Amedeo

I don't seek out armor duels because they are a bit like tossing a coin, but they come up again and again. So I was interested to learn what I can do to maximize the chances for my tank in a duel if it gets into one.
So I put two identical Pz IVH (late) tanks with regular crews, no modifiers, against each other at 600 m range. I called one "Attacker" and the other "Defender", although it does not mean anything. I put both on a mild slope (partial hull down) and varied different conditions. Crew hatches open/closed, vehicle movement, terrain type, crew experience. I ran each case at least 1000 times and recorded the percentage of wins by each side. A 'win' means that the other vehicle was destroyed or the crew bailed out. If both vehicles were alive after 5 minutes, neither side won - usually one vehicle got hit and retreated back down the slope. If neither vehicle survived, both sides got a win.
The tables show the win rate on each side. The statistics were not perfect even with 1000 duels per case. Results of repeat runs could vary by up to +/- 3%. Notably I did not get a perfectly symmetric results even for reference cases R1 and R4 where the vehicles had identical conditions on both sides. So, don't take the numbers as the absolutely accurate truth. They just show what works.
Pz IVH was a good tank for this purpose because it can easily kill itself - powerful gun and vs weak armor. Therefore, the duels were mainly about who is able to spot first and land the first round accurately on target.
I did not find anything revolutionary - mostly stuff people already know and do - but it was still interesting to see the numbers. Here it is:
1. Keep your crew hatches open when expecting to fight an enemy AFV. If you can, force the enemy to close theirs.
Table 1. Effect of crew hatches open/closed. Both AFVs are stationary on Grass.
Attacker
Defender
Closed
49%
49%
Closed
Open [R1]
48%
50%
[R1] Open
Open
76%
21%
Closed
2. Minimize movement when within enemy LOS. Stop as soon as your vehicle can see the place where the enemy is (represented with the "Hull Down" command in the table below, which gives additional advantage of being harder to see and hit due to being hull down; this is not to say that the Hull Down command is always useable, but it worked here well because the Attacker was going up the slope). Movement makes you more visible - and it does not appear to matter what kind of movement command you use - in fact the faster movement commands seem to work a bit better.
Table 2. Effect of vehicle movement. Attacker starts out of LOS and moves in towards the Defender using different movement commands. Both AFVs are on Grass and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Hunt [R2]
41%
57%
[R2] Stationary
Slow
35%
63%
Stationary
Move
39%
59%
Stationary
Quick
42%
56%
Stationary
Fast
41%
57%
Stationary
Hull Down
61%
29%
Stationary
Quick: Minimizes the time interval when the Attacker is moving within the Defender’s FOV. Therefore, Quick works well as it gets the attacker into position quickly, whereas Slow works poorly.
Hull Down: Better cover than the Defender and minimizes time when the Attacker is moving within the Defender’s FOV. Also: Easier to disengage when damaged – probably for both sides. High percentage of duels with no winner.
3. If you have to Hunt, point 1. about crew hatches still applies and can reverse the odds in your favor.
Table 3. Effect of crew hatches open/closed while the Attacker is moving. Attacker starts out of LOS and moves in towards the Defender using Hunt. The Defender is stationary. Both AFVs are on Grass and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Closed
37%
60%
Closed
Open [R2]
41%
57%
[R2] Open
Open
64%
34%
Closed
Closed
14%
82%
Open
4. Target arc can serve various purposes but does not help with seeing or hitting the enemy. TRP helps, likely by increasing the chances of a first hit.
Table 4. Effect of using Target Armor Arc and Target Reference Point (TRP). Both AFVs are stationary on Grass and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
No arc [R1]
48%
50%
