Pete Wenman

Thanks fellas, I really appreciate all the assistance! I’ll try and get educated on gimp and then take my 1st crack at the new uniforms this weekend when I have some free time. If I come across any stumpers I’ll be sure to return here😁

Very good point. 
 
As to everyone saying “this objective would be avoided in real life” that’s simply untrue. First off, if every tough objective was avoided, there would be no battles. Second, and more relevant to CM, the battles that are happening are assumed to be important. As in, a higher commander has determined that despite the given complexities and downsides, the battle is still worth fighting. If the player really thinks the objective isn’t worth it, then just don’t play the scenario. 

@semmes One of the problems we run into when playing these games is the tendency to over commit to a battle and suffer far too many losses than a unit would typically take before withdrawing. However, there were certain situations during the war where units were decimated to levels similar to CM levels and it is interesting to take a look at those battles and compare.  
Every fall my small town of 2000 people hangs pictures off the light posts of the men and women from our community who served in the Canadian Army and have now passed on. I took my kids for a walk and while looking at their faces, saw one young man who was killed in action on July 21st, 1944. I decided to research him and see what unit he was in and where he died. His unit was the Essex Scottish, and the battle he died in was the Battle of Verrieres Ridge, just outside of Caen. I did a little further digging and found the war diary for his unit. On the day he was killed, the Essex Scottish and the South Saskatchewan Regiment both attempted an attack over the same ground, failed and then were counterattacked. The South Saskatchewan Regiment went in first and the Essex backed them up. The Essex's ended up bearing the brunt of the counterattack and suffered severe losses.
In 1944, a typical Canadian Regiment was comprised of 36 officers and 809 other ranks, with the rifle companies having 5 officers and 122 other ranks. It was standard practice in the Canadian army to have several officers left out of battle in case the regiment suffered severe losses, they could be rebuilt quickly with an experienced core. So for simplicity sake, taking out those officers, any previous casualties, and the men not at the actual tip of the spear, lets assume both Battalions had 25 officers and 700 other ranks in active combat on July 21st. According to the Essex Scottish war diary, on July 22, there were 14 officers and 287 other ranks not present for roll call. Of those losses, 3 officers were KIA, 8 WIA with 3 MIA. The other ranks suffered 17 KIA, 140 WIA and 130 MIA. The South Saskatchewan war diary does not break up their losses as neatly, 13 officers and 209 other ranks were not present for their roll call on July 22. 
What this shows is that in hard, brutal fighting, the kind of fighting CM tries to simulate, losses of roughly 50%+ for officers and 30%+ for the other ranks was very much real. If we can make the assumption the NCO's would suffer a similar loss rate as the Officers do, it shouldn't be a stretch to say the losses you are seeing in game represent losses suffered in real life.

From what Steve said earlier, it seems that while this issue may be  a real thing, it's a vanishingly small one as far as BF and most customers are concerned.  Are they going to increase sales because they spent a bunch of time re-writing code for something the vast majority of users don't even know exists and hasn't hurt their game experience? 
I would be pretty angry if they spent their limited resources on stuff like this instead of getting out products covering eastern front 1941-43.  And that's also where they would sell a lot of stuff -- how many current customers would pre-order games covering that theatre/timespan?  99%?   How many new customers would jump in?  Imagine those epic campaigns.  I wouldn't care if they chose to keep the game just like it is and just get out games to cover this era.

Because I'm bored, I've played around with this.
My set up
Two Panthers firing under AI control
Two Sherman fly, under my control, as targets. One in open ground, immediately behind a strip of light wood (no trees) the second hulldown behind a 2m high berm, which again has a strip of light wood on its top.
Range just over 1500m
I've run this test 5 times so far, which is nowhere near enough for a real analysis, but I'm getting a feel for the results.
Rather than worrying about hits and locations I'm counting AP shells fired in order to destroy the target,
                      AP Shells fired to destroy target
Try                        OG                                HD
1                            3                                    6
2                            5                                    9
3                            3                                   14
4                            2                                    6
5                            4                                    8    
So it took 17 shots to kill the five Firefly in open ground, against 43 to kill the five hull down tanks.
That's an average of one open ground kill every 3.4 shots, against 8.6 shots for the hull down target, and so on these numbers it takes over twice as many shots to kill a hulldown target than one in open ground.
Works for me, but you mileage may vary
P
 

