holoween
-
Posts
291 -
Joined
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by holoween
-
-
-
They are all relevant to 2008
Aside from the link on the milan they are all just to demonstrate the point as i cant really post german official TOEs and doctrine.
-
Ive been playing quite a bit with the german army and ive noticed several inaccuracies in the equippment which i think could be adressed.
Ill note here that the german army is quite unwilling to give out documents so its quite hard to present hard evidence for some of these.
- Infantry cant fight from marder even though this is part of the core doctrine
- MG3 weapon teams doesnt have the tripod even though they should
-
PzGren should by default come with the mg3. The mg4 should at best be an option.
- https://www.bundeswehr.de/de/ausruestung-technik-bundeswehr/ausruestung-bewaffnung/mg4
- end of the first paragraph "The mg4 is mainly used in the infantry" PzGrens in the german army arent counted as part of the infantry and anecdotally ive yet to see an mg4 in any PzGren unit but plenty of mg3s and a few mg5s
-
Milan has a minimum range of 400m but should be 20-25m
- http://www.guerredefrance.fr/Documents/AIDE MEMOIRE CHEF SECTION INFANTERIE.pdf
- on page 86 armin distance is 20m
-
1 hour ago, Bozowans said:
I remember arguing years ago that the Germans would fight mounted in the backs of their halftracks, yet people thought it was complete heresy to suggest such a thing.
Considering that fighting mounted is still active doctrine in the german army
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjGL65hNDRw
https://youtu.be/lgFH68KcloQ?t=51
-
Basically youre looking towards 1975 to 1985 cold war. At the end of this period the first thermal imagers apeared but they were bad enough that they only really represent some night vision capability.
-
So ive tested it a bit more and it seems that for some reason the majority of the spotting potential from the stuart comes fromm the driver and bowgunner.
5 stuarts in hulldown position barely spotted 5 p4s in the open while 5 stuarts in the open easily spotted 5 p4s in hulldown.
Trying the same with shermans there was a similar effect but not as drastic.
What seems to be clear though is that being hulldown doesnt seem to give any benefit to being spotted for some reason and in CMFB at least for all tanks ive tested so far noticably decreased their spotting ability.
-
14 minutes ago, RobZ said:
So what can we conclude from this?
My conclusion would be that the ai has bonuses on higher difficulties and as such testing should always be done in hotseat mode.
-
3 minutes ago, RobZ said:
How can you control enemy units during testing?
Play in hoseat mode.
-
Just now, RobZ said:
In that case i might have to double testing, in my scenarios they all start in final position to have completely fresh spotting for both. Moving atleast the panzer into position would mean the commander can probably spot much quicker before the panzer exposes itself.
Both sides have to move into their hulldown positions and have their tc up. So that doesnt really give any side an advantedge.
-
Just now, RobZ said:
Did you drive into hull down position or did u start the test with both units already in hull down position? due to your results i will do more testing now for those units and see if i get different results than when i tested the first time (5 rounds isnt a lot)
I did move into hulldown positions.
This is the scenario i used for it. You have to manually move the tanks into hulldown positions because the hulldown command doesnt work.
-
On 5/8/2020 at 7:18 PM, RobZ said:
Did another test
5 stuart vs 3 panzer IV @700m, no target refrence points used
First 5 rounds was with the panzers in hull down position
This is how much is exposed from the stuarts perspective.
When in hull down position the panzers won 2/5 times, and those 2 times they lost 2 tanks the first time and 1 tank the last time.
I just finished my own hulldown test at 700m
5 m5a1 late regulars vs 3 Pz4J late regulars.
In 5 rounds the stuarts managed a total of 5 hits while the p4s destroyed 24 stuarts with one getting away with a pen.
The p4s suffered 1tank with destroyed maingun and coax from 2 pens, 1 with a partial pen that wounded the tc and one with light damage to the radio from 1 pen.
One stuart survived a pen that killed 2 crew. all others were destroyed.
So ill keep using my hulldown positions.
Id love to see how you managed to get your p4s to loose.
-
I was trying to replicate the P4 vs Stuart test by having both sides use the hulldown command to get into position. I didnt manage to replicate the test but i did find an easily repeatable case of why i never even use the hulldown command anymore.
The tanks dont actually move up sufficiently to get a spot or be able to fire.
-
Since this is something that only really matters against well armored tanks giving a deviation from the center mass aimpoint if the round bounces to simulate the gunner aiming for different areas could help spread the shots around a bit more realistically.
-
4 minutes ago, Kaunitz said:
Interesting stuff, holoween! Indeed in larger battles I think that some fortifications can be more worthwhile in terms of cost/effectivenes due the relation between point budget/mapsize.
May I ask how the battle went/why it did take longer for your opponent to clear the position?- Was the opponent unable to hit or were his hits less effective in taking your pixeltruppen out? I wonder if part of the perceived protection might have been due to the very flat terrain (hitting close to the target requires more accuracy in this case)?
- Did he have no artillery?
- You say it was more difficult to scout out? Aren't foxholes spotted very easily?
The forward platoon was in defilade so hard to spot but what i was trying to say it that the actual assault on the position took 15min with more additional time needed to scout around before launching the assault. Also while its relatively easy to spot foxholes its quite difficult to spot if they are occupied if the troops are hiding.
