Vanir Ausf B
-
Posts
9,609 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Posts posted by Vanir Ausf B
-
-
17 hours ago, Pelican Pal said:
So actually looking through the manual it doesn't mention anything that I can find about thermals and weather but by spinning up a scenario with "dense fog" you can clearly see that thermals spot less well.
Rain/snow/fog/mist/haze affect thermals but temperature does not. Smoke and dust have no effect on thermals except for IR blocking smoke (red phosphorous, and only exists in Black Sea). The modeling is somewhat simplistic in this regard.
-
16 hours ago, BornGinger said:
... although a thick fog in the WW2 games doesn't seem to do much to make it harder to spot the enemy or to be spotted by them even from a long distance.
I'm pretty sure it makes a big difference. If it's not that would be a bug for sure.
-
51 minutes ago, IMHO said:
- You sure about buildings? I did multiple tests - like 40-50 and I always got the same number of casualties if the same kind of ordnance is shot along the same vector and the same squad is in the building facing the shooter. I remember quite vividly that the number was the same all the time irrespective of where specifically the shell hits as long as it hits the building square the "victim squad" is made to face. I.e. if the "victim squad" faces one side and the shell hits another or misses a bit and hits a bit above or below the building's facing square then the results are certainly differ. Though it was one of the early CMBS - many years ago so may be something's changed.
I just tested this in Red Thunder, n=10. Casualties were:
Killed Wounded
2 1
1 0
3 0
2 0
2 2
1 0
0 1
3 0
1 1
3 0
51 minutes ago, IMHO said:- As per the "adjacent squares" with HE explosions on the open terrain I should rephrase it to be more correct. I'm sure there's no rule coded-in that HE affects only the adjacent squares. Yet as fast as HE effect degrades with distance in CM it makes anything more than adjacent squares almost impossible to affect.
I don't think so. I'll attach a Final Blitz test save file that shows why.
-
4 hours ago, IMHO said:
What I dislike is how HE-FRAG in CM does not affect armour enough. If a HE-FRAG hits an armoured vehicle and the caliber is not high enough to allow for an outright kill then the explosion can just slightly damage modules and even that is rather rare. If the shell falls VERY near the vehicle it can only damage tracks and no other modules.
This is true. However, this
4 hours ago, IMHO said:From my observations HE effect on infantry is basically limited to the action square where the explosion takes place plus adjacent squares in case of higher calibers.
and this
4 hours ago, IMHO said:if an explosion takes place in the building square where an infantry unit is deployed then a fixed number of squad members will be hit if damage is dealt at all. The severity of damage to individual team members is random but the number of squad members affected is a constant.
are not.
-
1 hour ago, Bozowans said:
Hmm I thought I remember reading that there was one way back in the day, but perhaps I'm wrong.
There is one. But it's not enough to protect against 60 seconds of sustained fire, so it's rarely of much consequence.
-
I have neither read the books or watched the show, but David Goyer appeared on a podcast I listen to and spoke at length about Foundation and why the show differs so much from the books.
-
The ballistics will be looked at again for the first module. We'll see what comes of that, but I don't expect any changes before then.
Good thread, by the way!
-
1 hour ago, Redwolf said:
Do you mean it is now disabled in both formations and single purchase?
That's what they went with.
-
1 hour ago, Redwolf said:
Reminder:
The Soviet artillery observation vehicle MT-LBU 1V14 works as an artillery spotter when purchased in a formation - but not when purchased as an individual vehicle. This applied to both scenario editing and quickbattling.
This was reported before, but I don't think a bug was logged.
That was fixed in the last patch.
-
18 minutes ago, Monty's Mighty Moustache said:
I haven't checked the rest of the thread but I've noticed this happen to me twice now in Cold War. I'll reverse a vehicle out of a position, put a pause on it for 30 seconds or so and then have it move off elsewhere and it doesn't actually pause. The label flashes up momentarily as if it's going to pause and then it disappears and the vehicle moves on its merry way.
