Jump to content

akd

Members
  • Posts

    10,448
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Everything posted by akd

  1. Didn’t you also run a M60 test versus T-64, which had entered into the discussion for comparison, or am I thinking of another test? If not, then disregard. You are correct that your T-64 vs. T80 appears to be a properly controlled test of relative spotting, just a low sample size that will be very prone to skewed averages because of the high variability (human factor) built into the spotting system. @The_Capt, I agree that the small sample tests can at least indicate there is no huge problem, e.g. tank x can see in a situation tank y cannot, or tank x always spots before tank y. But drawing conclusion that tank x is better at spotting than tank y based an 10 second (or more) differences in avg. spotting times from small sample sizes is faulty, even more so if you introduce more variables than 1 tank x spotting 1 test target.
  2. 10 is too small, and you are not controlling for all tanks spotting the same object (and now tests are being introduced into the discussion with even fewer controls). You cannot make any conclusions about relative spotting performance of an individual tank with these kind of tests, beyond simple can spot / cannot spot. Conclusion I would take away form this test (and frankly all the others being posted here) is…there are some numbers.
  3. Would be interesting to test speed of lateral contact propagation versus vertical propagation, but these are again things that require careful controls and large sample sizes.
  4. I feel like I am going to have to repeat this over and over again until somebody listens or I just do it myself: you cannot make judgements about relative spotting ability or average spotting times using small samples in CM unless all you are testing for is can spot / can never spot. And you are going to have to control the test so you are only testing spotting against the same target in the exact same conditions (including all soft factors). One spotter, one target. Arguably all spotters should be C2 isolated in case proximity to ? spots increases spotting probability (I’m not entirely clear on that), that is if you are trying to increase testing efficiency by having multiple units in each test. Nope, not going to do it myself. All I am seeing is noise, no real indication of problem worth isolating and testing.
  5. Are you saying the entire BTG had reciprocal LOS to the 3x Shturm at the start of the test? Also, you all are going to find all units underperform range standards because battlefields are not ranges.
  6. From past experience, you are going to need very large sample sizes and very controlled test conditions if you want to compare spotting times. Trying to test spotting while also allowing for exchange fire will further distort results.
  7. Did you all just skim right over Steve’s last post in that thread? So the "bonus" is, as I mostly remembered correctly, primarily due to the Facing of the unit and not a special bonus artificially assigned. This should clear up all questions being asked in the past page or two. Specifically: 1. The primary spotting advantage of a CA is to keep the unit from shifting it's Facing due to other tactical distractions. Meaning, if you absolutely want to make sure you keep a narrow portion of the battlefield under observation, CAs work better than non-CAs in theory. But reality means it comes down to distractions because... 2. A unit looking in the same exact direction in the same exact situation will spot exactly the same whether it has a CA or no CA (and not Hiding, obviously). 3. Units that have a 360 deg CA don't see any benefit from it other than limiting engagement range. 4. As I've said several times now, the "bonus" isn't that big of a deal. People trying to "game the system" by using CAs to increase spotting chances are wasting their time and possibly causing themselves some harm. Hope that helps. Steve
  8. Your unit would turn to face that direction making the center of the arc the new front facing. Think about this: micromanaging arcs to improve spotting would create a game within the game that the AI cannot play at all. Every one of you (except Sgt. Squarehead; he’s special) that believes arcs improve spotting is using your god knowledge of enemy unit locations to place narrow arcs on the locations of enemy units that you have knowledge of, but that the unit does not (if it had C2 knowledge it would receive a ? spot that would itself increase chances of spotting). That is certainly a game to be played if it worked that way, but it is in no way realistic in overall outcome.
