c3k

Great! The pix help. 1) Bocage pathing: That gap LOOKS like a gap...but I've been burned by "false-gap syndrome". If you set LOD to close distance, then back away, the bocage becomes a solid green line. If there is a gap in the green line, THEN there is a real gap. I'm NOT saying that's the issue, I'm saying that has happened to me in the past. (Been awhile.) If you can post the map, or tell us what map it is, I'll tell you if that's really a gap. Yeah, it isn't then that brings up the issue of "false-gap syndrome" and the need for better 3D rendering in-game. However, if it IS a valid gap, then your pathing is at fault. A point in the middle of the field doesn't tell the AI to take the shortest path; it takes the easiest/quickest path. Your men would bunch in the bocage gap and slow down. If you wanted them to go there, then a waypoint on your side of the gap, then another on the far side (doesn't have to be right there, but can be a bit away) should work. Post the map. That'll tell us for sure. 2) Wespe. The muzzle brake probably got a hole in it and the next shell cleared it out. The hits on the recuperator are bit more problematic, to me, and a higher-fidelity damage model would've rendered the gun inop after one more shot. Gun shield deflections? Depends on what hit it and what angle. 3) Panther. The PIAT is a horrible weapon to use against Panthers. The other holes look small. Solid AP shot from a 57mm? It would depend on the range. I'm curious about the crew status and subsystem damage to it. Etc. The hole in the barrel should certainly cause an inop gun. Thanks for the pix. Ken

Don't sweat it. I got a personal report from one of the medics that policed the battlefield after the krauts surrendered. That bazooka? It took a round right through it. In fact, the medic told me that the bazooka probably saved that GI's life.

George MC, I've just downloaded this and taken a look. Wow. I am stunned. Thank you for doing this.

DasMorbo, 1) Pathing: Your two screenshots don't show me (for whatever that matters) that there is any problem. Baneman already mentioned it: you've sent your troops through a chokepoint without trying to control the timing of their passage. 1a) The group (platoon?) is already streaming through a passage in the dense brush/undergrowth. If you wanted the platoon NOT to do so, but for squads to stay in their own "lanes", you should've given each squad an intermediate waypoint just across the belt of dense undergrowth from where they approached it. 1b) Fording a water obstacle ALWAYS causes bunching up, just like in real life. It slows men down, so men behind them will compress into them like an accordion. The places to cross are limited, so laterally offset units will merge at the ford. Just like a highway merge, bunching will occur. The solution is for you to place intermediate waypoints and start using the PAUSE command at those waypoints. It's up to you to command your troops and to stagger their movements in space and time. A simple "mob, go there" group order will result in a mob moving over there. 2) Panther hit registration and penetration. Err, well, if there were something significantly wrong, I'd think that it would've been noticed by now. I'm NOT saying there isn't a possible issue, but if it were prevalent, it would've been noticed. (Look at the Shatter Gap thread for the level of detail/knowledge by the designers and players.) If you think there is an issue, present some tests, or at least some screenshots. Now, having said that, I just had a pbem game turn where my 17 lber hit a Panther and got a hit on the "Hull Superstructure" (I think). There was no hit decal. I've seen the Glacis, but never a Panther Hull Superstructure. The range was a bit over 1km. Being pbem, I don't know what damage, if any, that hit caused. Lack of a hit decal and the hit label have me questioning that particular impact. So, my mind is not closed to what you say, but you need to do more than just say "it's wrong". Internal damage model: I think there is room to increase the fidelity of how internal subsystems are modeled. That doesn't mean there is a "bug" with the current model. If the current model is working as designed, but you don't like it, then that means there's a desire to change the model. I have seen small rounds cause catastrophic secondary explosions, and big rounds cause no explosion. Again, what -precisely- do you think is not working correctly? (Presenting the results of some tests would really be helpful to support your supposition.) 3) Spotting system: yeah, it can be frustrating. First, you need to know how it works (apologies if you know this already). Units do not spot continuously. It is impossible, apparently, to do so with modern cpu's and still have a functioning game. Instead, each unit spots at certain intervals. It may be every 7 seconds for one unit, it may be every 2 seconds for another. Additionally, these spotting times are staggered. Not every unit's spotting "poll clock" starts at 0 when the game starts, for example. That adds a lot of randomness so you THINK they are spotting continuously. Also, in-game, if a man in a tank is "reloading", he is not spotting. Etc. He has to be "spotting" to be spotting. Then toss in the spotting poll times. You can see that there is a chance for an enemy unit to get inside that spotting cycle and have asymmetric spotting behavior. This behavior resolves itself in a few seconds as the next polling cycle occurs, but that may not help if the first unit can fire before that occurs. This coding model results in pretty realistic behavior...in the vast majority of all cases. I could say that your StuG got hit by an unlucky coincidence. The driver had just stalled the engine and was focused on that; the loader can't see squat; the gunner was focused on his gunsight thinking a bush at 1km was a Stalin II; the vehicle commander was on the platoon net giving a status update and was distracted by the stalled engine. They would've spotted the T34 in a few more seconds, but their distraction as a group caused their deaths. What you could do, is take a savegame of the turn BEFORE IT GETS RESOLVED (the "Command Phase") and hit the "Go" button again. See if that replay results in the same outcome. Re-compute that turn about 10 times and see what happens. Please post the results.: I'm curious. (Don't recycle the same replay turn. Those results will, obviously, never change.) That doesn't dismiss your StuG vs. T34 example, it just explains why it may be happening and gives a real-life explanation. Screenshots (multiple ones) would help. I have been surprised by my poor spotting in light woods, playing with only tree trunks visible, and then, when I turn the trees on, I see the leaves are closer to the ground and totally obscure the turret. Things like that matter. Ken

Stunning.

