Guy w/gun

Hey y'all, Weren't there some splinter camo mods for Heer uniforms awhile back? Can anybody direct me to them or send them my way???

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Sergei: Nah. I just destroyed one with a Sherman-75 in PBEM. Okay, it was a flank shot from 100 metres, but that's the secret. "Tiger" is a misleading name, it would be better called as "Limping Snail". Besides, the L56 gun in Tiger I is inferior to that of Panther, Jagdpanzer IV, Königstiger, Jagdpanther and Jagdtiger. I agree about the infantry support thing, its armour makes it very tolerant against Bazookas and PIAT's. [ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: Sergei ]<hr></blockquote> Even though my fav is also the Tiger, I kinda have to agree with you Sergie. That's why I can't wait for CMBB so we'll finally see how deadly the Tiger can be when it hunts in it's intended environment!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! Now I know how some of the vet posters feel.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: Just to add to RMC post as we have had this discussion before here. The dispersion pattern –as RMC has already indicated – is totally random, although the shot pattern looks relatively realistic. However, there is no logic in CM as to where rounds land relative to how a gunner might adjust his fire onto his target. That is why in CM you get these crazy 48 rounds to get one hit at 3000m. Tank gunners (German, Commonwealth, American) were all trained during WWII to “bracket” longer ranged targets with their fire. This was a sort of guessing game for ranging before the days when range finders were standard equipment tanks (Germans TC’s with Sf14z aside for the moment). But the “guessing” was a function of training and was –in theory – conducted in a logical manner. The initial range estimation was conducted via stadia lines in binoculars or the stadia lines in a gunners sight. In the case of Panzers the German Zeiss gunsights had small triangles in the gunners sight for helping with range estimation. This was all based upon a mil scale, and the knowledge that a tank sized target is 1mil high in a 5x gunsight at a range of 2000 meters (or whatever the actual ratio is)….or 2mils high in a 5x gunsight at a range of 1000 meters. So you estimate your range, adjust the main-gun to the appropriate range setting than fire. The gunner and TC (and hopefully the driver loader, and hull machine gunner) all try to see where the round hits…sensing their own fire...or watching their fall of shot. They will look for the tracer element or for the splash of soil as the round impacts the earth. Or, if the round hits a hard target there will be a bright white or red flash…very easy to sense this flash. If the round falls short of the target, training typically dictates a certain range increase for the next round fired. US Army FM17-12 for 1944 (this was the Army tank gunnery manual for WWII) indicates that for ranges beyond about 1200 yrds the gunner should automatically perform a 400yrd increase in his range setting and fire again. This range jump is a function of both the firing weapons relatively flat trajectory, as well as operational study group folks that figure out how best to bracket targets and optimal range jumps to ensure the highest probability of achieving a hit with the fewest number of rounds. Moreover, a high velocity round does not have a huge amount of arc to it, so range estimations do not have to be right on the money in order for a gunner to hit his target. Very Simplified: for example an increase of say 400 yrds range by the gunner might really only result in a 12 inch vertical jump in the maximum elevation of the rounds trajectory (again this is very simplistic but I am only try to illustrate the basics here). But for a round that is traveling at 2000 fps that 12 inch increase in elevation results in a lot of additional horizontal travel down range before gravity and wind resistance pull the round back down to earth. There is no particular logic in CM to a tanks fall of shot as it fires on a target, or how a gunner might realistically be adjusting his own fire to get closer to his target. One round will be short by 200 yrds. The next will be short by 300 yrds. The third will be wide right by 200 yrds. The fourth round will be over the target by 600 yrds. Presumably for a game such as CM this sort of in depth modeling of the nitty-grittys of tank gunnery (or anti tank gunnery) is well beyond the scope of realism to which BTS is aiming for. I am also assuming that this sort of thing would entail a huge amount of additional programming and memory space…blah blah blah. I wouldn’t know