Killkess
-
Posts
166 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Killkess
-
-
What is "sad" about this issue is that it was already reported back in the earliest CMBN times. There were multiple discussions about mortars changing fire from one moving target to the next (90 degrees to the right) without any delay and hitting first round. But we had enough fanboys jumping into the threads saying that mortars are that accurate and that there is nothing to look at. I also cant remember a official response from BFC to that topic. While i always had the feeling that there is something wrong with mortars i just can hope that BFC repsonses this time.
-
Killkess,
Target Linear IS the de facto default for artillery. Parallel sheaf, regular sheaf and open sheaf are the forms it takes. Parallel sheaf isn't strictly linear simply because the gun line is staggered, at least for the U.S. Otherwise, that would be linear, too. Converged sheaf isn't linear, but neither is it Target Circular. The link shows what artillery footprints should be as a function of the sheaf being fired. Be sure to read Unusual Patterns while you're there.
Did u regognize that the targets are always perpendicular to the firing battery? In CM2 we freely choose linear targets no matter what is the target orientation. If you are out of parallel solutions u will get much bigger problems. With 100m are for FFE, how u want to ensure that each individual gun is properly aimed on a non parallel 200m target?
Artillery typically went to FFE when within 100 meters of the target; this is because the shells from a given gun land in a box which follows the shell trajectory and whose principal axis is Range and whose narrow axis is Deflection. Combined, these two work to distribute the shells short of, on and past the target, as well as to both sides of the expected flight path. The box in which ALL the shells usually fall for a given weapon, at a given set of settings, is called the 100% zone. The link explains the various sources which contribute to why artillery works the way it does.
And thats the primary reason why i think that non parrallel linear missions are not feasible given a "on the fly" mission. At least not with such a precission we see in CM2.
Which is a nice and good idea but i think the game itself should reflect these rules by itself. Which i think is a leftover from CMSFJon S contributed some more realistic restrictions for artillery to an operation i'm intending to play, the restrictions were:For artillery, only area fire can be used, and a fixed area fire circle based on a 35m spread pattern per gun, giving an area fire circle of for a 4 gun battery of 140m (+/- 10%).
On and off map mortars restricted to point fire only.
-
I just came home from vacation to see this thread:
In my opinion there are problems with the representation of artillery in CMFI and CMBN in different areas.
First off all the artillery we have in CMFI and CMBN is much to responsive and the player has much to flexible tools to call for fire. I still haven´t seen a proof that calling linear fire missions was common practice during WWII. I can imagine/believe that it was possible for preplanned bombardments but I really don’t believe that it was possible for strikes called by a normal FO "on the fly". One would have to register very precisely each gun and do different calculations for each barrel including shifting the fire of each gun individually within a linear target. And even if one do this calculations "on the fly" the error margin would be so great that the outcome would be anything but a perfect CM2 fire mission.
Second point is the density with which the artillery is used. It seems like many scenarios include too much artillery. And the artillery included is used on to small targets. One often sees that artillery is used against point targets or very small target areas which really wasn´t common practice either. Heck, following some discussions back in the CMBN forum the FOs ordered "FFE" when they got one spotting round in the closer vicinity (50m?) because the inherent errors/failures were so great, that it made no difference to further shift the aimpoint. From a realism standpoint I still prefer the idea of minimum, maybe even fixed, target areas for different support weapons to prevent the unhistorical "over density". Also the ammunition usage on the targets seems to be on the high side. Responding with artillery on each infantry contact seem to be too common. The inability of our pixeltruppen to react accordingly add to this.
Last but not least the whole fortification/trench/foxhole family doesn´t seem to give proper protection. I often see whole trench systems taken out even by small mortar fire which is at least "weird". Foxholes should already give enough protection against small mortars and artillery so that only direct hits should bring casualties.
-
I simply also dont buy that "it is just a 1 in 1000 thingy" anymore. There are thousands and thousands of computations happening during a normal scenario. One will unavoidably see multiple of these outliners accure. I almost cant remember the last time i played a whole scenario without several "WTF"-moments.
Combine this with at times dubious spotting routines, rediculous long range smg shoting, almost inneffective MGs etc. and u start to get frustrated very quickly.
-
The main point is that the tank basicly had just a very very little arc to watch at, all they had to watch for was someone moving directly in front.
The M7 on the other side had to watch out or every kind af hazzard from multiple directions.
I know what BFC thinks about that abstracted "shoting while moving" issue. For this the M7 (in RL) would even had to stop right in view of the tank to traverse and aim. While the tank was able to almost instantly spot a group of scout soldiers crossing the street it wasnt even able to spot a M7 halting, traversing and aiming before it shots?
-
M7s are not mobile artillery, they are tank hunters:
First off all my tank was unbottoned and should have seen and fired first. But what realy puzzles me: how the heck this mobile artillery piece shots on the move and gets a first round hit?
-
I am not sure if BFC already acknowledged this as a bug or, like many other issues, see this as a feature.
-
One can also interprete these numbers differently: Historicaly tanks were used much more cautious in infantry "friendly" terrain compared to what we see in CMBN. CMBN clearly favours armor due to the überspotting and almost non excisting restrictions of tanks in urban warfare combined with a bad tac-ai on the infantry side.
-
...but every unit on the table is assumed to be seeking microcover.
Is that the explanation for the "i should stay hidden but i prefer to crawl for hours"-syndrom?