[R1] No arc
Target Armor Arc
50%
49%
No arc
TRP on Defender
72%
28%
No TRP
Note: Target Arc can still help by pointing the gun and the Commander’s attention to the right direction if the vehicle is not moving directly towards the defender. Also, it prevents distraction of the Attacker by other, low-priority targets.
5. Ground type can provide some help by concealment. Tall types of grass (T and TY), Weeds, Brush, Lt Forest (without trees) and Crop 1 give a small advantage over hard or bare surfaces. Very tall types of crops (2-6) and Grass XT give significant advantage. There is no disadvantage in being on road or pavement compared to grass, but sand, mud and cobblestone seem to hurt a little, possibly because they lower the chances of disengaging when retreating in damaged condition.
Trees are complicated and depend on type. Type A trees are somewhat helpful if there are 2 or 3 on the tile. Type B trees are not helpful at all. Type C trees seem to be best, especially if there are 2 or 3. Type D trees are somewhat helpful independently on their number. Type E are like Type A. Bush does not make much of a change.
Stone and brick walls and low bocage give some advantage - can be concealment as well as cover. But bocage is the big one. A tank behind bocage almost always wins against a tank in open ground.
Table 5a. Effect of Defender ground type – bare surfaces, hard surfaces and roads. Attacker on Grass. Both AFVs are stationary and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Grass
45%
51%
Dirt
Grass
47%
50%
Dirt Red
Grass
49%
48%
Hard
Grass
50%
48%
Rocky
Grass
49%
49%
Rocky Red
Grass
52%
47%
Sand
Grass
52%
47%
Mud
Grass
50%
49%
Pavement 1
Grass
50%
50%
Pavement 2
Grass
52%
47%
Cobblestone
Grass
47%
51%
Gravel
Grass
46%
49%
Dirt Lot
Grass
49%
48%
Dirt Road
Grass
47%
50%
Gravel Road
Grass
51%
48%
Paved 1
Grass
48%
51%
Paved 2
Grass
47%
49%
Foot Path
Sand, Mud, Cobblestone (?): Can impair movement, possibly making retreat of a damaged vehicle slower and less likely to succeed before the Attacker fires another accurate shot.
Table 5b. Effect of Defender ground type – low vegetation and cultivated fields. Attacker on Grass. Both AFVs are stationary and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Grass [R1]
48%
50%
[R1] Grass
Grass
50%
47%
Grass Y
Grass
50%
48%
Clover
Grass
50%
48%
Flowers
Grass
49%
50%
Plow NS
Grass
50%
50%
Plow EW
Grass
43%
57%
Grass T
Grass
43%
55%
Grass TY
Grass
44%
54%
Weeds
Grass
44%
55%
Grass + Brush
Grass [R3]
46%
54%
[R3] Lt Forest
Grass
42%
57%
Crop 1
Grass
39%
60%
Crop 2
Grass
39%
60%
Crop 3
Grass
39%
60%
Crop 4
Grass
40%
58%
Crop 5
Grass
39%
59%
Crop 6
Grass
38%
60%
Grass XT
Table 5c. Effect of Defender ground type – foliage. Attacker on Grass. Both AFVs are stationary and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Grass [R1]
48%
50%
[R1] Grass, no foliage
Grass
50%
46%
Grass + 1x Type A Tree
Grass
44%
51%
Grass + 2x Type A Tree
Grass
42%
54%
Grass + 3x Type A Tree
Grass
49%
49%
Grass + 1x Type B Tree
Grass
51%
46%
Grass + 2x Type B Tree
Grass
51%
47%
Grass + 3x Type B Tree
Grass
43%
52%
Grass + 1x Type C Tree
Grass
33%
62%
Grass + 2x Type C Tree
Grass
32%
62%
Grass + 3x Type C Tree
Grass
44%
52%
Grass + 1x Type D Tree
Grass
44%
51%
Grass + 2x Type D Tree
Grass
40%
55%
Grass + 3x Type D Tree
Grass
50%
47%
Grass + 1x Type E Tree
Grass
42%
55%
Grass + 2x Type E Tree
Grass
41%
55%
Grass + 3x Type E Tree
Grass
49%
49%
Grass + 1x Type A Bush
Grass
52%
47%
Grass + 2x Type A Bush
Grass
50%
46%
Grass + 3x Type A Bush
Grass [R3]
46%
54%
 [R3] Lt Forest, no foliage
Grass
44%
54%
Lt Forest + 1x Type A Tree
Grass
39%
57%
Lt Forest + 2x Type A Tree
Grass
37%
59%
Lt Forest + 3x Type A Tree
1x Tree: Can be detrimental because it does not provide enough concealment and can trigger APHE shells passing high, wounding the exposed Commander.
Table 5d. Effect of Defender ground type – walls and fences. Attacker on Grass. Both AFVs are stationary and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Grass [R4]
48%
51%
[R4] Grass
Grass
46%
54%
Grass + Stone
Grass
47%
52%
Grass + Brick
Grass
 
