holoween

https://mcoepublic.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/library/ebooks/Canadian Army Trophy Book_2018.pdf Thats the best i could find regarding ranges at the CAT. Up to 2000m The traverse is going to be better for the t72. the Leo2s backup is very slow so usually its brought roughly on target by the driver neutral steering before doing anything more if the commander sees something on the flanks. The T72 optics at least have 9° fov which should make them comparable. How clear they are i cant tell. https://imgur.com/a/JrioHHQ Ths document gives a nice overview on early cold war tanks stats. The t72 fits right in there so should probably be on a similar capability scale as far as spotting goes. And crew quality is a seperate stat so soviet standards being lower should be reflected by the crews being lower veterancy rather than the equipment being made worse. Are you removing outliers? At 10 rounds at 1000m i already have one taking 177s to spot and one taking 255 yet im not seeing such results for your tests. Or each tank has x chance to spot each cycle and you have 4 tanks therefore dropping the expected time to spot for any of them. Were discussing sights before laser range finders in case of the t72 or without them active in the Leo2s case. Also for spotting the FCS and laser are irrelevant.

Currently in place so Leopard2. Though the measure im applying is the one for Emergency use so no electric turet drive and only an 8x magnified backup sight. Targets are nicely illustrated here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235040314_Canadian_Army_Trophy_Analysis It does make a difference though. If units spot others in the open and in broken terrain similarly the distinction starts to matter less than it probably should. At least from the technical specifications i cant see any reason why they should perform worse. And since crew performance is a seperate stat that should have by far the largest impact. For the technical comparison i can send you some documents. I havent sat inside a T72 yet so i cant say it exactly but for a Leopard2 even just using the backup sight it should be far lower if its in an open field.

Ive looked at your pbem files and your troops did spot ok.

How else are you going to gather ingame data? How do you do that because all the testing ive done so far points towards them having quite a bit of trouble spotting at that range.

So i just used your scenario to get some data: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18Ma_-1Wl273jK9zck8gmlmqj1FPw2uQGNvbe90ZwuVI/edit#gid=0 I gave the m60 a short firing arc because the test isnt about comparing t72 to m60 yet. At this point its a simple test to see how long the t72 takes to spot. Ill replace the t72 with an m60 and a t64 later to get the comparison between them. Also a 1000m experiment. Things that i noticed: - Some of the crews are legally blind. A third of them took over two minutes to get a contact. Who let those guys into tanks? - Only two would qualify as per german tank gunnery standards and then only when applying emergency mode times. (normal ones are 15s from target presentation to target hit and emergency with the backup sight and controlls its 30s) Id assume 60° for such a caslulation (basically gunner from 11 to 1) but thats variable. Working as a platoon generally each tank would have even less space to cover. CM doesnt see to differentiate between cluttered and clean environment. A tank sitting somewuere between the buildings of a village should be much harder to spot than one sitting in the open but this doesnt appear to be the case. Id love to see which ones. None of its technical data suggests it should be worse than any contemporories. I wouldt take the gulf wars results as an indicator that t72 had bad visibility. Thats more a case for how much thermals outperform non thermals in bad visibility conditions. In broken up terrain or bad weather id agree but the test was in clear weather and open and flat ground. And even then the times are quite long for a fully exposed tank.

can you send me the pbem turn and the pw and ill take a closer look as soon as i get some time (1-2 hours from now)

Yes all three can see but: This is the area they have to scan at the very least probably more. 30s from them being able to theoretically spot it to engaging it is ok considering the situation. TC is more busy reestablishing comms as he currently has none and the driver while not obstructed in the view has adifficult time spotting. And the gunner has to scan a fairly large area so its quite possible he scanned past the target once especially considering hes nervous, the area he has to scan is busy and es only a regular.

This is perfectly normal. The enemy is moving forwards so no its not giving away much by moving and your tank has to cover and spot in quite busy ground. The crew is also nervous and has no contacts to anyone so it becomes quite easy to miss something. This is a great example of CM doing exactly what it should

Hes not looking at you you have time.

They arent very strange. In most situations the system works ok. Basically only the cases where it should be exceedingly easy or hard to spot dont quite get as far as they shouldd. because animating the turret turn rather than simply calculate as if works far better since the spotting works in distinct rounds every few seconds so simply getting an area that was scanned and calculating the los like that works well for the scale.

