stikkypixie
-
Posts
4,132 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by stikkypixie
-
-
This is true for the scopes. But the sniper has always a team budy who carries high end optics (IR thermal etc).
Ah, learn something new everyday
. But I still don't think this is modelled in CMSF. I don't see any IR optics in the equipment tab anyway. -
Can the vehicles obstruct the line of vision?
Can infantry take shelter behind the vehicles?
Can you shoot through a friend or enemy vehicles?
Thanks
Vehicles don't obstruct LOS (in CMSF at least)
Vehicles do stop incoming rounds
I'm not sure whether you can shoot through friendly vehicles, but you don't shoot through enemy vehicles. I had an instance once, where the round of my tank was stopped by a tank that was not spotted.
-
I agree with everything you've said, yet if I go to the range with a rifle or a pistol or even a BB gun, I can hit my targets if I shoot within my less than average ability. I have a friend that can shoot a smiley face on a target with a pistol at 25 yards (aka one of the Lethal Weapon movies). Heck, my sister in law can put out a hand sized group with a handgun at 25 yards (She doesn't shoot fast but she's a better shot than I by a mile). Sure, their is variance in the ordinance, boresights that get out of whack, wind, any number of factors that impact the accuracy of a tank cannon. Still, tankers aimed and hit their targets.
I don't think that you've stated anything that would keep them from aiming at a part of the tank in the correct circumstances though. A couple of posters have posted that the Americans identified the Panther shot trap as a legit target and I think someone identified the MG port too. I can recognize that a question of how often the tanks found themselves in a position to aim is a debatable point and I may very well be wrong. But I don't really buy the arguments that A - combat is so stressful a gunner couldn't aim in those circumstances or B - Aiming is so hard a gunner wouldn't attempt to do it at any time. I think everyone will aggree that the gunners at least aimed at the tanks and aiming at a part of a tank is really just doing the same thing at a smaller target. And sometimes, not even that. Hitting a Sherman turret at 500m isn't any more difficult than hitting a Sherman at 1500m. Not that the Germans or Americans were doing alot of fighting at 1500m in Normandy but certainly tank crews were engaging at that range in the east, even farther.
I haven't said the factors you listed don't impact accuracy or that either sides tankers were the Davy Crockets of the ETO. I'm just saying that, given the chance, I believe the tankers would try to hit the tanks in the spots that would most likely kill the tanks.
To be honest, I don't understand how you take the anecdotes about trying to get a kill via a shot trap on panther over and official training manual of the US Army.
-
... Spoilers Ahead....
I am (re)playing "Battle for Object Pooh" focussing on recon. I advanced as deep as I can with my scouts and snipers calling artillery and helo "quickies" on any vehicles or bunkers I came across along the way. The fact that the recon stage takes place at dusk helps such kind of infiltration.
I was very sucessful with this approach and now the map is full of smoke columns coming out from destroyed enemy assets. Here are some conclusions and tricks:
1st: snipers / scouts are very good at spotting enemy AFVs and strongpoints.
2nd: to maintain concealment and avoid recon teams opening fire comand a fire arc of 20m range. This way the team will be able to spot without compromising its position. This trick woks well if you also wish to force-march a "hunt" order when an enemy assets in sighted far away. Just leave the spotted asset out of the arc and proceed to "hunting" :-)
3rd: Recon spotting is less effective against hidden troops and AT assets (except at close ranges):
Although I know where the ATGMs are located in Pooh (from past games) I have decided not to cheat. So I placed my recon teams on clear LOS at ranges of 350m (+/-). In order to test the spotting ability I placed narrow target arcs on the well known positions of the ATGM assets. They did not manage to spot anyting hidden in a trench irrespective of dusk or daylight (latter in the game). However one recon team spoted a hidden enemy team in trench at a distance of 100m (+/-)
4th: To spot enemy troops (even at such closer distances) the spotter need to "be left alone". I mean that spotting occurs after one minute or so from the spotter establishing clear LOS to the target.
Given the supperior optics of the sniper/recon teams, I would have expected a better spotting performance regarding troops hidden on trenches and rooftops.
That is all...
Scopes are just binoculars with for one eye. Snipers teams in CMSF don't carry any more fancy optics than most infantry, so I overall it's ok.