about that sort of thing as I’m not a programmer (I just play one on TV). All of the above is –so the legend goes – handled by some sort of “to hit” modifier, with successive rounds fired being given an arbitrary +10% bonus (or whatever) between successive rounds fired at the same target. I don’t know if the “bracket bonus” is a straight modifier, or if it increases between the 2nd and 3rd rounds etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well that certainly explains some of the problems I've been having. I also have been doing some tests to observe long range accuracy in CMBO. I always wonder why the virtual tank gunner doesn't try to adjust his aim after missing. Now I know why. Your right Jeff, the direction the round travels does seem to be random and I guess programming the gunner AI to try to adjust his aim is beyond the ability of the game.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mattias: Germanboy and Guy, Read you both load and clear, I figured your tests where based on long range gunnery over a "clean" field. And running it the same way I would most likely encounter the same results as you. However, my original "test" never intended to cleanly dissect the mechanics of the game. It was set up to test the CM engines ability to simulate a real life engagement I had just read about in the book that I mentioned in my original post. [describing it as I remember it, I can't find the exact description now] It took place somewhere in the Baltics, in the spring of 1944. Two tigers manned by experienced crews where faced with between 20 and 30 enemy AFV's, mainly T34's but a number of SU-122/SU-85 types where also spotted. The opponents sighted each other at a distance of just under 2000 meters. The Tigers began to close the range moving, stopping, shooting and then moving again. They got as close as 400 meters before reversing again. For about 30 minutes the engagement raged back and forth like this before the remaining Soviet vehicles retreated. 20 Soviet were KO'd or abandoned while the Tigers remained capable of fighting, both were pretty battered, on of them immobilised, but they won the field that time. The story does not say anything about the actions of the Soviet side, how they maneuvered, if and how they fired smoke or tried any kind of special tricks. I am pretty sure that your successful "counter attacks" with the Shermans can be attributed to the terrain in which you fought. It allowed you to execute a broad front advance over terrain that was uniformly passable at high speed for your tanks. There were no other Germans nearby, real, suspected or just feared. In the real battle I imagine that there were large sections of the battlefield that was clearly impassible by trees or rugged in a way that prohibit rapid straight movement, even for a T34. real life terrain also pretty much always obscures the LOS more or less, seldom if ever could all the Soviet vehicles fire their weapons in concert. etc etc really... There is literally a world of a difference. I would love to be able to read the Soviet perspective on this particular engagement, and indeed the dozens of other engagements described in the book. Oh, and this was not in any way intended to argue against your tests Germanboy and Guy, just to clarify my line of thought! M.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Right you are Mattias. The original test was to observe the accuracy of Tigers at long but historicaly accurate ranges. When I played the allies, I did so just for fun . Your right, terrain is almost never completely uniform, there was no threat from anything other source other than the Tigers, etc. So playing as the allies would have little to do with real tactics used by the Soviets. But it did point out an interesting quirk of the Tac AI. Instead of constantly popping smoke and meandering the tanks around as the AI did, I just rushed the Tigers. In doing so I lost fewer tanks and knocked out the cats.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Commissar: Mattias, The difference between our results is easily explained. 1) I used the scenario editor to create a perfectly flat field, with no terrain features. I placed 25 Shermans on one side, and 2 Tigers on the other, with a VL, to lure the Shermans to advance. 2) I did not command my Tigers to pick targets or to move. Because I felt this was a test of the game mechanics (the optics and gun on the Tiger), and not my skill as a player, this would desrupt the test (as it did in your case). 