I just tested this with a M60A1 and it paused as expected, so there must be something else going on. Would need more information or a save file.
-
6 hours ago, Redwolf said:
It started with small HE being surprisingly effective compared to big HE, and a consensus seems to be that big HE is not effective enough. I personally find unwounded infantry at the bottom of fresh craters.
4 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:I noticed the same, but I think it's actually because troops tend to seek cover in craters when they automatically fall back. I do agree with bigger HE often feeling like damp squibs though. I've seen 105mm arty go off literally right next to running troops, and nothing happened to them. 150mm bursting in low trees right above the heads of troops, causing a total of 1 yellow casualty, etc.
The relationship between shell size and effectiveness is non-linear. For example, British 140mm has 6.8x more HE filler than 88mm (5.4 kg and .8 kg respectively) but is only about 2.5x as lethal.
-
On 11/2/2021 at 6:53 AM, Redwolf said:
Not having access to the formula as-is I speculate that we can solve this by making front armor without weaknesses a little bit exponentially more expensive
Without weaknesses to what, exactly? The Panther tank is neigh invulnerable to US/UK 75mm and Russian 76mm but US/UK 76mm and Russian 85mm are a serious threat. Really, by late '44-'45 standards the Panther armor is mediocre except for it's awesome glacis plate. This speaks to @domfluff earlier point about the QB points system lacking context.
I am tempted to try inventing a points system formula that would satisfy the petition, mainly as a thought experiment. Unfortunately my math skills are average.
-
I can't find them either. Reported.
-
I am somewhat sympathetic to the petition but I don't know what could be done about it. BFC have been consistently hostile to subjective price adjustments and without access to the formula it's hard to say how the changes could be made without introducing cascading effects throughout the system.
Discounting turretless vehicles would help the StuG, JPz IV and JPz IV/70(A) which I think are all a little pricey for what you get, but then the Hetzer, JPz IV/70(V) and Jagdpanther would also benefit and I don't think they need it.
The accusation hurled at the Panzer IV is that its front turret armor is thin so perhaps increasing the weighting of front turret armor in the formula would help. But the Panther and IS-2 have even weaker turret armor relative to their hull armor and so would also go down in price while Tiger tanks would go up.
-
8 hours ago, George MC said:
I'm not a fan of zig-zag roads. So i end up making compromises to 'fit' the overall 'feel' of the road/track/rail. I think this makes it easier for the player in game to plot road movements etc. So I compromise map accuracy for ease of play.
This is much appreciated
-
4 hours ago, Jace11 said:
The option for JPz IVs is highlighted as a sub-option under self-propelled gun, you just don't get any JPz IVs, only Hetzers. As I stated, this is different to the scenario editor version TOE options.
Ok, so the option is there but clicking on it does nothing. I added that and the M2 HMG to the list. The Airborne 57mm issue was previously reported.
QuoteAlso, it's nearly 18 months since the last patch, is there ANY news on patch progress? We have been more than patient.
I really don't know what BFC's plans are.
-
Alright then, consider all bunker business logged along with the other issues.
-
Did CM-style bunkers even exist in 1979 Germany? I feel like their presence is anachronistic but maybe I'm wrong.
-
2 hours ago, Redwolf said:
As for the price, I don't doubt that a TRP for the powerful CMCW artillery can be worth 75 points (each), but the bundle is too expensive in small battles. I suggest selling them in packages of 2 or 1 for 150 or 75 points, respectively.
Individual fortifications can be deleted to fit your needs. Want 2 TRPs? Buy the 5-pack then delete 3.
The rarity looks weird to me. I'll run that up the flag pole.
-
3 hours ago, dbsapp said:
They told it numerous times on this forum.
Quote, please.