-
Stikkypixie, maybe you are right. I doubt anyone would claim it never ever happened and the debate seems to be over 'did it happen often or only very very rarely'. I think this is one of those issues that really can't be proven one way or another. I find the idea that the tankers didn't try to hit specific, vulnerable points of their opponents armor incomprehensible. Based on the responses I've read in this post, it appears my position is in the minority and that many well informed posters think that they almost always aimed center mass. Alas!
Either way, based on the posts I've seen in this thread, I don't think Battlefront is rethinking their aiming routine (They even went so far as to liken the idea to the BREN tripod arguement). If nothing else, I won't be as surprised by the PzIV vs Sherman matchup as I would have been had I not seen this thread. Still, not trying to hit the vulnerable parts of their enemies tanks, you guys are crazy.
I think the bottom line is, if the think they could safely do it, tankers would aim for the vulnerable parts. Though from what I understand, even waiting for a tank to show its side armor is nerve wrecking enough, let alone trying to aim at something that is about to shoot you.
In most cases though, aiming at the center of mass is a) good enough to get a kill
has a higher chance of a hit. Remember that you don't need to penetrate the armor to cause damage to a tank.I also pose you this question, how do the tankers know what specific parts to hit if it's already very hard to correctly identify tanks.
-
In an ideal situation with a clear stationary target, at a range where precision is possible and zero other pressure they possibly would.
But how often did that happen?
More importantly how would you implement it in the CM context. What criteria would need to be met for a crew to switch from aiming at a weak spot and it actually translating into a decent benefit to the firing unit as there is simply no "to hit" bonus that can be simply upped.
Once this is released there will be dozens upon dozens of firing range tests. As it looks like the hit information boxes are back I am assuming the "Penetration - weak spot" will be back too.
If it is then we could probably have a proper argument re frequency of actual weak spot penetrations and the CM frequency.
Vision slit, gun mounts and other weak spots are explicitly modeled in the new engine. So no more estimating weak spot penetration frequencies
. -
OK, I will rephrase my previous post eliminating the two "offending" words.
The german tank crews were trained to know the weak areas of their enemy tanks. I have not been able to find pictures of the training materials that they used on internet (and I have looked for them intensively !), but in the english translation that I own of the Tigerfibel manual a detailed "Armor penetration chart" for the Tiger's 8.8 cm "KwK" 36 gun is included, featuring the main enemy tanks that the Tiger could find in the battlefield and including drawings of each enemy tank indicating the different areas that could be penetrated by the Tiger, and the maximun shooting distance to achieve penetration at that area.
A photograph of these supplements found in the back of the Tigerfibel can be seen in the middle of this web page, although it is too small to see the drawings properly:
http://www.alanhamby.com/tigerfibel.shtml
Similar information is included in the Pantherfibel manual. You can download it here:
http://megaupload.com/?d=DYMSU0C6
Please, check pages 105 to 120.
In my opinion it is reasonable to assume that if all this information was included in the manuals the tank crews knew it and used it, aiming, when the situation allowed it, for the most faborable areas of the enemy tanks. It is clear that this stuff was in the training of the german tank crews.
In my opinion, if the target is at short distance (300 meters, for example) it should be easy to aim for the turret and to hit it... Why do you assume that a tanker wouldn't do it if he was trained to do it, and if he knew that it was much more easy to achieve a penetration there?
The issue, is the phrase "if the situation allowed for it". If the tank is in a prepared ambush knowing that enemy armor is about to past and they have the time to aim, yes they could take careful aim. These situations are however rare.
Think about it, 300m is really short. And when an enemy tank suddenly pops out of nowhere at this kind of range, the potential threat is so great that there is usually no time time to take at specific areas. At 300m even a Tiger is vulnerable to Shermans, let alone PzIVs.
The other thing is, because of its powerful gun, a Tiger doesn't have to wait until enemy tanks close in that far. They would typically open at way earlier.
Not saying that deliberate aim did not happen, but when compared to the 98% time when people just aim for the center of the mass, it's hard to argue to change the aiming routine in the game.
-
Forestry Grogs?
Forestry Gumps.
-
Zero idea where I read this but I can remember an anecdotal discussion about how crap the ally tanks were and that the only chance they had of KOing the German heavies were essentially trick shots (obviously the aforementioned not true). It then listed several ways of accomplishing the "impossible" but the only one I remember was essentially shooting low and trying to ricochet a shot from the ground into the underneath of the tank.
Was planning on testing this theory out just for laughs when the game is released. Has anyone seen ricochets off the ground or do low AP shots dig in and not go anywhere?