3) My Tigers did not close in, although with the help of their smoke, the Shermans were able to. This allowed them to score hits on my machines and actually cause damage. Thus, once more, my Tigers were on their own. Another interesting bit is when I played the same "battle" from the Allied side. Starting out at the 1800 metre range, I lined my Shermans up in a column, 4 tanks wide per line, and rushed the Tigers head on while ordering to lay down smoke. The result was a landslide. Using their smoke mortars, the Tiger's line of sight was completely covered. While the enemy tanks slowly advanced out of the smoke, one was given several flank shots and had its gun damaged. Later on, my Shermans sped by its flank and KO'ed it. The other machine decided to stay where it was after seeing the onrushing Shermans, and was overwhelmed. It didn't get a shot off before recieving some 8 nearly simultaneous hits in 3 sides of its hull and turret, KO'ing it. This makes me wonder why the Soviets didn't seem to use smoke. For had they used their immense atrillerly capabilities to cover the enemie's LOS with smoke, they could have surely made the advance to as close as 500 metres before the enemy could get out of the smoke and place a bead on the Soviets, giving even the T-34's a good chance of victory. I think the Soviets learned their lesson though, and smoke was an important part of the doctrine of the cold war days.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I did exactly what you did, hence our similar results. The only moving I did was advancing the Tigers ahead about 400m. I found that at after 10 minutes at 1800m, they weren't scoring any hits. And as I said before, one of the Shermans actually got a hit in at 1800m! (Someone PLEASE rationalize that one!) I also played the allied side. All I did was order all the Shermans to drive straight forward in a column, directly at the Tigers. What happened was pretty interesting. The Shermans hailed the Tigers with a mixture of smoke shells and AP. The smoke caused momentary interuptions in LOS, allowing the Shermans to close unharmed. The constant rain of 75mm AP damaged guns, immobilized, and basically rendered the Tigers useless. By the time it was over, there was one KOed Tiger, one abandoned and 4 dead Shermans.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Commissar: Well I sure do hope optics are modeled in CMBB. I can understand BTS not wishing to get involved in a heated debate with grognards, because optics of most Western countries were close to being equal, and some people say, the same. On the Eastern front, the Soviets didn't have time to develop such conviniances as good optics when the Nazis were knocking on their door, so the difference will be huge. I think they mentioned this being included, right? Sure hope it is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> From what others have said, yes they will be modeled in CMBB. I'm guessing that one of the reasons they weren't modeled in CMBO has to do with the ranges in the game. Presently tank combat usually happens at no more than 800m. At these ranges I guess optics don't play as big a part. As has been discussed before, this will probably change in CMBB. By the way, from what few accounts I've read, Tigers hitting T-34s at 1500m was very common. Does that concur with what other people have researched?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Commissar: Mattias, I just performed the test you recommended. Using regular Tigers (not the late version), and M4A3 Shermans, I the 2 cats against the 25 Shermans at an initial range of 1800 metres. The Shermans immediately popped smoke, and continued doing so for the rest of the game. During the course of the game, my Tigers only managed to hit 7 Shermans, while exhausting their total supply of AT ammunition and half of their supply of HE ammunition. On turn 30, one of the Tigers was gun damaged, immobilized, and abandoned. I got a total vic because the Allies never dared to advance. Interesting results, to say the least. Seems its very hard to hit even with "superior German optics" at ranges of over 1000 metres. Also, did the Soviets have smoke rounds for their tanks? I would imagine the Allied casualties would have been higher without them popping smoke endlessly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Lol...I just did the exact same thing! MY results were quite similar: Eight dead Shermans, exhasted AP load in the Tigers. What was remarkable was the fact that at ranges between 1800m-1300m, the Shermans scored more hits than the Tigers did! And as Commissar pointed out, the Shermans popped smoke continuosly. If I recall correctly, optics are NOT modeled in CMBO. Because if they are, those Tiger crews must be lowsy shots. (by the way, the Tiger crews were crack!) [ 09-27-2001: Message edited by: Guy w/gun ]