  9. T-62s in game should have TKN-3 commander’s day/night sights, and this is overstating their passive capability. They were very poor without IR illumination. Its passive capability would be mostly to pick up other active IR emitters (irrelevant in game, since vehicles are assumed to not be using active IR). It is correct, however, to say that TKN-2 was an advanced sight in 1957. I put together this list on night observation capabilities for a bug report (that is not resolved, so don’t take it as reflecting exactly how things work in game): All below listed as: Vehicle model (gunner's sight / commander's sight) Day optics or active-only IR (should not have "IR optics" night vision since active IR is not modelled) T-55 (TPN-1 active IR / TKN-1 active IR) T-55A (TPN-1 / TKN-1) T-62 1972 (TPN-1 / TKN-3 active IR) T-62 1975 (TPN-1 / TKN-3) T-64A (TPN-1 / TKN-3) T-72 (TPN-1 / TKN-3) T-72A (TPN-1 / TKN-3) BMP-1/1P/1K/PK (1PN22M2 active IR / TKN-3) BTR-60PA/PB/PAK/PBK/PU (TKN-1) BTR-70/K (TKN-1) BRDM-2/U (TKN-1) MT-LB (TKN-1) 9P133 BRDM-2 AT-3 (9S446 day-only ATGM sight) 9P148 BRDM-2 AT-5 (9S451 day-only ATGM sight) 9P149 Shturm-S (9S823 day-only ATGM sight) *Day or Active IR only buttoned for both gunner and commander, but unbuttoned STANO at night for commander. The NVGs are, I believe, assigned directly to the crew via TO&E, but may not currently be working in game. Capability of AN/PSV-5 NVGs under light from a quarter moon is 300m tank-sized targets, 150m personnel targets (TM 11-5855-238-20) M48A5 (M32 active IR, unbuttoned AN/PVS-5 passive) M60A1 (M32 active IR / M36 active IR + unbuttoned AN/PVS-5) M60A1 RISE (M32 / M36 + unbuttoned AN/PVS-5) M60A1 RISE+ (M32 / M36+ unbuttoned AN/PVS-5) All other US vehicles not otherwise listed, I think Soviet passive night vision (image intensification) Actual capabilities of these systems (not performance in game): 500m starlight, 850m moonlight target recognition; 5.5x magnification for TPN-3 gunner's sight (T-80 1979 manual) 400m starlight, 600m moonlight target recognition; 5x magnification for BPK-1-42 gunner's sight (BMP-2 manual) T-64B1 (TPN-3 passive / TKN-3 active) T-64B (TPN-3 / TKN-3) T-72A 1980 (TPN-3 / TKN-3) T-80 (TPN-3 / TKN-3) T-80B1 (TPN-3 / TKN-3) T-80B (TPN-3 / TKN-3) BMP-2/2K (BPK-1-42 passive / TKN-3) NOTE: the Konkurs ATGM (AT-5) uses a separate 10x 9Sh119 optical sight without night vision. US (and one Soviet system) passive night vision (image intensification) Actual capabilities were: 1000m starlight / 1200m moonlight target recognition; magnification varied, see below (TM 11-5855-214-24; FM 17-12-4 M60A2 Tank Gunnery) M60A2 (M50 10x / M51 10x + unbuttoned AN/PVS-5) M60A1 RISE Passive (M32E1 7.1x / M36E1 7.1x + unbuttoned AN/PVS-5) M60A3 (M32E1 / M36E1+ unbuttoned AN/PVS-5) M113A1 (AN/TVS-5 5.6x on gunner .50 cal at night, unbuttoned use only) M113A2 (AN/TVS-5 on gunner .50 cal at night, unbuttoned use only) M163A1/A2 Vulcan (AN/TVS-5 on gun mount) M106A1/A2 mortar carrier (AN/TVS-5 on gunner .50 cal at night, unbuttoned use only) M125 mortar carrier (AN/TVS-5 on gunner .50 cal at night, unbuttoned use only) Dismounted M2HB HMG team (AN/TVS-5) Dismounted Mk19 grenade launcher team (AN/TVS-5) 1V14 (6.2x 1PN44) Thermal M60A3 (TTS) (2.67x/8x TTS thermal / commander M36E1 passive + unbuttoned AN/PVS-5) M1 (3x/10x TIS thermal / gunner's primary sight extension for commander + unbuttoned AN/PVS-5) M2 / M3 Bradley (4x/12x ISU thermal / gunner's primary sight extension commander+ unbuttoned AN/PVS-5) M901 ITV (4x/12x AN/TAS-4 thermal, usable by gunner buttoned) M150 TOW carrier (AN/TAS-4, usable unbuttoned only) M151A2 (TOW) (AN/TAS-4) Dismounted TOW team (AN/TAS-4) M47 Dragon team (4x AN/TAS-5) Radar / Soviet Passive unbuttoned BRM-1 (1PN22-M2 active IR / commander buttoned and not moving PSNR-5K radar / commander unbuttoned 1PN33B passive binoculars with 500m tank detection range, 200m personnel detection range) NOTE: this should be BRM-1K if it has radar.
