FinStabilized

The fact is that depsite how good this game is, and that its spotting system does many things better than other games, it is the weakest link in these games and quite frankly needs a serious look over. I posted a while back about some issues I had in the NTC Missions where M60s without thermals could not see several plattoons of soviet tanks in a open featurless desert. I replayed the mission dozens of times trying to find out some workaround. Unbuttoning, target arcs etc. No matter what, those M60s could not see anything. One thing I discovered from that discussion is that CMCW units cannot remember what they have spotted, so once the find something, they can lose it again and then have to start the entire spotting process all over. That is a HUGE problem. The other big issue is the way thermals have been modeled. Make no mistake, thermal optics are a huge advantage in the real world. But the way they work in CMCW I think needs quite a bit of adjustment. I could be wrong, but I suspect that thermals have some kind of blanket spotting buff because it seems to boost aquisition even when it shouldnt. Tanks with thermals seem to alway get the first shot even at close range, etc. One extermely frustrating example is having a bunch of soviet tanks that are lying in wait with faceing or arc commands and the thermal armed tanks get the first shots off almost every time even in that situation when ranges are less than 1500. Often even at much closer ranges. And stuff like this is not an uncommon thing. Units routinely fail to see things that are right in front of their face. One last thing. This issue has been the subject of complaint pretty much since CMX2 came into existence. What I find rather depressing is that many in this community just assume the people complaining are bad at the game or go on lengthy explanations of how sophisticated this games spotting system is compared to other games. In the latter example, it simply doesnt matter. The fact that this game is trying to do things that other games dont do doesnt mean its problems should be a free pass. This aspect of this game needs a serious adjustment. The problem is sufficiently frustrating that if the only thing CM 3.0 or patch 5.0 did was fix this, I would be totally happy with it.

Biggest thing CM needs is a major update to the line of sight system. The LOS/Spotting system is very sophisticated but it can sometimes mess up in extremely frustrating and unrealistic ways. The things below I would personally like to see given attention: 1) The Spotting system needs to incorporate spotting memory. If a unit or units have been spotted in an area before, the likelihood that they are found again if the sight is lost should go up VERY dramatically so long as the units dont leave the area they were spotted in. As an example, I point out the situation I discovered that units in CM cant do this as of now. In one of the CM cold war NTC scenarios, the tank battle between 2000-2500m turned into a very slow affair with tanks losing each other every time dust obscured them. Due to the range, it took some time for each side to spot each other the first time, which I can buy. But the time to spot completely reset each time a tank was unspotted, and tanks just sat there oblivious to each other starring at each other over open desert while the entire spotting process cycled through again. Sometimes tanks were never re-spotted, or it took ten turns. 2)Sometimes small bits of foliage completely hide units. 3)The smoke effect needs reworked to more accurately convey to the player the amount of dust or smoke. Very often the spotting system is calculating much worse conditions while to the player it looks like it would not obscure much of anything. 4) A general improvement needs to be made, there are more weird spotting problems than I know how to list here. The Second Biggest thing CM needs is for the tank infantry mechanics, especially in towns, to be looked at -Infantry need some kind of orders set that allows for specifically ordering AT teams to fire and then move. Yes I know you can use pause and movement commands but it leaves too much to chance when firing a RPG and then running away is not exactly a complicated thing to do. -AT guns should be re-mountable, and crew able by personnel other than their original crew. There could be penalties if the new crew isnt a trained AT crew, but other personnel should be able to operate the gun, especially against close range targets. -AT weapons like the Bazooka should be recoverable by the rest of the squad so that the entire unit does not become helpless versus tanks if the one guy holding the RL dies. -In General, infantry aiming at tanks need to miss their targets less when the range is extremely close. I have seen alot of ATRL shots miss at 25m and less, and the unit firing was not being suppressed or anything. The problem seems to affect the world war two titles more. -Tanks needs to be inhibited from firing on infantry that would be well outside any known tanks ability to elevate. -Tanks are WAY too good at spotting infantry that are behind them, in particular when buttoned up. I cant tell you how many times I have seen a tank that was completely buttoned up notice a infantry squad sneaking around behind the vehicle, and generally instantly. Yes, a TC can look backwards in a cupola, but this would be the most uncomfortable place to look especially for any length of time. It not uncommon for tanks in CM to reliably detect infantry to their six o clock virtually immediately. My suggestion would be that the probability of spotting infantry in the open to the six oclock be dramatically reduced unless there is a target arc or some specific reason the tank would be focusing their like taking fire from that direction.