-
1 hour ago, domfluff said:
As far as I'm aware there haven't been extensive tests on exactly how much a partial spot can improve spotting
-
C2 can make a big difference in spotting times. Units with a contact marker on an unspotted unit will spot that unit around 50% faster.
-
One other factor to keep in mind is that the commander of an M60 can override the gunners controls, which can reduce the time from spotting to engaging. Soviet-era Russian tanks don't have this capability. CM does not explicitly model this, unfortunately.
-
49 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
So digging around on this (now a side hobby), does anyone know if the commanders sight on the T72 was fixed or free.
It's fixed to the cupola but the cupola can rotate independent of the turret.
Way too much information follows:
The commander's main means of surveying the battlefield is a forward-facing TKN-3M pseudo-binocular periscope, augmented by two rectangular TNPO-160 periscopes on either side and two TNPA-65A periscopes embedded in his hatch. The TKN-3 periscope is aimed directly forward and is aligned with the centerline axis of the cupola. The two TNPO-160 periscopes are oriented 45 degrees from the centerline of the cupola.
With just these two periscopes, the commander has vision in a 176-degree frontal arc with a blind spot of 22 degrees to the direct front which is filled by the TKN-3. Because the cupola can rotate, the five periscopes in the cupola provide the commander with an all-round view when he is buttoned up. There is no periscope that allows the commander to see directly behind the turret. For that, he must spin the cupola to one side and look out of either one of his TNPA-65A periscopes, although the anti-aircraft machine gun would usually be in the way as it is stowed directly behind the cupola in the 'travel' position when not in use. Due to the conformal slant of the gunner's hatch on the left side of the turret, the commander's view to the left of the turret is largely unimpeded. Even the gunner's night vision sight does not completely block the commander's view as the height of the sight housing does not exceed the maximum height of the turret roof.
However, the commander's view to the left of the turret in the 10 o'clock sector was obstructed when Kontakt-1 reactive armour blocks were installed on the roof of the turret beginning with the T-72AV modification in 1985. This problem persisted when Kontakt-5 blocks replaced the Kontakt-1 blocks in the T-72B obr. 1989 model and continues to plague the T-90A. For these later models, the burden of monitoring these sectors falls upon the gunner.For general vision, the commander is provided with four periscopes to supplement the TKN-3. In total, the field of view of the commander from the cupola (without head movement) is 288 degrees, with a 72-degree dead zone to the rear.
The commander's cupola of the T-64 lacked an anti-aircraft machine gun and was furnished with only one TKN-3M periscope and two TNPO-160 periscopes. The field of view (without head movement) was 144 degrees. This cupola was carried over to the T-64A. Given that a successful template for a periscope layout in a cupola of this design was already established since the T-54 obr. 1949, it is a mystery why the T-64 cupola had such constricted visibility. Needless to say, the T-72 was vastly superior in this particular aspect. In 1975, a new and much more technically advanced cupola with a ZU-64A remotely controlled anti-aircraft machine gun system was implemented on the T-64A obr. 1975. Two TNPA-65 periscopes were finally added to the hatch of the new cupola, but to accommodate the PZU-5 sight for the ZU-64A system, the TNPO-160 periscope on the left of the TKN-3 had to be removed. As a result, the commander's visibility was still not on par with his T-72 contemporary. In fact, the higher statistical weight of forward-facing periscopes compared to side or rear-view periscopes makes the new cupola a downgrade over the older version, despite the increase in the number of periscopes. These nuances are important when evaluating the validity of various cupola designs.
Compared to a typical Western tank cupola, the number of fixed periscopes in the T-72 model is clearly less, but the number alone is not necessarily indicative of actual utility. For example, the Leopard 1 provided its commander with eight periscopes arranged around his circular cupola, but only five are aimed in the forward 180-degree sector and two of them are partly obstructed by the loader's cupola, loader's machine gun skate mount and loader's hatch opening mechanism on the left side of the turret. It is also important to note that the commander's cupola on the Leopard 1 does not rotate and the forward-facing periscope has a very high periscopicity so that the field of view is inherently narrower. In other words, the number of vision devices providing a view towards the forward half of the turret is not more than in the T-72 commander's cupola and there are other secondary factors that affect the commander's visibility. A T-72 commander only loses out in convenience when directing the driver to reverse the tank as he must rotate his cupola in order to see behind the turret or have the turret aimed to the rear.
