Degrees of Frost

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Warmaker: Nobody, so this lazy Big Cat will retire in a nice quiet little area just behind the fighting before making a grand re-entrance! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Is it a wholly direct fire weapon ? I thought it was a short range rocket launcher capable of high angle fire ... So if CMBB allows platoon HQs and the like to spot for vehicle mounted indirect fire weapons it probably can stay behind cover while it finds its range. And won't your opponent love that it lands short :eek: it lands long :eek: it lands on the map

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: As for Dupuy, it was really designed to prove that the U.S. and British aimed fire systems were not as effective as small arms used by the Germans. He proved it, as can be seen by the weapons carried today by all modern forces. He was never trying to prove national superiority, especially in a simulation that looks closely at variables involved in victory or loss at the tactical level .... .... But using Dupuy to argue a mystical as opposed to real difference between nationalities is misusing the research. The game already takes into account the larger number of automatic weapons in German formations, which was Dupuy's point (echoed by other researchers such as Dunnigan).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for that Slapdragon !! I was hoping someone would step up and say that succinctly. I was dreading have to try and write the same thing in a way that wouldn't in some way be misinterpreted.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer: yes, they (german armor, esp.StuGs) seem not to achieve the actual RealLife successes in CM. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Isn't this another instance when absolute spotting becomes an issue ? Defending tanks are spotted almost immediately on most occassions allowing buttoned up attacking tanks to begin firing back effectively - immediately. The units doing the spotting are probably not the buttoned up tanks but supporting units. The good old "borg" thingy. PS: its a great dissapointment to me that I was never assimilated properly

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 109 Gustav: Poll: who hates the new look of the fourm? 1. It's worse 2. Hate it 3. Don't care<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well I have to say I don't care. Just hope it spawns no more completely pointless threads like this one

even when they don't ..... if I read the rest of this post correctly.

Did any Cromwells with 95mm guns ever get used in a desert ?

Well barbed wire can INDIRECTLY cause more casualties than AP mines. Once a squad has committed itself to crossing barbed wire its %age exposure goes up enormously. In my experience exposure of a squad moving into AP minefield goes down as the infantry hit the dirt. If you get your guys to open up on an opponents squad while it crossing wire you can cause many more casualties than a AP minefield could inflict. You can make an approach one that will require heavy commitment by your opponent - those scouting half squads may get tangled up crossing the wire and then be shot down in very short order. The problem comes when you try to site your barbed wire in such a way that your opponent has to cross it to get to an objective. Here's where I agree with Forever Babra - it would be much more valuable if you had a look at the map before picking your forces. Sometimes it very difficult to site barbed wire in positions where it may have any real impact on the course of the game. Tiger, I would argue that most anything else is a bit more flexible than a couple of (5 or so) strings of barbed wire.

And the observant crew members might think "thats an interesting Humber mark to see in CMBO - or have things changed in v1.12" Why has the poor Humber had is teeth ripped out ? This particularly ugly AC only gets one MG in CMBO. My understanding is that even the most underarmed Humber had two machine guns. Some got the 15mm Besa in the turret - some got a 37mm gun others the 40mm. I don't know which marks saw action on the Western front but I am pretty sure I have seen pictures of Humbers rumbling around Europe with turrets sporting guns bigger than a machinegun. And no Staghounds ... imagine an AC with a 6-pounder.

Hi ho Hiramanany ... OK I am all up to date. I unsure how or why you expect me to keep you constantly informed as to my location. I think it has to be pretty unhealthy. Accurate profiles ? Thats a pretty big ask, methinks, given the fantasy land some of the regular posters around here appear to have immersed themselves in. Including the "all the reserves (read all available units) I am keeping back in a corner will win the game once my one advancing infantry unit has savaged my opponent"-land you appear to be inhabiting at the moment.