The consistency of the documents can't be determined just by comparing the raw numbers. There are a ton of factors at play. -US protection values are frequently at an angle but it might not be cited in some documents. This happens all the time. -Hull protection is not consistent, the fuel tanks add to it on the outer 3rd. -Hull protection varys by threat, and I don't mean heat vs ke. Abrams armor value vs 115mm rounds will be different than 125mm rounds. There will even be differences within caliber due to differences in ammo design. There can be huge variances here, especially since Abrams hull armor is NERA. Equivalency to RHA is only a semi-valid estimate. It will be more consistent in some cases than others.

https://www.filemail.com/d/eryikvhfakljaaq They do kill one of the T-72s and force another to take cover here. I had to replay the scenario since I wasnt saving all my turns before. This was probably the best I have seen but as can be seen there there are extended cases where there is no dust and the T-72 platoon is in the open with all tanks cued via a target arc. Its especially baffling to me that they seem to not remember where the T-72s were after the dust clears between shots. Occasionally one of them will spot a tank but largely the entire platoon just sits there and stares at the area with no results. I did a test in a custom scenario with regular crew skill M60s and at 3000m they were spotting much faster and more consistently, so this strikes me as unusual in this scenario.

I have been having some unusually consistent and frustrating spotting issues on the second mission (hasty attack) of the 79 NTC campaign. I have tried to account for every plausible explanation that doesnt blame the line of system, such as dust, crew skill, being busy with other things, unbuttoned/buttoned etc. I peek unbuttoned M60A1 over the hill they spawn on to try to spot the T-72s below. I have tried hull down positions, but I have also tried non-hull down to see if that was causing interference. I have accounted for dust, in particular from guns firing or near explosions or misses. But sometimes I get several T-72s sitting in the open at 2-2500meters that the M60s just cannot see. I have tried face commands, as well as giving them target armor arcs. I have watched them sit there for 10 turns in a row without seeing anything. Sometimes when T-72s move, completely in the open, the M-60s are oblivious to them even when there are several of them and they are kicking up tons of dust etc. -Is heat shimmer modeled? I have noticed the conditions of the battle are "hot."

I dont mean how C2 is shared or anything like that, I know that stuff changes as per manual. Are there any changes to how hard it is to spot in general at different difficulties? Like will a single tank spot another single tank more easily? Again, ignoring the differences in C2 assistance etc.

So first things first, I know the above book title had an influence on combat mission, but this post has nothing to do with combat mission and should not be viewed as suggesting anything wrong with the game. That is why I have posted in here in general discussion. From what I have observed, this effect is not modeled in combat mission (at least not as suggested in the book) which I think is a good thing. This also should not be construed as lambasting WW2 Armor Ballistics and Gunnery, which I consider to be one of the best books on its subject matter. Now to the point. I am not convinced that the description of "shatter gap" as explained on pages 29-33 of the aforementioned book makes any sense at all. As I interpret it, the book seems to be suggesting that all non-German ammo (and specifically 76mm M62) would have a tendency to fail when the penetration data exceeds a certain ratio above the plate resistance, resulting in unexpected failures. For example, at a range where a shell has 120mm 50% penetration, the round fails against 100mm of armor. The implication being that it fails more often than it should according to the 50% test criteria. This would seem to be outright impossible, because the ammunition was empirically tested to 50% criteria. Meaning that definition the ammo was penetrating the armor of said thickness at said consistency. If the penetration chart says the round will penetrate 50% of the time 120mm of armor, than its not going to fail more often than that vs 100mm of armor. The explanation given is that some rounds may have had softer noses and the increased nose forces from shoving the armor out of the way would have resulted in shatter. However the issue is that these problems would have been worse against the thicker armor we know the round was tested to defeat. Its also hard to understand how the "laboratory" tests of the guns would have gotten their figures if the gun was found to fail consistently agaisnt a thinner plate at the same range. How would anyone have found the gun to penetrate 120mm at 100m if they ran into a apparent wall at 100mm? Then there is the evidence that is listed, none of which appears to show anything other than what we would expect given the the penetration data. The evidence given are some Navy Ballistic tests of the 76mm gun, anecdotal evidence from combat reports, and in the field testing agaisnt captured tanks. The 76mm gun test shows some rounds failing above the expected 50% success velocity, and is taken as evidence of the shatter gap phenomenon. Except that is exactly what you would expect, since testing a 50% limit velocity requires penetrations/failures above and below that velocity. So this seems completely normal. Also the defeat velocities lists are only barely above the predicted 50% limit velocity. The same thing is true of all the field tests. These involve a very limited number of rounds fired and there are also ambiguities (like the impact against rounded armor like the Panther Mantlet) which means they dont show us anything to suggest the ammo is performing abnormally. The anecdotal evidence I dismiss entirely because there are too many unknowns for it to be useful, especially with phenomenon suggested to occur over a very specific set of circumstances. In any case, I consider the book in general to be of very high quality so I am interested in what thoughts others may have on this.