Because I'm bored, I've played around with this.
My set up
Two Panthers firing under AI control
Two Sherman fly, under my control, as targets. One in open ground, immediately behind a strip of light wood (no trees) the second hulldown behind a 2m high berm, which again has a strip of light wood on its top.
Range just over 1500m
I've run this test 5 times so far, which is nowhere near enough for a real analysis, but I'm getting a feel for the results.
Rather than worrying about hits and locations I'm counting AP shells fired in order to destroy the target,
                      AP Shells fired to destroy target
Try                        OG                                HD
1                            3                                    6
2                            5                                    9
3                            3                                   14
4                            2                                    6
5                            4                                    8    
So it took 17 shots to kill the five Firefly in open ground, against 43 to kill the five hull down tanks.
That's an average of one open ground kill every 3.4 shots, against 8.6 shots for the hull down target, and so on these numbers it takes over twice as many shots to kill a hulldown target than one in open ground.
Works for me, but you mileage may vary
P
 

anyway if you can't grasp the basic tactical principles of how to fight tanks and the reasons why tanks engage from hull down in the first place I'm not sure how to get that across when several other people have also tried and failed to explain that

but to reiterate: the advantage of a hull down BP engagement is in being harder to spot and then range in on (and subsequently hit), while still being able to engage your enemy unhindered, and to be able to retreat back into cover and pop up back again in another position

if you sit in a position long enough to start taking hits and count on your armor to save you, you are failing at the very fundamentals of armored combat and deserve everything about to happen - and trying to cheese the hits by going up into the open (instead of retreating and re-positioning to avoid getting hit in the first place) so you can take hits on your stronger glacis is both an incredibly gamey thing to do, and indicates a failure to understand what the actual mistake is here to begin with

your armor is your last, not your first, line of defense - this is such a fundamental tactical principle that I am not sure how to put it any simpler

and as I am not in any real mood to bash my head against this particular wall any more, peace out

Because I'm bored, I've played around with this.
My set up
Two Panthers firing under AI control
Two Sherman fly, under my control, as targets. One in open ground, immediately behind a strip of light wood (no trees) the second hulldown behind a 2m high berm, which again has a strip of light wood on its top.
Range just over 1500m
I've run this test 5 times so far, which is nowhere near enough for a real analysis, but I'm getting a feel for the results.
Rather than worrying about hits and locations I'm counting AP shells fired in order to destroy the target,
                      AP Shells fired to destroy target
Try                        OG                                HD
1                            3                                    6
2                            5                                    9
3                            3                                   14
4                            2                                    6
5                            4                                    8    
So it took 17 shots to kill the five Firefly in open ground, against 43 to kill the five hull down tanks.
That's an average of one open ground kill every 3.4 shots, against 8.6 shots for the hull down target, and so on these numbers it takes over twice as many shots to kill a hulldown target than one in open ground.
Works for me, but you mileage may vary
P
 

Not much I think I can add on top of the last few posts.
We know that CM aims for centre mass and we know that's both realistic and infinitely easier to code than using a thousand variables to calculate exactly where the gunner should aim.
We know that for some German tanks, presenting a hull-down target means the centre of mass is shifted from the effective armour of the hull front plate up to the less effective armour of the turret mantlet and the vulnerable muzzle/gun barrel.
I think the question has gotten to be: how does the player manage that? In one corner we have "expect to get hit, get into the open so centre mass is the better protected hull front"; and in the other corner we have "don't risk getting hit at all, play pop-up from a hull-down position".
There's an argument for both, but I know which point of view I would rather my opponent held.
Two things I'd add would be:
Testing is good, but unless it includes ingame behaviour then it's of limited use (and if you fight from a static exposed position with the pause command overriding the (reasonably sensible) TacAI then I'd love to play you). Ideally what we would need are examples from actual games under ingame conditions when players are trying to win. And finally: no one complains about this happening to Shermans. There are elements of this discussion that feel a lot like "Invincible Panzer Syndrome" vs reality. Heavy armour doesn't exclude any tank from basic tactical principles- it's insurance against the worst case possibility.