When you advertise something as a cesspool/cesspit you really have to occasionly expect some human garbage (yes I mean you, Mr Hopeless) to float in. Before any of you regular pool-lurking types take umbrage:- Mr Hopeless = Mr Happy .... and not you just so there is no confusion ... you are supposed to offend people on purpose in this thread aren't you ? .... sometimes it is hard to tell with all the bonhomie one finds around here (and you would think Canada would bring the worst out of people ) BTW congratulations Stuka I hope it went like a dream - you know nice but in a kind of dazed way. Those sharp focus weddings can wear the guests a bit thin. Oh and Hiram how about that PBEM file mate ? I know I didn't challenge you on this thread but I think you can remember our game. You know the one where all your units are, unaccountably, squished together in a corner of the map doing absolutley nothing other than keeping their, no doubt, eagle eyes focussed on an entirely empty church. Why is a mystery, but how is easy to work out. Give them some orders - then they will move. While there are reports to the contrary the TacAi is not real spontaneous. edited to better fit Madmatt's specifications (see below) [This message has been edited by Degrees of Frost (edited 02-03-2001).]

Given that the Churchill was viewed as an infantry tank the HE benefit was probably given heavier "weighting". Maybe someone knows whether the brits were keen to get more 95mm armed Churchills over the 75mm armed models. As to the controversy over going with the 75mm over the 6-pounder - I understood this was more of an issue with arming the Cromwells.

its AUSTRALIA DAY ! Its almost the same thing - of all the public statues erected in Australia in the last 200-odd years who most often stands astride (or rests - busts are big in Australia - thanks Kitty) the plinth ? Why Robbie Burns of course ! There's a useless bit of trivia for the lot of ya ...

Didn't they have to widen the hull of a standard Churchill to make the turret ring just that much bigger ?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: Toward the tail end of the thread I posted a "to hit" based on British Army Tests conducted during the war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for re-posting those graphs Jeff. Do you have any idea how reduction of size would alter these "to hit" curves (given that a Tiger turret is on the largish size ) ? But is that pattern of decrease in the "to hit" chance plotted against range what we see in Combat Mission ? It certainly backs up some individuals observations that getting your tank hull down against attacking enemy guns/tanks that have closed to shorter ranges (less than 500m) does not make you necessarily much harder to hit. But we still don't know how "to hit" is calculated in Combat Mission. How is silhouette "weighted" in these calculations ? Does a 37% reduction in silhouette make a hull down tank significantly harder to hit at ranges under 500m ? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: The percentage of a tanks silhouette that is covered as a result of being hull-down has several variables. The first of course is the vehicle geometry. The second is the relative elevation between target and firing tank. Third is the maximum depression or elevation possible within the gun tube of a tank. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think that most people would agree with you there Jeff. But in the wonderfully abstracted world of CM there is ONLY hull down or not down. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by USERNAME: In my opinion a vehicle like the Panzer IV in a true HD situation is short changed. This tank (which until recently was over sized) has a very small turret in comparision to other vehicles. It should be reduced to about 1/3 its size in a hull down position. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The data presented by Jeff (for the second time) would suggest that maybe at short ranges the Mk IV isn't being shortchanged but at long ranges perhaps it is ........ ? On the otherhand maybe tank destoyers like the Nashhorn and Marder series aren't being penalised enough ..... not to mention Priests and Sextons. Maybe I should run some tests of my own ...... might be a while though given I am having enough trouble keeping up with my PBEM demands.

I was hoping that some other members of this forum might like to comment on the reduction "to hit" associated with targeting a hull down AFV versus targeting the same vehicle in the open. Lt Bull has suggested that his/her (you never know) calculations suggest that the silhouette of ALL vehicles is reduced by 37%. I do understand that hull down is abstracted in CM. A vehicle is hull down or it is not. But surely some vehicles are able to "shed" more or less silhouette when they are hull down. Things like the Marder tank destroyers have a large and highset gunshield that one might expect to stand out like a sore thumb even when the vehicle is hull down. Should these vehicles "shed" the same amount of silhouette as a turreted tank (say a panther or a Mk IV) ? And I still would love to know how silhouette effects "to hit" ? Is it the most important factor after range for example ?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flipper: my case in point was a hetzer that was parked next to the building the shell that collapsed the building came on a parallel angle from where the tank was parked it just strikes me as odd that the gun should be taken out i've seen this more than once too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have to agree with David's post above. A number of times I have had a tank parked next to a building which is being targeted by an enemy tank and had my TC incapacitated or my tank's gun damaged by the blast of the enemies shell hitting the building. Trying to work out "a parallel angle from" ?