Sure. But the Soviets also felt they needed to improve their armor during this period. Also I dont know if I would call the transition quick. M1A1's with 120mm guns did not start showing up in large numbers until 87-88. I posted screenshots that show that what happens in the two games does not agree. M735 will penetrate the T-64A glacis no problem in Steel Beasts. It does not in CM. Part of why I think this is weird is because in other titles CM and SB line up extremely well, such as in Black Sea or Shock Force 2. That is why I did over 100 tests, so we would have a sample size and not just random anecdotal perception. And several other people did tests with similar results. M735 only very very rarely gets through the glacis at 1km. And M774 struggles agaisnt it despite the fact that we know for certain it could get through at triple the distance. Thanks I very much appreciate the confirmation that its going to be looked at!

Is there any update on this? Quite a bit of evidence has been presented that M774 and M735 in game are under performing considerably. M774 was demonstrated to be capable of penetrating the 80/105/20 array unequivocally in the desert storm tests at 3km, which is much further out than we have been testing in the game. M735 has been tested multiple times and has been shown to be even less effective. Surely if M774, which is better than 735 but not in a completely different ballpark, 735 should be able to penetrate reliably at less than half that range? What is more, I don't think any evidence has been presented to support the current in game performance, while there is ample implicit evidence to the contrary.

M735 and M774 too or just apds?

I know many people are looking for expansion to the nations in the current years of CMCW or expanding into the later 80s. I think these are great ideas but I think we have a perfect storm brewing for a different kind of cold war era. Operation Unthinkable. Battlefront has just finished Fire and Rubble, which gives us all the Soviet units we need, and my understanding is that the next module on the horizon is an expansion to Final Blitzkrieg that will bring it to the end of the war (unless Im mistaken). This gives us all the units we need for a end of the war clash between the Allies (starting with the Americans) and the Soviets. I think this would be super cool since I dont know of it ever being done before, and it would provide an interesting what if where we can clash Pershings and Shermans vs T-34-85s and Is-2s. I see several advantages to this option as the first CMCW module. -It would piggyback on existing content, most likely making it easier and faster to develop, and therefore out to us faster. -It would be ****ing cool to pit late war Soviets vs late war Americans. -It wouldnt slow down the possibility of other CMCW modules much if at all, since any development work needed on assets could still go forward while whatever campaigns and scenarios are needed for Operation Unthinkable are created. -It would not only have all the units and their costs and rarities in place, but could also use the maps from FBK, FnR, and RT, BfN etc.