 
Grass + Rural Stone
Grass
43%
55%
Grass + Low Bocage
Grass
7%
89%
Grass + Bocage
6. Crew experience - there is a big change from Green to Regular to Veteran, but Crack gives little advantage over Veteran.
Table 6. Effect of crew Experience. Both AFVs are stationary on Grass and the crew hatches are open.
Attacker
Defender
Green
33%
66%
Regular
Regular
36%
61%
Veteran
Veteran
44%
57%
Crack
Green
20%
78%
Veteran
Regular
32%
67%
Crack
Green
18%
82%
Crack

IIRC, islamist guerrilla manage to catastrophically disrupt Soviet oil production with a well executed (and lucky) attack on a refinery complex. Moscow realizes that the only way to save USSR from a collapse due to the lack of oil is to invade the Persian Gulf. And, since they fear that such an action might trigger NATO military intervention... they resolve to go to war with NATO just to avoid that! 😂 Basically, being driven to suicide by the fear of dying. 🤨
Probably the lamest reason for a fictional WW3 ever, but at the time I liked the book. Honestly, I bought it only for the action, non for the plot.

As far as I know, then one of the main reasons why the Danish army maintained the M41 in service throughout the Cold War (albeit heavily modified) on Bornholm island (in the middle of the Baltic) was that it was expected not to meet much armour that was heavier than the PT76 or ASU57/85.  As the PT76 was designed around being able to float and sail quite well, then the a more conventional tank of similar weight was deemed to more than enough. 

As was explicitly said by a tester, Soviet uniforms and infantry models are still work in progress. So, beta screenshots might not represent what the final product will be.
I'm positive that when we'll, finally, run CM:CW on our PCs, we'll see an assortment of SSh-68 and SSh-40/60 helmets.

In the real world M60 series gun depression was -10 degrees, T72 was -6 degrees. This actually caused problems on M60A2. On an incline at max depression a M60A2 tank commander wouldn't be able to see over the turret nose so they had to include a very tall cupola to get him high enough to peer over it. Take a guess what's usually the first thing to get hit on an M60A2.

Judging by your nickname, I guess you'd prefer 1983. 😄

My guess (and it's only a guess) is that mobilization categories will not be reflected (per se) in the force selector, simply because the game (at present) is designed to represent combat between first line Soviet and US forces in Germany in the first phase of a hypothetical WW3.
So, all of the units in the GSVG should be classified in what you'd call "A" category. 

Thirteenth Minute - The Board is Set
 
“In the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity.”
Art of War, Sun Tsu
 
Minute 13:
1st Platoon's Tank Section 2 continued to harass the two T-64As on the Soviet left (my right) flank.  These are the two T-64s that took a beating in the 12th minute... and they each take several more rounds into their front hull and turret, both backing into the woods the whole time.