Aren't you thinking of Allied planes strafing targets? That's how I remember it.
-
I second that. I have enough experience with PS to have an idea of how much work Bil is putting into these pics and how well he is employing his skills. Kudos!
Michael
Well actually now that I think about, if he took two screenshots at different times without moving the camera, he can just roughly crop around the PzIVs; superimpose the images and play with opacity to get this effect.
Still a very cool way of representing tank movement though.
-
I don't know that it matters if they knew the mm thickness of the armor. They'd have cared about what tank components they could have penetrated at what distance. Also, I'm sure circumstances dictated their response. You're example of 300 m is perfect. At that range (as we've seen from the AAR) the hull isn't a great place to shoot a Sherman M4A3 but the turret is pretty good. A PzIV gunner could aim successfully at 300m and doing so may keep the tank from being killed. That is exactly the circumstances under which I'd expect an aimed shot.
There are no doubt circumstances when tankers aimed for center mass. You are also correct in listing the challenges of hitting specific targets. but these guys didn't get into a new tank every day. They rode in the same one for months at a time. They knew how their guns shot, they knew how conditions would effect their aim. I know any gun that I've shot often, I've developed a feel for and I'm sure these tankers had a feel for their guns.
I guess I just don't buy the 'they were to stressed out to aim at a vulnerable location on the tank' argument.
The only way to know where best to hit is to the the thickness of the armor. The hull is the best place to hit if the tank is facing straight on and the turret is the best to hit if the hull is making an angle. You cannot make this kind of judgement without having intimate knowledge of the tank armor or very vehicle specific rule of thumbs.
Again, most tank crews had a hard time telling a Tiger apart from a Pz IV, how are they supposed to make this kind of deliberated judgement.
-
MINUTE 10 Part 2
Note: this image was composited in Photoshop, this does not show a game feature:
Sweet photoshop skillz
-
I have to say Im really enjoying reading all of the QB threads, its been a good insight into CMx2 improvements over CMSF.
But, as Ive never been much of a QB fan, is there any chance we can have a peek at some of the other features.
I know bridges were mentioned aeons ago, so how have they turned out? Id also like to see a few Mortar or Gun Teams in action in defensive positions. Maybe a look at fighting in the streets and buildings? All the QB stuff has been good, and I know you want to show off these new features, but Im actually looking for the other stuff too. How does a fight in darkest Bocage look?
Can anyone do an AAR of a scenario?
Doesn't the Rock, Paper, Shotgun AAR feature a AT gun? I know for sure the first AAR had HQ units call in on-board mortar fire. Doesn't show all the new features, but might answer *some* questions.
-
The crews certainly knew the ranges at which their guns would be effective. Each side captured examples of their opponents tanks (I'm sure the Germans had captured Shermans in North Africa and on the Eastern front) and tested their guns against them. I'm also sure that the tanks would have tried to target vulnerable areas when ever possible. Why else would the armies have circulated this information?
The knowledge they had was probably not as detailed as that. More in the sense of don't shoot at the front, but try a flank shot.
Most tank crews had trouble telling Tigers apart from a Pz IV, let alone identifying the exact model of tank. Also there is always the possibility that the enemy field a new version of a tank, that wasn't studied yet that the crews have to reckon with. The Shermans captured in North Africa are completely different from those that saw action in Normandy for example.
The other thing that you have to keep in mind that using that kind of information is not easy. You would have to:
a) Correctly identify the vehicle
Correctly remember the thickness of its various platesc) Correctly estimate the angle that the enemy tank is facing you
d) Correctly estimate if your round will penetrate at that angle or not
e) Correctly adjust for windage, estimate range so that you hit what you want to hit, which hard enough without
... having a Sherman taking aim at you from 300m.
Most tank crew will just aim at the centre of mass and hope that the hit the damn thing. Don't underestimate the effect of big chunk of metal hitting a tank on the people inside. You scare them, add stress, and if not kill it damage weapons, control, etc...
-
Wow, Steve, very interesting explanations !!
Of course, the main problem that I see is what you explain here:
And this fact is the final ingredient necessary to explain perfectly what has happened in the AAR with the duel between the Pz IVH and the M4A3 Sherman. (The Pz IVH can not decide to aim for the turret, that is more easy to penetrate. He always try to aim for the center mass - the upper hull in that case, that is more difficult to penetrate).