So I tested the baseline T-72, which should have the same armor array as the T-64A. 20 Super Structure Penetrations, 13 Total Failures, 41 Partial penetrations of superstructure, 18 Upper front plate pens, 0 partial pens of ufp. 72% chance of general failure agaisnt superstructure. 17% chance of total failure. 27% chance of total success. 55 percent chance of partial pen. So for some reason the T-72 (baseline) which has the same armor on the glacis as T-64A, has a statically significant decrease in protection. Although I might add that this is still nowhere what would be expected. This test was with M774, which we know for certain could defeat the 80/105/20 array at 3km. @Amedeo I see that you are right about the SB wiki ranges, which appear to max effective range. I am unaware of any claims made by anyone on the tank-net forums. Nor did I read about this from the 2006 Warford article. I did however go back and check it out today and I was not able to find any mention of M735 being claimed to fail. The only mention of 735 is that there were confirmed reports of its presence. Also the warford article and other sources seem to indicate that the suspected captured vehicle was a magach4, or m48. My first source for this was actually tankograd, but Ive seen in mentioned in several places including Zaloga. I very much doubt Zaloga of all people would be reporting it matter of factly if the only source was a forum post. Also there are alot of details in the below quote as well as reference to a separate book not written by the mentioned colonel. That book is in cryillic so I am unable to read it but I digress. "M111 "Hetz" ammunition was acquired by the Soviet Union and extensively examined and tested after the 1982 war in Lebanon (June 1982 - September 1982). A very popular theory is that the ammunition came on board a captured Israeli Magach 4 tank, which was until recently on display in Kubinka. Having captured M111 "Hetz" rounds in sufficient quantity for live fire testing, it was discovered by Soviet specialists that the upper glacis of the T-72 was vulnerable. As a response, the "Reflection" R&D programme (ОКР «Отражение») was initiated. This programme consisted of the "Reflection-2" research topic on a stopgap solution and the "Reflection-1" research topic on a long-term solution. Work on the "Reflection-2" research topic concluded before the end of 1982. It lead to the development of high hardness appliqué armour plates tailored to each of the Soviet Army's main battle tanks - the T-64, T-72 and T-80. As part of the "Reflection-2" programme, new-production T-72A tanks received a layer of appliqué armour on the upper glacis during hull construction at the factory and the T-72M1 export variant was created on the basis of this model in the same year. Furthermore, all models of the T-72 series were ordered to have 16mm of appliqué armour welded onto the upper glacis beginning in July 1983. The uparmouring process for existing tanks was authorized to take place during scheduled maintenance at repair facilities across the USSR. As explained on page 139 of the book "Т-72/Т-90. Опыт создания отечественных основных боевых танков", the appliqué armour was intended to limit the effective range of M111, but no more. It was merely a temporary stopgap measure to keep the Soviet Army's large fleet of T-72 tanks viable against common 105mm APFSDS threats for the next few years. The limitations of the outdated three-layer armour sandwich design were recognized and work on a much more serious upgrade in armour protection was already underway, thanks to prior intelligence on West German plans to install a 120mm gun on the new Leopard 2 tank. Indeed, the 16mm plate was not only intended to immunize the tank from the new 105mm threat, but also to limit the effective range of the 120mm gun threat." Anyhow in many ways this is neither here nor there . The point of mentioning M111 Hetz is that as far was we know, it defeated the T-72A, which had a better armor array on the glacis than the 64A, the subject of this post. Based on the best information available, M111 and M735 seem to be similar performance rounds. Even if we assume 735 to be a bit worse, it should not have issues with the 64A type array. This evidence is listed because it is highly suggestive, if not definitive. Zaloga quotes from official Russian sources that the 80/105/20 array as being equivalent to 335mm, easily within M735s grasp. This is also consistent with every other bit of evidence I can find on these rounds/armor, including steel beasts, whose values CMCW manual seems to be quoting or has arrived at on its own. But to reiterate my answer I quoted the M111 tests because they are part of a preponderance of evidence both suggestive and estimated.

I don't have time right now to respond to this entirely right now but I want to note something about the test. I also started testing the T-72 and T-72A and it is for some reason far less resistant than the T-64A, despite the fact that the baseline 72 should have the same armor array and the 72A should be more resistant than the 64A. I havent had time to do 100 tests and save the files, but it is obvious from the testing Ive done so far and what you just posted that the T-72 is far weaker for some reason. This indicates strongly to me that this is a bug of some kind, especially in conjunction with the fact that the hatch weak point appears int he wrong place and for some reason always leaves two overlapping penetration hole decals. I think there might be some swapped armor data entries or something, because the T-64A should be penetrable just like the baseline 72, much less the 72A.

@Cpt Miller@Amedeo Thanks for the compliments on my post I have only lurked on forums but Ive actually been playing combat mission since the mid-2000s. I totally agree that WEGO is the way to go! @AmedeoM735A1 is the same design as M735, just with DU penetrator instead of WHA, and M111 is WHA. Also are you sure about the SB wiki ranges being for point blank? I dont think it makes much of a difference in the conclusions of my post, but the wiki does list ranges next to each penetration value. Either way estimates of the M111 point to it being comparable to 735, slightly worse even. @Cpt Miller I agree completely that a small number of samples could end up with just bad luck, however I performed over 100 tests of M774 and so far I have done 61 tests of 745 so far at 1000m. Results are below as are my saved games files. I forgot to save one or two of the tests but overall I think these show that this is not a case of bad luck. 774: 71 Failures Superstructure, 3 Pens of Superstructure, 29 Pens of UFP, 14 Partial pens SS, 1 Partial Pen of UFP. 95 percent chance of total failure relative to total success. 80% chance of no penetration or partial penetration. 15% chance of partial penetration (superstructure for all) 735 (so far): 43 Failures SS, 1 SS pen, 14 UFP pens, 0 Partial pens of SS, 3 Partial pens of UFP. 97 percent chance of failure agaisnt SS. https://www.filemail.com/d/tefcobwkwqdhdaq Also something I have noticed in testing is that the Upper front plate penetrations always appear where the LFP and Glacis meet. Never near the drivers hatch where one might expect. This is another indicator to me that something is bugged here. I see no reason why either of these rounds would fail agaisnt the main glacis armor, ie super structure. Especially M774, which we know for certain could penetrate the 80/105/20 array even out to 3km. I would also like to reiterate something from my original post, that this is mainly about the T-64A armor. The point of including the T-72 references is because M111 was able to penetrate the 60/105/50 array before the Soviets upgraded with with applique, which is stronger than the 80/105/20 array on T-64A.