T-64A (right side) manages to escape.. but it has to be damaged.  I am considering it a mission kill until I know otherwise.  If it pops back up later I will address it then.
T-64A (left side) takes a penetrating hit at the end of the turn.. and this one kills it:

 

CURRENT SITUATION
This is a busy image, and I apologize for that. 
Enemy Situation:
Recon Company remnants are pushing forward and are on my extreme left. Warren's dismounted infantry and scouts continue to push toward Dolbach, supported by the Recon Company BMP-1Ps/BMR-1 and the Infantry Company's BMP-1s BMP-1s in overwatch are starting to move forward some, but are remaining behind the infantry for now T-62 Company is still being held in reserve, but is moving forward slightly T-64B Platoon is down to one fully functional tank and one wounded and probably gun damaged tank T-64A platoon is down to one wounded and probably disabled tank
My Support Plan:
2 of my 3 available M-106 Mortars are starting to drop rounds in front of the Soviet infantry.  Timing with indirect fire is always a challenge, but I am liking how this is shaping up
One of 155mm batteries is dropping spotting rounds for a linear fire mission as shown below.  Fire for effect should start in a couple turns.
I do have more planned, but am saving that for the next report!  Yes, I will finally let you in on the planning that I have been working toward for several turns now... stay tuned! Finally, some Tank Porn!!
BMP-1P:

BMR-1 (Recon Company CO's ride:

I went into the game and clicked a pict of it.

I completely agree that the early '80s are more interesting from the perspective of having a more balanced game. That said, I'd like to see the timeframe extended (a bit) in future expansions. As I said, nothing dramatic, up to '83 or better '85... and '78! Just to have the M551 Sheridan in the 11th ACR and recreate the opening engagement of Hackett's The Third World War! 😆
Poor Sir John! Technological development was so fast that just a little after the publication of his novel (written in 1978 but set in 1985) many piece of hardware that played a role in the story were retired (from Polaris SLBMs to Sheridan tanks).
Anyway, the Sheridan continued to soldier with the 82nd, so if an airborne module is in the works... 😉

Interestingly, 83-89 would have been easier from a design perspective.   The US formations are well known and structures had pretty much settled down as the Bradley's came in.  Problem is that I personally think that tactically it would have risked being lopsided.  The M1A1 is a monster from another epoc in military development, the Leo 2s and Challengers not far behind.  The T80s would be challenged except for the T80U (which according to some sources never served in Germany, but we could "what if" that) and anything less is very disadvantaged.  BMP 3 would see the light of day but it probably is not going to tip things.  Soviets still had mass, so there is that but the digital battlefield was already well on its way.  The Gulf War demonstrated what things probably would have looked like, basically because the Soviet system ran out of gas to keep up.
My personal opinion was the distance between an 83-89 version is too close to CMSF or CMBS. '82 and earlier this is not the case, the Soviet has tactical parity and even advantage making for a better balanced period.

I'd like to see 1983 included just because it was the year we really risked the third world war; 1985 is also interesting (new pieces of kit: 120mm armed Abrams, reactive armour on Soviet tanks etc,). Indeed the decade 1979-1989 saw the introduction of many new weapons systems, especially in land warfare, just to keep up with the new ammo types for the same gun (just consider the kinetic penetrators used during this decade in the US 105mm gun: M728, M735, M774, M833; M900) would be daunting!
 

This CM year just gets better and better...

Hi all, development has begun! We have only been going at this for about 4 weeks, so there isn't anything to show. Feel free to follow along on the forum below and watch how things are taking shape. Again there isn't much to talk about at the moment, but give it another month and there should be some things to see.

You either have top notch graphics with a kindergarten game or what we have. I get on just fine with the graphics as it is. Then again, I am 70 and remember the Commodore 64 with Crazy Kong. 

Yes you make some good points. Lots of what ifs in a tank duel. I do have lots of respect for the panther. I think it was the best tank of ww2. oh oh now I have opened up that can of worms. Nice talking with you.

I owned both Panzerblitz and Arab-Israeli Wars.  I used have those kinds of battles all the time.  It was tough to compare the various individual units because of platoon sizes.  But it was fun.
 
btw, the M48A5 had an attack value of 25 and defense of 15.  The Panther had 20 and 12.  The M48 came out OK.