  10. Targeting arcs do not increase chance of spotting inside the zone of the arc beyond: 1. Their effect on unit facing. 2. In the case of turreted vehicles, their ability to set different facings for turret vs. hull crew. They are fire control orders, not spotting orders, and in fact these can be and often are contradictory purposes. How spotting works in game by default: the 90 degree arc toward the unit’s front has the highest probability of spotting enemies, the 90 degree arc to the left and right has less and the 90 degree arc to the rear has the least. If targeting order arcs were to increase spotting in their highlighted zone, they must necessarily decrease spotting outside (otherwise it is obligatory micromanagement the player is forced to use constantly because you would only gain an advantage with nothing lost). However, decreasing spotting outside the area of the arc is not necessarily what I want. I may be giving the order for control of range of engagement only, I may be trying to prevent an HE chucker from throwing HE at enemy that are close to friendlies, etc. I certainly don’t want my unit to decrease their awareness outside the arc in those circumstances. And arguably it is tactically stupid to do so in any circumstance beyond the default “weighting” of awareness toward the frontal arc. It is imagining the battlefield as a range with pop-up targets. “Don’t pay any attention to your flanks” is not an order I ever imagine being given on an actual battlefield. See above.
  11. Here is a handy key online (if that is not already what you are using): http://niehorster.org/011_germany/symbols/_symbols_43.html Happy to help if you have questions.
  12. Here is the actual organization (Kriegsgliederung) for 5. SS Pz. Div. "Wiking" on August 6, 1944: As well as September 3, 1944: And finally October 1, 1944:
  13. Because there is some small variation from the platoon in the standard Grenadier battalion, it requires a distinguishing label in the TO&E. In this case all the Sturm company subordinate platoons are noted as being part of this Sturm company org, and in the case of the 3rd platoon, it carries the “heavier” load of MGs and MG ammo. In reality it was “1. And 2. Sturm Zug” and “3. Zug” which you can rename them to if you wish, but the game requires something more specific to keep sub-units separate in the TO&E.
  14. This is correct, although the labeling used in the editor is a bit misleading. Two platoons in each Volksgrenadier company were equipped as Sturm platoons while the third was equipped as a normal rifle platoon. https://www.wwiidaybyday.com/kstn/kstn131v1nov44.htm
  15. Well, the key difference is that the only factor making the Defender transit provocative is Russia’s illegal claim to the waters, which is not recognized under international law, therefore it cannot be a violation of innocent passage rules. It is provocative only to Russia and only because of their illegal claim. https://www.lawfareblog.com/déjà-vu-russias-illegal-restrictions-innocent-passage-black-sea
  16. So Russian warships never transit the English Channel via innocent passage?
  17. Night vision (image intensification) does appear to vary in performance based on global illumination levels, i.e set the date for a starlight-only night and you should see different performance compared to a half-moonlight night. I don’t think there is any variation in thermal performance.
  18. Britain would observe them: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/russian-submarines-spotted-in-the-irish-sea-in-the-latest-provocation-by-vladimir-putins-navy/MSZQQWG4LNF523K3WYSTNFVUBQ/
  19. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57583363
  20. Not really, and it is pretty clear that the primary role of the senior rifleman was to operate the LMG.
  21. George is correct. The smaller squad is much closer to historical reality for 1944-45, but updating scenario TO&E requires deletion and repurchase of the unit to see the changes.
  22. Yes, sounds like a bug.
×
×
  • Create New...