The game does simulate the tank scanning because thats what they would do and animating the turrets rather than abstracting it is simply beyond the scope.

Its not fundamentally broken but the examples do show that there are certain situations where the CM simulation doesnt match up to what you would expect.

I am a tanker. In general id say tanks are spotted far too easily in hulldown positions and when los is broken up like shooting through trees etc. They are also far too hard to spot in the open or when moving across the field of view.

On a range it doesnt make a difference (and the scenario discussed above is basically a range scenario) but even in open country there is no distincton between thermals and primary sight. The absolute longest you can take is while shooting under emergency conditions using the backup turret drives (which are very slow), the backup sight and manual ranging and then you have a max of 30s. And do note that isnt shooting at full sizd tanks but targets that only represent the internal volume. And the looking through a soda straw effect really doesnt matter at 2000m. For the primary daysight with the highest magnification it stopps being a noticable hindrance at 3-400m and lower magnification backup sights or the thermal low magnification push that way down. Yes youre never able to see everything at once but scanning is a thing.

At 2000m in good conditions it shuld never take more than a few seconds to spot a tank. Background clutter and nearby buildings etc shouldnt matter. To give you a rl reference for how much time it should take: for german gunner qualification you have 15s from targets popping up to hitting them otherwise its counted as a miss.

While CMs spotting system is generally a great approximation there are some weakensses. It fails to visually communicate just how much the los is obstructed It doesnt update every second (IIRC it updates every 15s someone please correct me) Units geneally see way too much Looking at the screenshots im surprised any tank actually got los at all. Such heavy dust is quite capable of fully obscuring tanks even from thermal imagers no less normal day optics. Also the gunners ability to spot targets as close as this is severely diminished by the low fov of the optics. The one point where id have to agree with NATO being possibly overly advanteged is that i think thermal imaging is overrated by CM: Especially older TI where the gunner has to manually adjust the settings should loose quite a bit of its capability in inexperienced crews. TI should be far more significantly impacted by heavy dust and smoke. Weather conditions can have a significant impact on TI spotting ability. In bad conditions you might still get some heat signature but be unable to discern what it actually is.

While i cant compare the Leopard2 to other afvs noise levels are unlikely to be the reason for the modern caps. In practice almost no tanker actually uses them. They all take the ear pieces and convert them to a headset.

Interesting article. I think its better put as ineffective against armies that are capable of dealing with it via equipment and training. Everything else stated is somewhat questionable.

I hope youre wrong but youre probably right.

Basically sounds like shockforce with a 1x1 grid

CMSF2 has the most variety in units and scenario types you could play from symmetric blue vs blue modern warfare over red vs red soviet style warfare to blue vs red insurgency. Its just massively let down by lack of interesting maps.

Barrel, optics and firecontroll. A mobility kill also means a stug is usualy useless while a tank can still somewhqt work.

While the stugs tend to get destroyed less quickly they lose combat ability just as quickly. 6 pz4 gives more tactical flexibility. 6pz4 will also sit at higher veterancy. So overall the stugs are better if fighting oponents up to basic shermans at ranges above 600m. Otherwise more pz4 or fewer panthers are better.

Ive had a battle recently where i bought 5 stug. Against 75 shermans they were tougher than p4 would have been. The problem is i could have had 6 pz4 or 4 panther with vet instead. Both choices would have performed better. The panthers massively so.

Where do i even start Your previous post contained 1 true but unrelated statement and one that is arguable aside from that every single thing you said was wrong yet you feel the need to tell someone elst to read. Especially since i do take the time to actually test what im talking about ingame. they are using 500 yards to give a size for the beaten zone. They have to because the size and shape of the beaten zone changes with range and the ground youre shooting at. That doesnt mean all their shown positions are at 500yards. i assume with indirect fire youre talking about fire from what the video calls Position Defilade. Youre only able to do that at longer ranges. Note how its demonstraded once and never actually used throughout the rest of the video except where they talk about supporting advancing infantry with overhead fire and specifically note the long range required on flat ground makes it "unsatisfactory"