-
Besides other things exactly this issue was one of 2 main reasons for me to stop playing a long time ago. I watched over and over again tanks spotting ATGs easily in good concealment and killing them on the move while driving cross country at high speeds.
Or even if the ATG succeds in getting of the first shot, they to often loose to the response.
-
It would realy be interisting to know how the german commanders fit into the data. Anyone has tried that?
-
On the other hand I have seen several Normandy pictures of Panthers with holed Glacis plates so it certainly did happen, but was probably armour quality issues.
Do you mind to share these pictures?
-
What i do is that i face my armor by using waypoints. A short movement back and a slightly angled move forward again. If you add a covered arc to the second waypoint you end up with a nicely angled vehicle with a covered arc so it doesnt rotate the hull when in combat.
But i might add that the rewards for angling armor is the lowest i´ve seen so far.
-
In one of the earlier discussions it was mentioned that the Fausts had a weaker propallent charge than the "starter" charge of an RPG7. That realy makes me wonder why BFC allowed RPGs to be shot from realy overcrowded buildings in CMSF but dissallows the same for a 2 man team in CMBN.
-
While you may call the grafix "cartoonish" the map designers did a very good job recreating the german landscape. Im kinda imressed by the natural "look" of the landscape.
Without some recent mods CMBN does look cartoonish too with its oversaturated landscapes.
And the best part is that spotting and LOS works predictable! Thought is naturaly much simplier and the gameplay arcadish.
-
Yup, the lack of manmade camoflage is a big problem for any static asset. I realy wonder how easily ATGs get spotted from tanks even from 1000+ meters while hiding. Often my guns die before i can even unhide them luring in high grass, in woods or other natural concealment.
I maybe wrong but i believe that infantry gets a concealment bonus as long as it hasnt moved from setup.
-
Longest flight time for a given charge will accure if you shot straight up. So a medium range target with charge #2 will well hit the ground before you hit a close target with charge #2 or maybe even with charge #1.
Another point is the velocity of the projectile. The faster the projectile travels the less it is exposed/reacts to wind, pressure changes and so on.
BTW i am not arguing that long range shots should be more accurate, i just want to share thoughts.
-
This is a shameless BUMP
-
BTW... was it always that easy to get a tank in a position to shot? From what i´ve read one reason why the bocage was such a nice piece of land to defend was the fact of seriously restricting the use of tanks.
I would also think that, speaking about high bocage, most tanks were not able to shot over.
-
They will report that they can see, from where they are standing in light forest...
GaJ
I know it is kinda offtopic but i recent learned that mortars are able to shoot inside of woods. Is this possible in RL? When do the shells get fused/armed?
-
So-called "Mahlzeit" might have well been a good tactic against 76.2mm and 85mm rounds on the Russian front, and 75mm and 76mm ETO. But I'm not sure whether it would do much good in a hypothetical engagement of a Tiger I vs. a 75mm/L70.
Geometry is simply a matter of fact: As the "Mahlzeit" is at 10.30 and 13.30 the angle is 45 degrees. Los thickness at 45° for the frontal armor is about 140mm. Side armor is 80mm at 45° which means about 113mm LOS.
Penetration of the 75mm/L70 with APCBC at 500 meters is somewhere near 160mm at 0°, 123mm at 30° and 61mm at 60°. So judging a value for 45° you might end up somwhere at 110-100mm. This could well mean that an angled Tiger is a quit hard nut to crack. And this without any slope effect!
Looking for slope effects, at a T/D-ratio of about 1 you will have a slope effect at 45° of circa 1,75. This means that the front gives a protection of 175mm and the side of about 140mm at 0°.
Thanksfully the Pantherfibel gives a german judgement of slope effect:
-
What´s your point?
-
What should be taken into account is that currently the tac-ai of CMBN doesnt use any kind of "angling" the vehicle.
While the Tigerfibel highly values the use of "Mahlzeiten", the Pantherfibel doesnt and is much more focused on pure frontal protection. The reason is that the Tiger has such strong side armor that its not of a great threat to present it to the enemy at a low angle. On the opposit the Panther shouldnt try to expose its flanks at all.
This would greatly increase the hull protection of the tiger. The Tigerfibel states an armor protection of up to 18cm for the frontal "Mahlzeiten"-positons.
-
Thats more like an academic discussion. Since Germany was in war on the western front there was no way to transfer more units from france and Italy to the eastern front. Even without the actual landings in France and Italy the shear possibility of it forced the germans to station enough forces there. Which, like we know, they didnt.
And yes, the russians were still lacking behind the capabilities of the wehrmacht. But: Bagration for example showed nicely that from 43-44 onward they were well capable of conducting large scale mobile oprations, which, as an example, ultimatly crushed armygroup center (still a capable fighting force with more than a million soldiers) and gaining hundrets of kilometers. It took the russians about the same time to conquer poland in 44 compared to the germans in 39. And i would say that the wehrmacht was still a much stronger force than the polands in 39.
They struggeled with tactical problems right to the end of the war (Seelower Höhen), but their operational skill was quit good.
Preparation of direct fire with mortar
in Combat Mission Fortress Italy
Posted
I tried to bring up that topic for example in this discussion:
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1313826&postcount=16
I remember it beeing discussed before and afterwards, thought i might be wrong.
Granted, due to my bad english i wasnt able to realy get the discussion to the specific point.