You'll have to excuse the double post here, but I feel compelled to share this.
I think some of the misconception about what is happening in the game is coming from the fact that the TacAI always aims for center mass. The real world is not like World of Tanks or War Thunder, where shot placement on specific 2in by 2in spots on a tank has been developed into some kind of gamer science. In reality, all gunnery (small arms, AT, tank, autocannon, missile, etc) is based on the principle of always aiming for center mass. This is as true today as it was back in 1944/42/insert warfare date here. The modern training doctrine, ie standard gunnery in an Abrams tank, it to ALWAYS laze a target at center mass, and then immediately fire. This is called 'lase and blaze' by gunners. There are many reasons to do it this way, but the most important two are 1) if you do not lase the center mass of the target, you can get a bad laser return, which gives you an incorrect range to target, meaning your shot will miss. And 2) because even in an M1A2 SEP Abrams tank, which has a gunner and tank commander sight that is 1080p resolution with a x50 zoom, it is still hard to pick out individual parts on a tank in combat conditions. 
To illustrate this, here is a video of an actual Abrams on a training range. You can see the thermal sights they are using, the targets and everything. The gunner does not look for a specific part of the target to shoot at, he fires center mass after a quick and successful lase:
 (Btw the comments on this video are pretty hilarious)
This second video shows an actual battle position (BP) engagement on a training range. Note that the tank pulls up into the firing position, scans for and engages targets (fires twice) and then reverses. All in the span of 20 seconds. This is irregardless of return fire in a real life combat situation. Tanks train to constantly reverse out of and advance into firing positions to reduce the chance of them being shot at at all:
In summary: tanks always fire at center mass. Even in good hulldown, tanks still reverse out of line of sight to prevent themselves being shot at at all, and to greatly reduce the chances of them being ranged in on/hit if they are engaged. 
Edit: Ninja'd again, by @Saint_Fuller who makes an excellent point which my post helps to illustrate as well. 

The point of hull down is that it forms a battle position. Its only one part of the formula of breaking an enemy targeting solution. The other one is time. Why should we take anything away from a 'test' that doesn't mimic a battlefield condition where a competent player repositions a tank in BP frequently? I also enjoy the casual ignoring of @Pete Wenman's results. It's okay Pete, the reasonable people see you. 

Because I'm bored, I've played around with this.
My set up
Two Panthers firing under AI control
Two Sherman fly, under my control, as targets. One in open ground, immediately behind a strip of light wood (no trees) the second hulldown behind a 2m high berm, which again has a strip of light wood on its top.
Range just over 1500m
I've run this test 5 times so far, which is nowhere near enough for a real analysis, but I'm getting a feel for the results.
Rather than worrying about hits and locations I'm counting AP shells fired in order to destroy the target,
                      AP Shells fired to destroy target
Try                        OG                                HD
1                            3                                    6
2                            5                                    9
3                            3                                   14
4                            2                                    6
5                            4                                    8    
So it took 17 shots to kill the five Firefly in open ground, against 43 to kill the five hull down tanks.
That's an average of one open ground kill every 3.4 shots, against 8.6 shots for the hull down target, and so on these numbers it takes over twice as many shots to kill a hulldown target than one in open ground.
Works for me, but you mileage may vary
P
 

Because I'm bored, I've played around with this.
My set up
Two Panthers firing under AI control
Two Sherman fly, under my control, as targets. One in open ground, immediately behind a strip of light wood (no trees) the second hulldown behind a 2m high berm, which again has a strip of light wood on its top.
Range just over 1500m
I've run this test 5 times so far, which is nowhere near enough for a real analysis, but I'm getting a feel for the results.
Rather than worrying about hits and locations I'm counting AP shells fired in order to destroy the target,
                      AP Shells fired to destroy target
Try                        OG                                HD
1                            3                                    6
2                            5                                    9
3                            3                                   14
4                            2                                    6
5                            4                                    8    
So it took 17 shots to kill the five Firefly in open ground, against 43 to kill the five hull down tanks.
That's an average of one open ground kill every 3.4 shots, against 8.6 shots for the hull down target, and so on these numbers it takes over twice as many shots to kill a hulldown target than one in open ground.
Works for me, but you mileage may vary
P
 

Because I'm bored, I've played around with this.
My set up
Two Panthers firing under AI control
Two Sherman fly, under my control, as targets. One in open ground, immediately behind a strip of light wood (no trees) the second hulldown behind a 2m high berm, which again has a strip of light wood on its top.
Range just over 1500m
I've run this test 5 times so far, which is nowhere near enough for a real analysis, but I'm getting a feel for the results.
Rather than worrying about hits and locations I'm counting AP shells fired in order to destroy the target,
                      AP Shells fired to destroy target
Try                        OG                                HD
1                            3                                    6
2                            5                                    9
3                            3                                   14
4                            2                                    6
5                            4                                    8    
So it took 17 shots to kill the five Firefly in open ground, against 43 to kill the five hull down tanks.
That's an average of one open ground kill every 3.4 shots, against 8.6 shots for the hull down target, and so on these numbers it takes over twice as many shots to kill a hulldown target than one in open ground.
Works for me, but you mileage may vary
P
 

Not following this thread lately.
Did 'Fulda Gap' win already?
Best regards
Thomm

While a poll would be fun, don't be disappointed when it doesn't appear.