Thanks Bull ! The constant 37% decrease for all AFV's is interesting - one would think that it should probably vary somewhat from tank to tank given the variation in turret:hull size ratio's between different AFVs. I for one would certainly be interested to see your graphs/tables/calculations and can only imagine others would as well. Maybe we could find some third party to host them for you .... anybody ? That, of course, is assuming you would be comfortable with that Bull. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lt Bull: quote: Originally posted by Degrees of Frost: "What does the reduction in size have on the "to hit" chance of engaging guns ?" ------------------------------------------- I'm quite sure the modelling of hits vs guns is handle differently than hits vs vehicles as there appears to be no silhouette value for guns. Regardless, if you think about it, guns are in effect like a tank's turret, so they can be considered in some ways as a tank in constant "hull down" status (with only the turret exposed). Further, HE is primarily required to KO a gun, not AP. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry I should have made that clearer - by "engaging guns" I meant the "to hit" chance of guns, either AT guns or mounted guns (TDs, tanks etc), firing at a hull down vehicle not the "to hit" for a tank firing at an AT gun. So, in essence, just asking the same question "what effect does hull down status has on to hit chance ?" <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lt Bull: 1) % chance to HIT turret/upper hull/lower hull/tracks in the both the "in open" AND "hull down" position at the range in question 2) % chance to KILL tank GIVEN a hit on the turret/upper hull/lower hull/tracks at that range None of these factors are easily determined from CM, especially 2) as it involves complex penetration calculations with many variables. Both 1) and 2) could be determined empirically for very simple situations by doing CM "firing range" testing. Matching penetration values at range vs target armour/slope could be used as a very crude estimation for 2). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As to point one, my understanding CM calculates whether there is a hit or not and THEN determines where it will hit, the turret or the hull or the tracks or whatever. When a hull down vehicle is "hit" I assume the same process is carried out but in this case CM determines whether it hits the upper hull or the turret. The impression that I have formed by reading various posts is that a "hit" is always a "hit", its just that possible hit locations are altered in relation to the tank-being-hit's aspect to the round that hit it. So once a hit is scored on a hull down vehicle it is going to remain a hit - the possible hit location calculation does NOT include the lower hull and tracks with "hits" to these locations being changed to misses. Now those paragraphs is as clear as mud, sorry everyone its summer here in Sydney and I had a long swim this morning followed by a huge cooked breakfast and I am not sure my brain is working particularly well. I am not particularly interested in the "to kill" chance - I am mainly interested in the to hit chance and how being hull down alters it. I recognise that range and gun type will have a big impact on these calculations Thanks again Bull. [This message has been edited by Degrees of Frost (edited 01-11-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lt Bull: My analysis of the basic quoted To Hit % values in CM indicates that being hull down relates to roughly a 37% reduction in target size. I am curious to hear other peoples findings/conclusions and see how this might correlate to the actual figure (or model). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How did you carry out this analysis ? Was this stated 37% reduction in size common for all hull-down AFV's ? What does the reduction in size have on the "to hit" chance of engaging guns ? I guess the third question is the most important one. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: I dunno the ins and outs of how its modeled in the game. Basically a tank manuvers itself adjacent to a crestline in such a way that is hull is covered\protected from shots fired at the tank, but the tank can still peak it barrel over the edge of the crestline and fire at bad guys. There is apparently some game controversy with respect to the benifits of being hull down when your being fired at. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think I understand the concept of being hull-down, though I rarely get my tanks into good hull down positions - but pictures are always fantastic. I believe that hull-down in CM is all or nothing, either the AFV is hull down or it isn't. My understanding is that there is no "degrees" of hull-down. I think I have read a thread [threads ?] where the benefits of being hull down were debated. I think the mixed blessings of being hull down for the Mk IV or was it the Mark VI was discussed at some length. It becomes a question of weighing the benefit of reducing engaging tanks "to hit" chance versus increasing the probability of successful incoming shot hitting a weaker part of the tanks frontal aspect (the turret in the MkIV example). But, again, if memory serves the reduction in the "to hit" chance wasn't really focussed on. It came down to more of a discussion of the benefits of being hull down in the more abstract. Increased chance of retreating out of enemies LOS, being able to retreat and move about unobserved, and of course reducing the "to hit" - but by how much ? and is the reduction the same for all hull down AFV's ? [This message has been edited by Degrees of Frost (edited 01-10-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KwazyDog: * If the aircraft didnt have a target, why would he be bombing that location? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Because the pilot felt like it I have no idea what "motivates" those flyboys. The ENIGMATIC flyer - "Will I turn up today ? ... maybe" The INDECISIVE flyer "I best wait till the battle is decided by units on the ground before I attack. I wouldn't want to have any actual effect on the result." The FEARFUL flyer - "Oh **** .... somebody down there is shooting at me ! ... imagine that .... I never should have called them sprites ... well I best buzz off now ... Oh hang on am I a sprite ? ... ouch my brain hurts" The FOCUSSED flyer "Bugger - my bombs missed - well even though there are soft targets running about the place I will spend the rest of my ammo banging away at some buttoned up tank I can't hurt" The AGRESSIVE flyer "There's something ... bombs away !!!! Oops its one of mine ... well chalk that up as my first kill ... all those practice runs when I didn't hit anything ... wait till the boys back at base see this film ... bang on target" The TYPICAL flyer "zzzzzzz .... zzzzzzzzz .... zzzzzzzz"