To further expand our perspective, it should be noted that the commander of an M60A1 is furnished with eight M41 prismatic vision blocks arranged around his oblong M19 cupola, with one aimed forward to cover the 11 o'clock sector, two of them aimed in the forward arc to cover the 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock sectors, two of them aimed to the sides, and three of them aimed in a 7 o'clock to 5 o'clock arc. There is one wide-vision periscope installed just behind and above the M85 machine gun in the cupola and aimed directly forward. Adding on the fact that the M19 cupola can rotate, it is clear that an M60A1 commander has much better visibility than a T-72 commander under practically all circumstances. However, none of the M41 vision blocks are heated, so fogging will tend to seriously degrade visibility in chilly weather. Also, the objectively poorer rearward visibility from the T-72 cupola compared to Western tanks does not necessarily translate into objectively poorer combat performance as the value of observation devices depends on the context in which they would be used. It is a perfectly valid observation that when the tank needs to reverse, it is often in a non-combat situation where it is safe for the commander to be outside his hatch. In combat, it may be necessary to reverse in order to change positions or to reverse into turret defilade after firing a shot. In both cases - and in general - the driver would have approached the firing position from behind in the first place so he already knows that the area behind the tank is clear of obstructions and that he can freely reverse without fear of running into obstacles. If it is truly necessary for the commander to direct the driver when reversing the tank, the commander can rotate the cupola and use one of his periscopes for the task or open his hatch and peer out.
Furthermore, the fundamental purpose of the fixed periscopes has to be understood in order to assign them with their proper value. In combat, such periscopes are generally only useful if the enemy is very close to the tank (500 meters or less). Otherwise, they are only good for viewing the surrounding environment in order for the commander to gain a sense of spatial control over the tank, and this is done by finding landmarks. When the tank is moving speedily across rough terrain, observation through fixed unmagnified periscopes becomes ineffective due to the oscillation of the tank and the restricted field of view. The commander only sees an oscillating flicker between the ground and the sky, with no possibility of reliably discerning camouflaged enemy forces let alone identifying them.
For a modern tank created and fielded during the mid to late Cold War era, it is only practical to see and identify targets using a magnified optic and some form of stabilization is mandatory to allow it to be used effectively in a moving tank, as the narrower field of view through a magnified optic will exacerbate the negative effects of the oscillation of the tank. The TKN-3 periscope for the commander of a T-72 fulfills this purpose as it has a reasonably high magnification with a reasonably large field of view, and it has handles to allow the commander to hold it steady.The characteristics of a tank commander's observation practices when buttoned-up in a fixed cupola with eight periscopes and one fixed forward-facing sight in the turret were examined in the 1974 study "Некоторые Статистические Характеристики Процесса Наблюдения Командира Танка" (Some Statistical Characteristics of a Tank Commander's Observation Processes) by G.G Golub et al. Three special cupolas were constructed to replace the original commander's cupola of a T-64 that was used as the experimental platform. The frequency and duration of usage of each of the viewing devices was recorded using a small forward-facing lamp on the commander's headset which would illuminate an array of photodiodes (light sensors) placed on top of each viewing device when the commander looks through the viewfinder. The first cupola design was a fixed type with eight fixed and equally spaced unmagnified periscopes arranged radially around the circumference of the cupola and one forward-facing TPD optic (modified periscopic sight with optical rangefinder removed). The second cupola design was the same as the first design but it had a stabilized electric drive for cupola rotation. The third cupola design was a manually-rotating type analogous to the T-72 cupola, having a total viewing arc of 206 degrees (± 103 degrees from the centerline axis of the cupola).
