silence. Then order to enter the building, enemy gunshots erupted on one of the higher floors. Again on hold. Took another half on an hour to find a solution in order to pacify it and nearly another half hour to clear the rest of the building and situation (which takes seconds in CM).

Turned out that this building was occupied by only two individuals armed just with one AK and one RPG and alot of ammo.

They´ve managed to hold up company sized elements, cavalry support, and futher to delay the operations of other elements for half of the night.

Imagine this in urban environment where you have dozen of such buildings.

Real warfare can also involve an unbelieveable amount of waiting and also "camping" to put it in video game terms.

[SlowMotion]

17 minutes ago, Wicky said:

"I've seen cases where an enemy unit moves on map and opposite side's armored vehicle seems to spot it immediately and also act on this without ANY delay."

Sensors

Saw some clips of Gen 5 military thermal imaging camera footage used for forthcoming BBC wildlife program that was jawdropping.

I've seen similar night time hunting videos and they clearly show how darkness doesn't give much protection to soldiers these days:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVnA-BYUdes

 

I agree that sensors can help, especially noticing threats from long distance. But my original problem case was in daylight. Soldiers entering a building from a door. Before even half of the squad had entered the building (less than 100m from the armored vehicle) the turret was already turning. I should have recorded a video from the situation.

[Thomm]

In the CM:SF2 demo I hunted with a Syrian T-something (in "The Alamo") straight forward towards a Leopard 2 who was looking in a different direction. About 45 degrees from my axis of approach.

Sure kill, I thought, until the Leopard turned its turret and blew the Syrian tank, which was pointed directly towards it, into the sky.

Made me pull my hair out.

That Leopard tank was later killed by a lone RPG gunner. Which made up for the above. A little.

Best regards,
Thomm

[The_MonkeyKing]

42 minutes ago, Thomm said:

In the CM:SF2 demo I hunted with a Syrian T-something (in "The Alamo") straight forward towards a Leopard 2 who was looking in a different direction. About 45 degrees from my axis of approach.

Sure kill, I thought, until the Leopard turned its turret and blew the Syrian tank, which was pointed directly towards it, into the sky.

3

Some other German units probably saw and/or heard the T-62 and shared that information to the Leopard through CC networks. That would drastically reduce the spotting time. Commander would concentrate his spotting efforts to that direction and alert the gunner + Leopard "hunter-killer" functionality would reduce the engagement time when the commander spots the target first.  Also remember, CM does not show tanks looking around and scanning likely ground. Also if there was any smoke around the T-62 does not have FLIR sights...

Inside the tank:
Spotting directions would be divided between the crew. "Default case" example from my times with CV9030s; Driver: front what he can see and especially any signs of mines/IEDs on the route. Gunner: continuously scans front 10 o'clock to 2 o'clock. Dismounts(when mounted): Back and backsides. Commander: Same rule always, look at everything the gunner and driver are not looking at(directions they see are obvious: the driver sees hulls front and gunner +-20degrees from where the gun is pointed). The spotting directions can and will be adjusted according to the situation. For example, the commander might look at the left side of the road and the gunner look at the right side of the road.

Edited October 29, 2018 by The_MonkeyKing

[SlowMotion]

Interestingly I saw this spotting information sharing happening in a recent Syria footage video. There were 2 old tanks shooting at rebel infantry in urban area. Then some distance behind those tanks there was infantry observing the battle area. If these soldiers saw something happening in nearby buildings they shared the info to tank crews using a radio. They could also order which targets to fire next.

[MikeyD]

I was most looking forward to playing CMSF2 red-on-red battles because 1970s technology Russian tanks are not the überweapons that 21st century tanks are. T55s vs T62s, T62s vs first generation T72s. The battles are less likely to abruptly end after 3 minutes of one-sided carnage. The closest equivalent in CMBS is playing the baseline T64 on the Ukrainian side, which behaves most like a 1970 Cold Warrior.

Edited October 29, 2018 by MikeyD