Smoke, smoke, smoke. A blinded ATG/MG nest is totally ineffective. Most artillery is good for suppression, not destruction. But the 25lber's should have a lot of smoke. Use it. Get some infantry moving, blind the enemy, flank 'em, then kill them.

LOL! Yeah, there's a lot of information being presented and a lot of talking past one another. I think. At this point, I'd love to see a summary. The problem with any question about penetration values is, IMO, that there are so many variables and that most of the discussion is based on theoretical numbers, not tests. (Shoeburyness and Isigny nothwithstanding. Those provided some data, but were hardly thorough enough to create absolute certainty about the ballistics. The purpose of those tests were to see what Allied weapons worked, and which didn't.) An additional complication is that the question here (which I -think- is whether the 76mm should always defeat the Tiger I frontal armor at less than 800m, given a normal angle to the face of the tank), starts to get into the realm of "maybe". (Hold yer horses! Let me esplain.) By "maybe", I mean that neither the armor nor the projectile have an overwhelming superiority over one another. There is no question that a rifle round cannot penetrate a Tiger face. There is no question that a 76mm at 500m will penetrate a halftrack. I've attached two quickly found internet tables. and The 76mm gets close to, or exceeds, the 100mm Tiger armor thickness. But wait. What type of armor are the tables based upon? Do they have the same characteristics as the Tiger armor? What is the RHAe of the high-hardness Tiger plate? (They kept that quality up, unlike other tanks.) The Tiger armor's 100mm was a MINIMUM thickness. Often it was a few mm thicker. What about the zimmerit coating? Did that add resistance? Or reduce it? What about hitting things on the front, like brackets, cables, etc? (Then, we can talk about edge effects, too.) Finally, we also need to realize that the front hull plate was sloped back at 10 degrees from the vertical. We're splitting hairs. Really. If there is an issue, it needs to be presented clearly. Definitions matter. (Not trying to reignite a flame, just stating a fact.) I think we all recognize that CM's armor/penetration model is probably the best one available to the public. If there is an inaccuracy, I'm sure we all would appreciate it being resolved.

That link failed to work on my phone.

For completeness, I'll post the Wa Pruef and various other nations' ordnance branch criteria for penetration in their ballistic tables. It will have to wait until I get home...on Tuesday.

Without trying to push you into that stroke you're headed towards, your "completely through" criteria has been shown to be false. That is not how the various technical services judged ballistic performance. And how is a partial penetration not a penetration? If there is no behind armor effect it is a bounce and leaves a gouge, at best. (Game definition for this paragraph.)

You started this by stating: "After considerable testing in CMBN, I have determined (as many here already are aware) that the Tiger deflects almost all 76mm hits from the front at ranges well within the penetration zone for the 76mm gun at low obliquity at ranges of 500 to 1000m. In my estimation, there seems to be no reason what-so-ever that the 76mm gun should not be able to reliably penetrate the Tigers frontal armor at reasonable angles under 1000m. At the very least under 800m. What exactly is battlefronts reason for this?" My statement, which you took as an apparent insult, was that there are many gradations between what a "penetration" means to different folks. I don't know why you took umbrage, unless you cannot accept an opposing viewpoint? (Not what I think, based on you posts...but your reaction to my last post was bit "testy". Shrug.) US Army penetration meant any light for 50% of the hits. British army meant some mass percentage got through (it changed through the war) for 50% of the hits. Germans always used oblique angles when testing and demanded the fuze be intact when through the armor. The Soviets? I've forgotten. (Actually, the above is off the top of my head. I am away from my references. I've looked this stuff up many times.) The period technical services almost all (if not all) had different meanings for "penetration" and they used PROBABILITIES as well. Light coming through half the time meant it could penetrate? I'd hate to bet my life on those tables before I opened fire... You think the Tiger deflects "almost all 76mm hits". Your words, OP. Vanir Ausf B ran HUNDREDS of test. They showed that nearly all hits penetrated, spalled, or partially penetrated. Your initial statement was disproven, yet you still argue...something???? A partial penetration is an effect. As is a full penetration. As is spalling. In each case, the armor has failed. What,precisely, do you expect from a 76mm hit on a Tiger hull front at 1,000m? At 800m? Do you maintain that it should FULLY penetrate (a whole shell, with intact fuzing) leaving a 76mm hole? Should it do this EVERY time? Seriously. My above questions seek to determine precisely why you think the penetration model is wrong (or needs to be adjusted). VaB showed that 76mm vs. the Tiger front is pretty good, all things given. I'm wondering what you think should happen. Ken Edited to add: Here's a link to a nice summary of the various tests and results. http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/81013-us-guns-german-armor-pt-1/ Open up the "spoiler" in the first post. Of note, the BHN of the target plates vs. the actual German armor is a significant detractor from the ability of the 76mm's AP ammo to achieve "book" numbers in real tests.