So out of the gate I just want to say that Combat Mission Cold War is fantastic and is probably my favorite Combat Mission. Overall everything seems exceptionally well done and I am having tons of fun with the Campaign and Scenarios. I think I may have found an issue with M735 and M774 ammunition however. While playing various missions and some quick battle multiplayer with some friends, I noticed that the T-64A was remarkably durable. I didnt think too much of this at first, because I was expecting the T-64 to be a tough nut to crack. But as time went on I started to notice that it might be a bit too tough. M735 and M774 are not capable of penetrating the front glacis plate of T-64A, in combat mission. I have not tested this agaisnt the other Soviet tanks with similar armor compositions, so I am not sure if this potential problem pertains to those tanks as well. If the same issue exists there, much of this post may be relevant to those tanks also since they have the same or similar armor profiles on the glacis. I would like to start out by showing how the current game models the mentioned APFSDS vs the named target. I performed this test at 1000m, 0 degrees angle. I used RISE Passives for the M735 test and M60A3 TTS for the M774 testing. I counted each APFSDS fired to ensure I was not confusing sabot hits with other types of ammo the AI might choose to fire. I did the tests after noticing the durability of the T-64 glacis in various battles to verify under controlled conditions what I suspected was happening. In the screenshots you will notice that HEAT and Sabot hits have a different damage decal. To summarize the results, neither round can reliably penetrate the T-64 glacis. The game appears to model the weak point near the drivers hatch as the "upper front hull" and the main glacis as the "super structure front hull." M735 is ineffective against the superstructure and can occasionally gain penetrations against the driver plate area. M774 is slightly more effective with almost all rounds that hit the superstructure bouncing off, but very occasionally one will get though. M774 also tends to get through the driver plate area fairly reliably. However in both cases many of the hits to the driver plate area are counted as partial penetrations and not complete penetrations, which is odd considering that there is basically no composite armor in this area. Partial penetrations can seen in these screenshots via a smaller hole decal. They are rare for both rounds, especially vs superstructure. M735: M774: The T-64A glacis plate uses a laminate armor array that consisted of 80mm of steel followed by 105mm of texolite followed by a 20mm backing plate of RHA. This armor greatly increased protection against shaped charges while still providing good protection against kinetic threats. For additional visualization purposes, I will use some screenshots from war thunder in some areas. There will also be screenshots from various books and webpages. Source: https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/t-72-part-2.html#8010520 From Zaloga's T-64 Battle Tank: The Combat Mission CW manual states that M735 has 410mm of penetration and M774 has 440mm of penetration. These numbers are identical to the ones quoted on the steel beasts wiki, and are listed as being for a range of 3000m. I will include the table here, as well as some other rounds which will be relevant. From Tankograd: https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/t-72-part-2.html#8010520 The above simulation shows that M735 would certainly penetrate the 80/105/20 array and then some at 1000m. The Israeli M111 APFSDS was a derivative of the M735. It would appear to be ballistically of similar performance due to that and the penetration values on the SB wiki. Russian testing of this round revealed that it could penetrate From Tankograd: It should be noted here that the T-72A and M1 featured a even thicker armor array than the one on the T-64, going to 60mm RHA/105mm texolite/50mm RHA. So if this could be penetrated by M111 it stands to reason that M735 could go through the weaker T-64A armor. After the end of the cold war T-72M1's were shot at with various German ammunition, including DM33 which is similar in performance to M774. These T-72s have the extra armor added later in the early 80s. It should be noted as well that the extra armor plates are past the scope of CMCW since they were not implemented until after the 1982 Israeli conflicts. DM33 105mm APFSDS penetrated the hull at 2km. Additionally, here is how M735 performs in steel beasts at 1840m, which is using the same penetration numbers as the CMCW manual (the picked range was just as close as I could get to 2km in the editor without spending 1 million hours trying to get it exact): Based on the general evidence, I think that the M735 and M774 ammunition should be made much more effective in game. M735 should be effective agaisnt the T-64A armor out to any practical range and M774 should be capable agaisnt the T-72A armor if it is not already, which I am guessing it is not based on in game performance agaisnt the worse T-64A armor array.