Vanir Ausf B

Hey slysniper, I'm glad to see someone understands why I gave up on this headache. But I'm ok with it. Not having any more testing in front of me is liberating. As for the game... it is what it is. Whether or not APDS is the same or less accurate as AP will have to remain a mystery to all, including BFC oddly enough. I'm personally convinced that APDS dud rate is not modeled, but it won't impact my enjoyment of the game enough to lose sleep over

Here is what I'm not understanding. If you don't know what the intended behavior is, how would you know if the test results showed a bug or intended behavior?

You win. I am not going to do that. Especially when the result I'm getting may well be intended behavior. Carry on. Everything is fine. :cool:

Exactly. That's what I've been trying to say. As for the 700m range, that was IIRC the average tank engagement range in NW Europe. I may change it depending on the distribution of first shot ammo selection. At 500m the AI shoots APDS first just under 60% of the time. At 1000m it shoots AP first over 90% of the time which makes testing APDS first shot accuracy at that range prohibitive. As I said earlier, I am aware that there is a likelyhood that nothing will be changed regardless of any test results since almost any likely result can be rationalized. It would be so much easier if someone would just ask Charles if APDS and AP has the same accuracy. I think it unlikely he is unaware of the APDS tests referenced earlier. The poster named "Rexford" whose quotes I was pulling from the old forum thread was a man named Lorrin Bird, whose work on slope effects were used in the CMx1 games' ballistic modeling. The book he later co-wrote, World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery is one Charles almost certainly has a copy of.

I've been through this before. I was the guy who did the initial tests on cover behind walls, as well as many follow-up tests, and started that thread. There is really no other way to test this than on a virtual firing range.

Ok, I will grind out a larger sample size, if for no other reason than to prove my first results were not a fluke. I will try 700m and see how that goes. While I expect a drop in accuracy overall I will absolutely eat my shorts if any significant difference between AP and APDS develops. Correct. Keep a couple of things in mind. As AKD pointed out, the AI doesn't know it's on a gunnery range. Also, the real world tests referenced earlier were also conducted on a firing range, by people who knew they were on a firing range and at targets that the exact distance to was known.

The very last post you mention accepts that APDS accuracy was inconsistent, but then suggests that modeling dud rate is not worth the effort. I take it that is also your position? The takeaway I get from this is that further testing is waste of my time, since nothing is likely to be changed regardless of the result. It's fairly time intensive as each unit must be clicked on to note which type of ammo is fired for each shot. I'm willing to do it if the results will matter, but you seem to suggest they won't.

I disagree the results are not indicating. In order for the APDS accuracy to conform to expected real world results future results will have to be dramatically different. That is very unlikely to happen. As for other parameters, all crews are Regular and +0 leadership. The Firefly crews are normal motivation, the King Tigers are Fanatical. The KTs have short covered arcs to prevent them from returning fire (the fanatical motivation is to prevent them from disregarding the covered arc when they take fire). I'm not sure what other parameters are relevant. I think I will move the range out a bit to see where we start to see first shot misses.

I have some results. It's not a very large sample size, but I think it's enough to answer the question of APDS accuracy. Test was 5 Firefly VC firing at 5 King Tigers at 500m. Only first shots were counted. I ran the test 14 times. AP Hits: 27 Misses: 2 APDS Hits: 41 Misses: 0

I just tested this in a QB with a Churchhill V, VI and VIII. When moving with a covered arc they maintained turret facing towards the arc. When firing they did not re-center after each shot. This is on PC version.

A fair point, Phil. I do intend to run tests to get specific numbers with regard to APDS. It's just a matter of getting the time. Soon...

My continued reading supports your idea that it was mostly an all-or-nothing situation. Rexford: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=287442&postcount=30 http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=287438&postcount=26

Nope. I think that is the only way to do it. Although, I don't know why you would buy 5-6 different battalions and delete them all down when each battalion comes with more than 16 platoons...

Some of those old CMBO threads are a gold mine of information. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=28220&page=2

Fair enough. And if someone wants to test 17 pdr ABCBC as well I'm all for it. But as I pointed out to hoolaman, you can't compare the UK test numbers directly to CM because the British were shooting at targets significantly smaller than a Panther tank.

I'm not really concerned about APC accuracy. You may have to use King Tigers to force APDS use. I ran across this old post by the estimable Rexford from 2001. It seems this was an issue in CMBO as well http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=28220&page=2

I would think my personal state of happiness of lack thereof is rather irrelevant to the issue. But I appreciate your concern I doubt there is any hard numbers to be found on that. But the first-hand account I posted in the other thread suggested a more dramatic difference. From what I have read it may not have even been possible to see an enemy tank at 2000m through the Sherman gun sight. BadgerDog said something to that effect in the previous thread.

Oops. I've actually had a hard time finding the original docs online, so I've had to rely on portions transcribed elsewhere, one of which was obviously miss-labeled.

Good news. There should almost certainly be a larger difference in the number of shots needed to obtain a hit, but at least the modeling is in there to some degree. It would be interesting to see the test repeated with a Panther tank, which had 5x magnification sights, twice the Pz IV's Now, about that 17 pdr APDS...

Yes. The British tests were against a target 6'x6', which is much smaller than the front of a King Tiger. The US tests were against Panthers and you see much higher ABCBC accuracy there. The real issue is the relative accuracey of APDS. In reality, 17 pdr APDS ammo was almost useless past about 500m. If the APDS in the game has the same accuracy as the APCBC ammo then your Fireflys are essentially using 1960s-era technology :confused:

I always split my teams. And I play mostly huge QBs with a battalion or more of infantry. Setting up and the first few turns are a real project. But after contact with the enemy is made I find I only give new orders to a fraction of my units each turn, so it's manageable.

From UK Warrant Office Reports WO 291/1263 and WO 165/135, 22 Sept 1944 Gunnery range tests at 6'x6' targets. Two Sherman Fireflys were used. 400 yds APC hit 90.5% APDS hit 56.6% 600 yds APC hit 73.0% APDS hit 34.2% 800 yds APC hit 57.3% APDS hit 21.9% 1000 yds APC hit 45.3% APDS hit 14.9% 1500 yds APC hit 25.4% APDS hit 7.1% The report concluded: useful range of APC ammunition was 900 yards while that of APDS was only 450 yards. US tests at Isigny: 20-21 August, 1944 Targets were 3 Panther tanks at varying ranges from 200 yards to 600 yards. On this basis all twenty-two (22) rounds of 76mm HVAP, T4, and all twenty-three (23) rounds of 17pr APCBC hit the target. Only one (1) of eight (8) rounds of 76mm APC, M62, which fell short attempting to hit the nose, failed to hit the target. Forty-two (42) rounds of 17pr sabot were fired, and only 57% (24 rounds) were hits.

I choose... tyranny. As long as I'm in charge.

Yeah, I have to agree. It is oddly CMx1-ish looking. Hopefully when they do the Henschel turret version for the next (?) module they touch-up the entire model.

Units will usually disregard their covered arc if they are taking fire, but there is some randomness to it, and it also depends a lot on their motivation level. Units with higher motivation are more likely to slavishly obey orders, and in fact Fanatical units will never override a covered arc.