The first tactical wargame I ever played was the good ol' Panzerblitz by Avalon Hill. (Disclaimer: I'm not that old, I got the game more than ten year after its first release 😄)
I remember that, in the scenario booklet, there was an appendix detailing technical data about the various German and Soviet tanks depicted in the game. There were also the specs of the US M48A5, next to a Panther, with a note saying that this was the proof that tank design practically stagnated for twenty years.
Since then, I always dreamed about a Panther G vs M48A5 match! 😂 It's a pity we cannot mix and match hardware from the various CM games!
P.S. No, I do not think that the PzKpfw V was on par with the M48, especially if one considers the 105mm armed variant.

Tenth Minute
“As long as I breathe, I attack."
Bernard Hinault
 
A few key events this turn:

M-60A1(RISE+) (1/8) missed the shot it took at the end of last turn, that round going long.  But it fired an additional four times at the T-64B it spotted last turn.. connecting on two.


That had to hurt.. I know those hits caused at least one casualty.  Its possible this tank is a gun kill, and that's as good as knocking it out as far as I'm concerned.  Still, I am not counting on that.
M-150 (1/5) - I'm an idiot... in he hope of bringing the final (as far as I can tell) BMP near NAI2 under fire, I crept this tank hunter forward to take up a Hull Down spot with visibility of this spot... but I failed to mask the M-150 from the rest of the field.
It was spotted by both a BMP-1 and the T-64B (from the previous vignette) in their battle position.  First the BMP fired it's Sagger:

Then the T-64B fired as well...

The T-64's shell fell short, but the BMP must have had a gifted Sagger gunner, as I swear that missile skimmed inches off the ground...

...but alas it flew true...


 
Finally, for the group playing my "What's Bil Planning?" game... I am moving 2nd Platoon's Scouts to the left side of the field, as shown... what are they up to?  Hmmm  

I promise I won't keep you in suspense much longer, and will reveal what I am thinking with one of my next two posts.
Bil
 
 

No, the .50 cal mg was originally installed for that job as it was matched to the 120mm main gun... after getting strike on target the gunner would switch from the .50 and engage with the main armament, making manual corrections as normal. (Using HESH you could expect a 3 round engagement). Using Sabot I would normally get a first round hit due to the very flat trajectory.
The .50 was considered superfluous as we had the TLS (Tank Laser Sight) for ranging, and although we still had the .50 we never carried ammo for it anyway.
The 7.62 GPMG was our co-ax, used for soft targets and for killing enemy crew bailing out, and attacking infantry etc.
 

When I mentioned 'steam gunnery' I was talking about a gunnery system which was laid onto target by the gunner using his hand controls after receiving a fire control order from the commander, and making manual corrections... a system that any WWII tank crew would have been familiar with, as opposed to the IFCS system which was like playing a computer game in comparison.
By the way, as commander I could override the gunner at any stage and lay him onto any other target that pops up that may be a more immediate threat...

I can't remember the exact date I left Germany, but I was there from 1980- 1984... we were on the MkV Chieftain, we still had a .50 mg fitted, a GPMG 7.62 co-axial, Laser rangefinder (prone to overheat) so we usually used the Mk I eyeball for range estimation, lol... main armament ammunition was the APDS and HESH rounds. (only got to fire live APDS in Canada).
As to APFSDS, never saw one, although the Regiment taking over from us had been training on the IFCS system (we still used 'steam gunnery') back in the UK so they were probably training for APFSDS at that stage as well.
We took over as the Medium Recce element  of 5 Airborne Brigade and never saw an MBT again, but quite a lot of us became paratroopers, lol!

Very excited when I heard CMCW had dropped out of nowhere and was to be included.
As a Chieftain tank commander stationed in West Germany (Detmold) during the 80's, I was a bit deflated not to see the BAOR in the mix.
Any hints as to what will be added down the road after it's release?
 

And consider that the difference is even larger than what can be inferred from the table, since APDS rounds are more prone to ricochet and suffer from greater speed loss compared to APFSDS rounds .