I did this for the 251/9 used at Chenuax, but gave up when trying to get the crew into US uniforms. 
 

 
P

Citation Needed.

This is why I can't come to the forums anymore. You people make my brain hurt.
If you park two stationary tanks across from each other on a flat surface under perfect weather conditions, and allow one tank to range the other and sit there plinking away at it's target, then that is TRAINING CONDITIONS. The observed accuracy of the guns is here demonstrated under TRAINING CONDITIONS. This is no different if you'd hung a paper target and told the gunner to shoot it. The American 76mm gun is wickedly accurate, and at 2000 meters range can easily bullseye the center of mass on a 2 meter target under TRAINING CONDITIONS. I mean, Jesus Christ it can plaster a FIVE INCH circle at 1000 meters no trouble at all. That's a target about the size of my hand fully stretched out, so a 2 meter target at 2000 meters is no trouble at all.
We're not shooting smoothbore cannons firing round shot here. Sheesh.
If you want to test accuracy under combat conditions, then create COMBAT conditions, and record your results. This game doesn't automagically create combat conditions just because you load a scenario and let it play. Load up a random map, put forces on both sides, and order them to attack each other. Then you can see how effective your gunnery is. When your targets are maneuvering, evading, popping smoke, shooting smoke, and shooting back to hit and kill, you'll likely see a reduction in your accuracy.
Of course, you might be having too much fun to come onto the forums and complain about gunnery, but that tends to happen when you just play the game.

I'm not seeing a gun barrel penetrated in this pic. I'm seeing a damaged muzzle brake that would likely not prevent the gun from firing. 
 
Really - you'd be happy to fire a 90mm high explosive projectile down a barrel that is that badly damaged, and potentially partially blocked. I was never a tanker, but if that had ever happened to my rifle I sure as hell would not have fired another round. Guns and their associated mountings and recoil systems are pieces of high precision engineering, with very small tolerances. If these are exceeded, due to damage or other external factors, they stop working as designed and that is inherently dangerous given the amounts of energy at play.
  P
 

I'm not seeing a gun barrel penetrated in this pic. I'm seeing a damaged muzzle brake that would likely not prevent the gun from firing. 
 
Really - you'd be happy to fire a 90mm high explosive projectile down a barrel that is that badly damaged, and potentially partially blocked. I was never a tanker, but if that had ever happened to my rifle I sure as hell would not have fired another round. Guns and their associated mountings and recoil systems are pieces of high precision engineering, with very small tolerances. If these are exceeded, due to damage or other external factors, they stop working as designed and that is inherently dangerous given the amounts of energy at play.
  P
 

This ^^^ so much this !

I'm not seeing a gun barrel penetrated in this pic. I'm seeing a damaged muzzle brake that would likely not prevent the gun from firing. 
 
Really - you'd be happy to fire a 90mm high explosive projectile down a barrel that is that badly damaged, and potentially partially blocked. I was never a tanker, but if that had ever happened to my rifle I sure as hell would not have fired another round. Guns and their associated mountings and recoil systems are pieces of high precision engineering, with very small tolerances. If these are exceeded, due to damage or other external factors, they stop working as designed and that is inherently dangerous given the amounts of energy at play.
  P
 

Not really. The thread seems to have devolved into how often does real-life battle damage to the barrel make the gun inoperable. The OP started with a complaint that the GAME has "gun damage" occurring too often.
There has been a conflation in this thread that the game label "gun damaged" is somehow the same as barrel damage.
 

What Tiger? You were just rolling down the street when suddenly there was a huge bang and the turret filled with smoke, screams, shrapnel and blood. It would be nice to have more details on the actual engagement, but I seriously doubt the surviving crew were either still inside the Pershing or in any kind of mental state to do anything by the time the second shot hit the muzzle brake. It seems unlikely that they had any idea what was going on.
But we're getting a little sidetracked from the main point. It might be profitable for people to start sharing turns when they take gun damage so we can see how often it happens and what common factors there are. Because I know it barely ever happens to me, nor does it seem to happen very often when I specifically try to do it to my opponents.