Thanks for the help!

I've played the demo off and on, but now I'm really getting interested in TacOps. I'm planning on purchasing it soon. I have only one question about the game. How do you order units to move in reverse? I want to move them back 100 meters or so, but keep their fronts facing the enemy. Thanks and great game Major! [ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: Guy w/gun ]

Can you make me one when you finish yours?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by C Dunphie: I have followed a number of threads in this occasionally interesting forum regarding this pre-eminent tactical wargame. I've found the Good, the Bad and the Ugly. What strikes me most deeply after poring over many months (years?) of messages is the passionate level of committment found in the hardcore fanbase represented here. There is a form of strange 'democracy' that has pervaded the forum and then manifested itself in the game core. The game seems to change and evolve as 'causes' take hold and gather momentum resulting in the latest 'patch'. On the surface this appears to be the weight of 'evidence' influencing the designers to enact some change - usually minor, sometimes radical. Sometimes the sum total of those 'minor' changes appear (to me at least) to have a cumulative effect. Let us come to the crux - this game derives from the USA. The most influential set of contributers to this forum are based in the USA. It is, in all probability, an unconscious nationalistic influence, but I contend that it exists. US squads are tooled-up with an impressive tank killing capacity in those armour-piercing rifle grenades following a concerted campaign by these incumbents. US armoured vehicles are now blessed with an almost supernatural ability to fire and hit at fast speed which would impress any honest M1A2 Abrams commander. The justification seems to stem from an innate belief in the technological superiority of the US military - and ultimately in the US political system itself! Dear me, how could those appalling political systems of 1940's Germany and Russia have come up with such weapon systems as the Tiger, Panther and T34, I wonder! It's all a tad cut and dried, I'm afraid. Yes, there is respect now for the old, redundant enemy (Germany) but what of the even older, still annoyingly proud foe, Perfidious Albion? The British and Commonwealth forces are treated in an almost cursory manner. The recent debate on the effectiveness of the reliant 25pdr has highlighted this issue. British infantry squads are represented only by the regulation '8 rifles, a Bren and a Sten' despite the fact that in reality the Sten (the 'Woolworth's gun) was produced in such numbers it frequently equipped half a section, particularly for street fighting duties. It's not quite as bad as the Steel Panthers 'Late war British troops were terrible and suffered from bad morale' but its getting there. In the course of writing my books I have interviewed many combatants of the NW Europe campaign from all nations involved. US troops had great confidence in their material advantage but often suffered from homesickness and confusion over their role in this theatre. British troops had the enemy that was dropping doodle-bugs on their homes on the run. The Germans I interviewed all impressed me with their sence of 'duty' irrespective of personal considerations. All these factors influenced small unit combat as represented here. Oh and another thing; all the US tank crews I spoke too (NW Europe) insisted they disabled the gyroscopes on their weapons as they proved so defective. [ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: C Dunphie ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> With all due respect sir...I honestly don't have any idea what your talking about. :confused:

Most Underrated: Hmm...Good Question... Most overrated: IMHO, The Panther series of tanks *ducks for cover*

I can't help but chuckle at this thread. This reminds me of the old arguments made by the top militaries of the world in the late 19th century. "Machine gun? What's the use of that? All it does is waste a hell of a lot of ammunition! Besides, a group of well-trained rifle infantry can easily do what it does! After all, they can acually aim and pick their targets!" Maybe I have missed something here, but I thought that just about every military today stresses massing of firepower over careful aiming. Of course, I've only really looked at the US and Soviet armed forces (The Soviets seemed obsessed amassing HUGE amounts of firepower on a given area). To me, stressing that rifle equiped soldiers take careful aim at visual targets is rather archaic (sp?). [ 08-20-2001: Message edited by: Guy w/gun ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This may be your view but it is not the view of the either the British or Australian Armies. In reality, IMO, suppression occurs not so "other weapon systems can do the real killing" but rather that infantry can "seize and hold ground". If another weapon system is capable doing "the real killing" then it won't need the infantry to suppress anybody for it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Please, please, please correct me if I'm wrong here, but I though that was what modern warfare was all about. In fact, I thought this change was made in WWII. Your basic rifle-equipped infantry's main purpose was to support the heavy weapons so they could get into a favorable position. I'm thinking mainly of the Germans using their riflemen to support the squad machine gun. I read or heard somewhere that the one of the duties of the German squad leader was to order the riflemen to support the squad MG while it was moved, set up, barrels changed etc. In other words, the MG was een as the main killing weapon of the squad. I thought the US did something similar where the 3 rifle platoons in a company would serve to support the heavy weapons platoon. Doesn't this carry over today in US doctrine? Where the assault rifle equiped soldiers support the SAW? Again, I'm no soldier, so please feel free to correct me.