Wrath of Dagon
-
Posts
174 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Wrath of Dagon
-
-
Yes, that is cool, haven't thought of that.
-
Darn, I don't know where I'm going to get Windows 98 to play this game.
-
I think you misunderstand me. There's a difference between the center of the turret and a point a little above the center of the tank. So you wouldn't be aiming for the turret, you'd be aiming for some point below it, with the expectation that your chance of hitting the turret would be improved, while only reducing your overall chances by a small amount.
-
I think we're talking about aiming above the center of mass of the tank rather than aiming at the center of mass of the turret. Results would be quite different.Judging from the documentation of what these things did before being overcome, it's pretty clear that the theory of aiming for the turret is harder to implement in real life than might seem. These engagements were often very close quarters.Steve
-
It could be tested against say a 10% offset from center, of course that test would have to be internal.
-
It seems logical that an experienced PzIV gunner would aim a little above center mass at close range (< 500 m) knowing he's likely to be facing a Sherman. If he doesn't, then we might have the result that being hull down is worse than hull up and at an angle, which seems ahistorical. I guess we can test that out once the game is available.
-
I saw a Sherman tank commander on Greatest Tank Battles talking about trying to hit vulnerable spots on the Panther to disable it instead of knocking it out. He specifically mentioned the TC, don't know how realistic that would've been.
-
No, the AI tweak was to have the tank more likely to retreat on a non-penetrating hit.I thought I read one of the testers saying that as a result of this battle, there were AI tweaks made that resulted in PzIVs aiming at and hitting the turret more often. -
OK, it does seem like the last Sherman is pointing at tank 3, but is hit by tank 4, so there is some angle there. May be also some partial penetrations? Hopefully all these hits have been analyzed and found to be correct. But may be the armor quality is also a bit high? Not saying there's actually a problem, just some concern.
-
It does now seem to me the Shermans are surviving too well. Didn't we establish a head on Sherman only has a small chance of escape at that range?
-
Not in we-go, he forgets the facing command once you set cover arc (if issued on the same turn).? You can do this in CMSF no? I just tested this, always remember to set the face command first. -
No, it doesn't, the hull remains in the same position while the turret rotates. Nor should it.
-
I just tried this in CMSF, and the problem is I can't give both a facing and a cover arc command at the same time outside of setup. May be it's because I still have 1.11, but I hope it gets fixed for CMBN.
-
Any comment on why his arty and air weren't available?
-
But that's why I said "slightly", not enough to expose flanks, but to make the front non-perpendicular to the LOS. Certainly nowhere near 45, may be 10-20.I think that this could be advantageous in certain circumstances, but there are three (at least) potential flaws with this approach:1. It makes the tank a bigger target. Tanks tend to be longer than they are wide, and by angling the tank's hull, it becomes a wider target. Meaning that some shots that would have missed wide will instead hit the tank. (Since most misses seem to be vertical misses due to range estimation errors, this may not be that important of an issue, however).
2. It exposes the tank's side hull armor, although at an angle. The side hulls of most tanks are thinner and not as sharply angled as the front. Whether this is a problem depends on the particular thickness and vertical angle of the side hull; it is probably only really an issue in tanks where the side hulls are substantially thinner than the front.
3. It makes flanking easier. If a tank is situated at a 45 degree angle to the target, it will be easier for the target to get a side shot at the tank (better than the one it already has) because the target won't have to travel as far to flank. (Although this is obviously dependent on distance - it's a lot harder to flank a Tiger firing from a range of 1500 meters than a Tiger firing at a range of 300 meters). Related to this is the issue of multiple targets, where turning the hull at 45 degrees to one target probably will give the others a more advantageous angle than they would otherwise have.
Edit: Just saw what StellarRat posted.
-
Speaking of the angles brings up an interesting point. It seems advantageous to set the cover arc centered on the target, but to set the facing of the tank pointing slightly off the target. Would the tank eventually align it's hull to the turret anyway in this situation? I guess I could try it in CMSF.
-
Not to mention educational.
-
I didn't, at least not by earth logic.Wrath of Dagon, thanks for making my point by using the example of Kursk. -
The kill ratio during Kursk was around 8 to 1, and that's with the Russians on the defensive, according to Glanz's book.Wrath of Dagon, hmm, methinks you might like to study some actual combat accounts, from both sides, not the 125 T-34's for no loss school (oh, that's just before breakfast they really get cracking after they've had their bratwurst!). Remember, alot of the infamous accounts were only taken from the German side and accorded complete veracity, even though some of the commanders involved were known for highly dubious and selective memory recall, often to boost their personal reputation. These accounts were then used as morale boosters for Western forces who opposed the Warsaw Pact, similarly out numbered and with a similar reliance on 'technology' and superior training. Though this itself was a subjective matter as Warsaw Pact tactics were always observed through the lens of NATO tactical doctrine and unsuprisingly found wanting. And the T-34 is a crap tank, wow, so many of my cherished beliefs, about a subject I've studied for 35 years, destroyed, I can't take it any more, I tell ya! ? -
I don't think M10 is an answer to the Panther unless using tungsten.Except for the part about the Allies not having a "top end"...(M10s predate Panthers by 6 months and outnumber them, alone).
-
Bad Russian tactics, inferior training, crappy tanks. The Germans knew all they had to do was to take out the HQ tank, and the rest would lose radio communication.Again tends to support the idea that alot of the tactical victories enjoyed in the East were achievable mainly because the terrian allowed the Germans to play to their armour strengths. -
Yeah, and in Korea Americans preferred the Sherman E8 to the Pershing.
-
The JPzIV 75 mm in the Bois de Baugin AAR seemed to work about as expected. Some Shermans got lucky, but most got knocked out easily.
Hope all the data above makes it into game text at some point.
-
No, that was a different incident, this one happened a bit earlier I believe, as Zukkov said it was during a day light break through by the Russians.Errmm Mr Picky would like to point out
... not quite - you're referring to Bäke's 'Ghost Raid'. Major Bäke led an armoured Kampfgruppe in a daring night raid to seize a bridgehead over the river Donets at Rshavetz during Operation Citadel. It was at night, they slipped into a Soviet convoy but were stopped by some T34s coming the other way. Bäke KOd a T34 with AT mines. Bäke was awarded the Oakl leaves to his Knight's Cross for this campaign.
... not quite - you're referring to Bäke's 'Ghost Raid'. Major Bäke led an armoured Kampfgruppe in a daring night raid to seize a bridgehead over the river Donets at Rshavetz during Operation Citadel. It was at night, they slipped into a Soviet convoy but were stopped by some T34s coming the other way. Bäke KOd a T34 with AT mines. Bäke was awarded the Oakl leaves to his Knight's Cross for this campaign.
So are German forces "better" on average?
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
I get the feeling the Western allies didn't do better because their top leadership just wasn't very good. As far as comparing the allied forces to German, it's kind of apples and oranges, they had different advantages and disadvantages, the fight was just too uneven to be able to compare.