However you are obviously fully aware of the problem and I am sure that you will fix it in the future.
Steve, thank you very much for all your explanations. It is a pleasure to debate about this topics with you :-)
And thank you for these AARs. I can't wait to play the game !!!
Wasn't it standard practice to aim for the center of mass? Did WW2 crews have the information we have now and *know* the weakness of a Sherman?
-
I never managed to do it reliably. With the British warriors and bulldogs, which had solid side armour (due to ERA layer) but which are very weak vs serious At from the front or rear, I always wanted to park them side on to threats and point the turret at them. Over time they would invariably turn their front to the enemy, leading far too frequently to an entirely unnecessary death.
Imagine if Challengers did NOT turn the strongest aspect to the threat. Probably too much micromanagement.
-
That's a given. The two are conjoined at the tips of their pointy little heads.
Steve
Do they finish each other's posts as well?
-
Well, that is strange. I always thought of the "?"s that appear, say, on a street that I don't have LOS on as a sound contact. There's probably some really narrow keyhole somewhere that I missed. Do dust clouds or somesuch give a contact?
That C2 information being fed to by the other units to that particular unit.
-
If this was the Peng Challenge Thread my reply would be, "I was thinking of having it tattooed on your forehead, but then I'd have to look at you every time I wanted to call home and my stomach couldn't take that." But since it isn't, I can't post that.
Michael
Good because otherwise I would have to say something in the line of, if you'd take your medicine you won't wonder off from your old folk's home, it getting to point past embarrassing.
-
I'm going to take this opportunity to take an opportunity ... and bump the thread up.
Joe
You approve of Boo's post?
-
"...easy to remember 20 digit..."?!?!?!?
Christ! I have trouble remembering my own phone number, and it's only seven digits...well, ten if you count the area code.
:confused:
Michael
You need to make it into a song.
-
Steve,
First of all, thank you very much for your quick answer !!
Could you plese re-read the post by ShakyJake?
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1240274#post1240274
As you can see, his calculations reveal that the Sherman needs a lateral angle around 30 degrees to make the penetration by the Pz IV-H 75mm L/48 unlikely (in the upper hull front).
On the other hand, ShakyJake’s calculations show also that if the Pz IV-H has a lateral angle around 30 degrees the penetration (in the hull) by the Sherman’s 75mm L/40 APCBC is also unlikely.
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1240414#post1240414
Therefore, at this short range, no tank has a-priori advantage over the other. As you say, “the PzIV is still dead meat because the Sherman is striking it dead on, but the Sherman has a pretty good chance of surviving a hit because it is oblique. The matchup we see in this AAR seems to indicate that is indeed what is happening.” I fully agree with this statement.
But if you reverse the situation interchanging the position of both tanks in such a way that the PzIV strikes the Sherman dead on (in the upper hul), and the Sherman strikes the PzIV (in the hull) with a lateral angle (of around 30 degrees), then the Sherman should die easily while the PzIV should have a high chance of surviving.
My point is that we have found a very good explanation for the facts that we are seeing in the AAR, but the Sherman tank is not surviving because it is inherently better than the PzIV at this short range. It is surviving because it is being hit with a lateral angle, while the PzIV is dying because it is being hit dead on. If we interchange their positions the result would be the opposite.
So, which tank is better head to head at 300 meters? The calculations done by ShakyJake suggest that both of them are roughly equivalent a-priori, but of course if one of them is in a significantly better tactical position than the other then it will have a significant advantage (as it happens in the AAR).
There are plenty Shermans burning in AAR. I don't see the problem?
-
i find it funny to see that people are still asking and wondering about the same stuff others and myself did ask about shortly after CMSF was released.
setting the turret facing with a cover arc and the hull facing with a "face" command was requested by myself as early as weeks after its release. it should be no problem actually but it seems the UI makes up the problem where none should be. as it is the case with all other requested commands like cover armor arc and more movement commands as example.
? You can do this in CMSF no? I just tested this, always remember to set the face command first.
-
IIRC there are no sound contacts in CMSF. Hopefully that has changed in CMBN.
. But I still don't think this is modelled in CMSF. I don't see any IR optics in the equipment tab anyway.
has a higher chance of a hit. Remember that you don't need to penetrate the armor to cause damage to a tank.
German tank vulnerability
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Hull-down is not abstracted any more, so that should take care of itself naturally.