These cupolas were tested in various simulated combat conditions. The simulations were carried out in field conditions with moderately hilly terrain partly covered with bushes and trees. The targets included four tanks showing their frontal projection, three tanks in hull-down positions, two armoured personnel carriers, three ATGM teams, five recoilless rifles, and five anti-tank guns. All of these were arranged in such a way as to ensure that they would be uniformly concealed from the tank commanders as the tanks traveled down the pre-planned routes from a full 360-degree arc and at distances of 0.5 to 1.5 kilometers. The positions of the targets were shuffled throughout the experiments.
It was found that in general, 30% of all battlefield observations were carried out using the forward-facing unmagnified periscope and at most, 5% of observations were done using the magnified 8x optic with a stabilized field of view. However, it was also found that in tactical situations such as carrying out a breakthrough mission, the frequency of the use of a magnified optic to search for targets increases up to 50%. Overall, more than 70% of observations were made using only three periscopes at the front of the cupola covering a 100-degree frontal sector and over 95% of observations were made in a 200-degree frontal sector. Most interestingly, the experiments revealed that the highest recorded frequency of usage of the rear-view periscope was only 0.8%. It was also noted that the periscopes installed at more than 110 degrees off the centerline axis of the cupola (8 o'clock) were difficult to use due to neck strain when the tank was in motion. This was most likely why the commander's cupola of the T-80 used a rear-view prism embedded in the roof of the commander's hatch instead of a conventional periscope placed behind the commander's head.
Based on these results, it can be seen that in a fixed cupola with all-round visibility, five unmagnified periscopes covering the front 180-degree sector provide 95.3% of the total visibility needs of the commander under various combat conditions. The rear-facing periscopes are rarely used. A rotating cupola that provides vision in a 206-degree arc will fulfill 98.1% of the commander's visibility needs under the same combat conditions. In other words, the practicality of the T-72 cupola design can be considered to be experimentally validated. Even a T-64 cupola with just one TKN-3 and two TNPO-160 periscopes can theoretically fulfill 70% of the visibility needs of its commander, but on the other hand, the improved visibility from the two additional TNPA-65A periscopes in the T-64A obr. 1975 or T-64B cupola is offset by the loss of one TNPO-160 periscope.Of course, the configuration of observation devices in the T-72 commander's cupola is certainly not perfect. A panoramic sight is ergonomically superior as the user's head does not need to move when the sight head rotates. The Leopard 1 is exemplary in this regard as it provided its commander with the excellent TRP-2A panoramic sight featuring a variable magnification of 4x to 20x, and beginning with the Leopard 1A4 in 1974, the commander was provided with the advanced PERI-R12 stabilized panoramic sight with a variable magnification of 2x or 8x. Panoramic sights were developed in the USSR during the 1930's and the PT-1 sight was the first to enter service, being installed on the T-26. Later, the PT-K panoramic sights were used on various modifications of the KV-1 and T-34, and indeed, Soviet engineers in the prewar era saw much greater value in panoramic observation devices compared to cupolas with multiple vision slits or periscopes and favored devices like the MK-4 rotating periscope (Gundlach periscope) and PT-1 for all-round visibility, but for one reason or another, postwar Soviet tanks were no longer equipped with such devices. Instead, all postwar Soviet armoured vehicles built in the 1950's standardized on the binocular TPK and TPKU periscopes paired with the TKN-1 night vision periscope, and beginning in the early 1960's, the TKN-3 series of combined periscopes became the new standard.
AFV price changes v1.01 -> v1.02
in Combat Mission Cold War
Posted · Edited by Vanir Ausf B
If I were evaluating these vehicles as light tanks I'd certainly give the advantage to the Bradley. But these are IFVs, and you would have to buy 25% more Bradleys to transport the same number of men you could in BMPs. That's no small thing.