If there is I haven't found it. It runs smoothly - and has been a great way to find new opponents. The catch is, I imagine, that sooner or later one of these opponents is going beat you. But I am prepared - all my "old" opponents have beaten me already Gosh - I hope this isn't some plug for www.tournamenthouse.com

My understanding is that silhouette represents, roughly, the size of an AFV and is therefore plays some role in determining "to hit" percentages for guns engaging this AFV (but I admit that I am unsure as to how "to hit" percentages are calculated). Is silhouette reduced when a vehicle is hull down ? If so is this reduction uniform for all AFVs that are hull down ? I would imagine that that the reduction would have to vary somewhat - a tank like a Sherman would "shed" alot of silhouette when it goes hull down and become harder to hit than usual - while an assualt gun, like say a Hetzer or a JdpZ IV, couldn't lose as much silhouette and still be able to keep it gun in play. edited to remove extraneous bits and pieces and I am now fully recovered [This message has been edited by Degrees of Frost (edited 01-19-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mad Gunman: Ya, I agree with you Maximus. Now that I think about it, if only it was entirely made up of people who played CM...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Have YOU read the tripe (and you pool dwellers I mean that in the nicest possible way) in "THE BLOODY PENG CHALLENGE THREAD: ESCAPE FROM DOWNUNDER" thread or any of its previous incarnations ?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir: I agree, it is huge. Hopefully these two small sub-features will be included also: .... 2. TacAI will understand that it is neither necessary or desirable to rotate the hull all the way perpendicular to the enemy incoming fire. CM's physics model does a great job of modeling the effect of oblique angles on armor penetration but the TacAI seems to be ignorant of it. I've had some very frustrating moments when I've moved my vehicles to engage an enemy AT unit and I have placed it at an oblique angle only to see the TacAI "square up" the vehicle to the target. Ideally the TacAI will stop the rotation of the hull when it is 25-30 degrees off perpendicular so as to maximize it's frontal protection. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As to point 2 :- Were tank crews trained to go oblique against individual enemy tanks ? In engagments at shorter ranges (500-700m), that are so prevalent in CM, would that constitute a sound tactic against enemy tanks operating in platoon ?. Wouldn't the TC want to get the frontal armour facing the first enemy tank spotted and assume it had other tanks accompanying it ? By going oblique wouldn't the TC be then presenting side armour to other tanks in the enemy platoon ? I imagine if the TacAI was programmed to go oblique this "quirk/feature" of the TacAI would be used/abused to set up flank shots, much more easily than at present, by using one tank engage from front on to turn the target tank oblique and then a second at an angle to get a shot off at the flank. It would be nice to be able to order a tank oblique - a "rotate and freeze order" or something ..... Sorry for rambling - I was actually just going to leave it at the question.

Well PIATS were prone to accidental discharges - maybe halftrack crews didn't like the idea of three PIATs and their undertrained user bouncing around on the back I have read accounts of Commonwealth infantry men being issued with PIATs and not getting to live fire the thing before being sent into combat !