He did have arty but that was busy supressing atgms covering the position. And arty isnt great against spred out foxholes.
It took an abrams platoon and a striker platoon 15 min to clear and thats 1 platoon in defilade and 2 in enfilade positions. in comparison later 2 abrams wiped a similarly positioned platoon in the open in 2min. So yea the resilience there is entirely due to the foxholes.
-
As an example. This Position was only marginally more expensive by adding the foxholes yet it took an M1A2sep platoon and a striker platoon around 15min to clear on the assault and quite a bit more time to scout out which made a significant contribution to me eventually winning the match.
-
Fortifications arent useless.
I tend to play large or huge QB and at least at that size field fortifications are quite usefull.
Foxholes especially provide the best possible cover as far as my testing could determine and only cost 5 points each. And they allow setting up strong defensive positions where there isnt one on the map.
Also the lethality of the modern titles is mostly a result of not adjusting to the environment youre fighting in. In ww2 you can sit a tank into hulldown for several minutes and it will most likely be fine because neither itself nor the oponent will spot or hit. In the modern titles simply poking up for 10-15s at a time accomplishes the same.
-
12 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:
Thanks for testing it out. What was the range?
setup was exactly the same as the previous tests.
-
17 hours ago, Erwin said:
That's interesting, but the test does not compare being in foxholes vs being in the open which was the original question.
However the data was interesting that rifle fire at 70m seemed to be more effective that 81mm mortars, and onmap 81mm much more effective than offmap ("troops take 90% of casualties in first 30 secs of shells landing and immediately abandon trenches").
I though that much was obvious and didnt exactly need to be specified but i i just ran the test a few times and the platoon in the open always gets wiped out with a max of 4 casualties for the foxholed troops.
Keep in ine the 81mm mortars effectiveness is range dependant. this was done at basically point blank range. so Firing it at long range may reult in it matching the offmap version.
-
On 1/15/2020 at 5:41 PM, Bulletpoint said:
Has that ever been tested ?
yes
http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/threads/cmfb-trench-vs-foxholes.29756/
and while it isnt explicitly stated in there foxholed do provide the best cover to infantry short of bunkers and tied with stonewalls.
sandbags and trenches provide less cover with trenches being practically uesless. I never tested buildings so they might provide more cover but ingame experience would suggest they generally dont.
-
7 hours ago, Attilaforfun said:
M1 armor is not steel. Total casualties from 14 Stryker hits....1. A seasoned Soviet soldier hitting does no more damage than the peasants we fought. Read this carefully....14 hits one soldier was out of the fight...
Where the hit was scored does matter quite a lot. I tested a bit and after around 30 hits on strikers with rpg7 ive had only one instance of a hit that got through the slat armour.
Every other Ko came from hits above or below it which is exactly as i would expect.
7 hours ago, Attilaforfun said:I also don't understand the diversions. Skill level, AI, tactics....those are all extremely important topics....but have nothing to do with what I am talking about. Imagine if 37mm ATGs had a 50% kill rate against KVs. Would you agree that was an issue?
If someone would report a 50% loss rate on KVs to 37mm pak id question their tactics far more than the games simulation because a Ko isnt impossible just very unlikely so for that loss rate to occur there had to have been massive user errors.
-
There are a few other things that lead to excessive casualties.
Pixel truppen are excessively bad at using terrain, they bunch up far too much and their rifle accuracy especially drops off far to little over distance.
-
That was easy.
TBH
I found this battle to be quite boring.
It took 10 min to reach the church while taking almost no casualties and afterwards it was simply a game of waiting for the assault wave to apear and then destroy it with arty.
I only actually watched about 15 of the turns since nothing of relevance happened. Either no enemy in sight or they were pounded by arty.
This would have been far more interesting if the germans used smoke to cover themselves while crossing the roads.
Looking forward to the next one though.
-
3 hours ago, MikeyD said:
Why Germany felt obliged to send military forces all the way to Afghanistan is beyond me.
Because the US called Article 5.
-
48 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:
If we focus on the test where it's close range and only Stg44 on the German side, we find that the Germans took 12 casualties, and the US took 16.
The US started with more men: 39 vs 27.
So, with roughly 25% fewer men, the Germans caused 33% more casualties.
Each German caused 0.59 casualties.
Each US guy caused 0.30 casualties.
While it's only one single test run, I think it's a good indication that I was wrong about the Garand being superior to the Stg44. At least at very close range. So thanks for testing it out.
However, the results seem skewed by the fact that the US guys started to run away very quickly, then getting gunned down in the open.
To improve the test, it might be an idea to make two firing lines using only fanatic scout teams, to make sure only the right weapons and equal numbers are used, and that the running away behaviour doesn't affect the results too much.
even at longer range stg is better
There will eventually be a point where the m1 is better but that is at ranges where hmgs, mortars and other heavy weapons dominate.
If anything the running away actually helps them because it increases the range. The reason they are running is that they are taking a lot of casualties in a short time and lots of supressive fire. Both are things that significantly effect any battle so i see no reason to exclude them from the effectiveness test.
German Army inaccuracies
in Combat Mission Shock Force 2
Posted
One is the weapons capability and the other the intended engagement range. Compare the max ranges given for the ERYX.