Exactly! The "physicist" would demand 100% mass through the armor 100% of the time to declare that "x penetrates y". The user doesn't care: he just wants the damn target to stop working. There's a lot of gradation between the two...

All credit for the link goes to Muzzleflash. (Thanks for that, btw.) Ken

I like the technique! If the game had lasted a little longer, you know that the secondary explosions from the Shermans would've knocked out that Panther. It shows a highly developed tactical acumen to see that possibility and maneuver the Shermans close enough so it can work. A lot of folks would've tried to do that, but then ruined it by allowing their Shermans to actually SHOOT at the Panther. I laugh at their newbness. DJ gets the award for low-level use of high-level tactical strategery. Oh, and it's properly spelled "narwhalegangwaffe".

Above, page 4, Shift8 wrote that a penetration is when a projectile passes through the armor. That's not really how it works. Usually, if there is visible light through the armor, then it counts as a penetration. Some of the criteria changes based on country and time. US in WWII, you had to see light. Any light. Even a pinhole. Light = penetration. Kinda makes sense. If a 76mm shell "penetrated", that doesn't mean there was a 76mm hole in the armor and a spent 76mm round sizzling on the ground. Usually spalling liners were used to collect the many fragments which either spalled off the armor, or were the result of the armor being displaced, or were the fragments of the shell which passed through the armor. They'd be weighed and categorized and the data thereby gained would be added into the report. So, "penetration" may not mean much energy was left. If the shell overmatched the armor by a narrow margin, and it was solid shot, then (other than the poor bastard right behind the path), the tank and crew had fairly good odds of surviving unscathed. Ken

Good question. I don't have the answer. (Although, I've got the vague beginnings of a test scenario to run to see what would happen...) Perhaps someone else can answer?

One frame at a time??? I have my CM playback capped at 30 frames per second. 5 seconds would mean going through 150 frames. Ouch. If I didn't cap it, it would be worse. Slowmo would be cool... Otherwise, watch the timer when something happens, rewind, then hover the mouse over the play/pause button. It's the same spot, so all you do is double-click the left button to advance in small time increments. Using a stopwatch, I've gotten my double clicks down to .03 seconds. But that's not useful in CM.

After the initial round of buddy aid, my standing orders are for my wounded to drag themselves back on their own so they don't become a burden on my assaulters. They honor me by doing exactly that, and are happy that I am pleased.

Whichever side has the most artillery support. 60m is ridiculously close. At that range, rate of fire will win the fight. Therefore, the Garands. Out past 200m, it starts to even out. Beyond 300m to 400m, I'd say it's even. For all intents, both weapons are equally accurate for fire out to 800m. (And just TRY to use iron sights on a man-size target, semi-exposed, at that range! You won't see a thing.) As range decreases, accuracy becomes less of a factor and ROF becomes more so. Once you can pin someone down, you're winning the firefight. The number of rounds that come close will determine suppression. (Brits did some great tests on this. I think 1m or closer causes most men to seek cover.) I think you need to make a test scenario and let us know the results. Ken

halbe?

Sorry, I only half-read your post. (C'mon! THAT was funny!) Ken

Quoting myself because it's embarrassing to be ignored over Womble. The doctrine was to HALT to fire. Any firing while moving was considered wasted ammo. Edited to add: I have now caught up with the Great German Grammar war postings. Without having seen the specific document, I don't need to know what German word was used. The doctrine was for coordinated, aimed, fire. As stated, the Soviets did not follow that doctrine. They wanted guns blazing when charging. This is a subject which cannot be resolved by looking at a single internet "document". I've never seen any other German period writing, pamphlet, order, or instruction which said anything other than "stop to shoot". FWIW.

To reconstitute in setup phase: keep the teams adjacent, delete any move orders, and de-select any team. Then they will recombine in just a few seconds. In any non-setup phase, you'll have to do the same as above, but they will not recombine until after you hit the "go" button. That's why it's best to play in the setup phase: you get free recombines without having to hit "go".

PBEM is a bit of a misnomer. Instead of thinking about emailing the turns (I have one game with 150+MB turn files and my email limit is 10Mb), think of it as a "Play be Electronic Means". Dropbox is a far superior method to exchange turn files than using an email provider. It is free, it is easy to use, and many CM'ers use it. You set up an account, create a folder, share it with your buddy, and you each have access to that folder. You copy your "outgoing" pbem turn into it; he takes it from the dropbox folder and puts it into his "incoming" turn folder (within CM), and then he plays the turn. That produces his "outgoing"... repeat as needed until victory grants you her favor.

Thanks for posting this. I think number 8 has a typo. "half" (my bold) should probably be "halt". You should either be shooting or going full out at the enemy.