Disappointing tank performance

[Chainsaw]

regarding the tank optics: I don't know if its comparable with a tank, but in my PBV302 I had to zero the sight every morning and at lunch if we been moving in rough terrain as the sight moved slightly when moving in the terrain. Just the bumping around from hard ground could knock the sight out of alignment. comparing my sight is from 1970 it should be similar with tanks from 1940s (in theory atleast).

[Michael Emrys]

for example does a rifle bullet that hit the tank produce enough shockforce to misalligne the optics inside ?

Have you had this happen in the game? I've never seen anything like that that I recall, and my tanks seem to draw tons of small arms fire.

on the other hand why should exactly 75mm AP shells hitting the tank hull (and bouncing off) misalligne the optics ?

hope you get my point !

Well, for one thing, the energy imparted by a 75mm ricochet is vastly greater than that of a rifle caliber bullet.

Look, I'm not denying that there has been made here a good case that the subsystems damage model needs to be revisited and probably modified. But there is really no need to overstate that case, no matter how frustrating you may find the current situation.

Michael

[siffo998]

Have you had this happen in the game? I've never seen anything like that that I recall, and my tanks seem to draw tons of small arms fire.

Well, for one thing, the energy imparted by a 75mm ricochet is vastly greater than that of a rifle caliber bullet.

Look, I'm not denying that there has been made here a good case that the subsystems damage model needs to be revisited and probably modified. But there is really no need to overstate that case, no matter how frustrating you may find the current situation.

Michael

sorry maybe i`ve used the wrong words...i wasnt overstating it was just a example for where is the line in modelling damage to subsystems by shock transferred into the tank. is it reached by rifle shells ? 20mm ? 37mm ? 57mm ? 50mm ? 75mm ? 88mm ? 105mm ? the vehicle driving over rough terrain ?

right now ingame rifle shots normally do no damage to subsystems of the tanks ! but 20mm will do a lot of damage even when the side armor is hit (no optics are there) ! the 37mm will do no or very little damage even after a big amouint of shells hitting the tank ! the 50-57mm behaves nearly in the same way as the 75mm ! vehicles driving over rough ground does no damage to the optics as far as i know !

i just wanted to show that this - shock transferred into tank damage theory - has some serious problems because its lacking real sife sources.

i havent found any sources for real life events that would clearly show that for example bouncing off shells (hull hit) with diameter of 75mm and higher cause normally gunsight damage.

but like i said we will see what the future brings and what the designers will change !

[siffo998]

regarding the tank optics: I don't know if its comparable with a tank, but in my PBV302 I had to zero the sight every morning and at lunch if we been moving in rough terrain as the sight moved slightly when moving in the terrain. Just the bumping around from hard ground could knock the sight out of alignment. comparing my sight is from 1970 it should be similar with tanks from 1940s (in theory atleast).

just one more word from me...

thats a interesting point ! but it also clearly shows that misalligned optics (even caused by shock from bounced off shells) can be realligned...

so they are not completely gone or destroyed.

as for as i know these reallignement could be done by the gunner even during battle.

but the cmbn manual clearly says that red X in the subsystem damage report means that the subsystem is destroyed. when you keep this is mind than i do not think that misallignement of the optics is taken at all into account in the subsystem damage modelling ! Simply because misallignment doesnt mean that the subsystem is destroyed or damaged... it could be fixed relatively fast and easy.

[Chainsaw]

just one more word from me...

thats a interesting point ! but it also clearly shows that misalligned optics (even caused by shock from bounced off shells) can be realligned...

so they are not completely gone or destroyed.

as for as i know these reallignement could be done by the gunner even during battle.

Well Yes and No... To realign a sight you have a sight board (with 2 crosses on, one for barrel and one for sight) and a aiming device that you put into the barrel. so the loader (or as in my PBV, the driver) looks thrue the barrel and tells the gunner where to move so the barrel aims center on the sight board, when the loader(driver) is pleased the gunner adjust hes sight so that hes crosshair is centered on the sight cross on the sight board. To get this right the board need to be a certain distance out. On my PBV it was 30m from the vehicle.

So this you do outside combat, never in combat.

BUT. when miss-alignment occurs in combat an experienced gunner that sees his round go of to the right corrects for that in next shot. so the next time he engages a new target he knows he is for example 2 mils of to the right and directly adjust for that.

So no, you don't zero the sight during combat, but you do compensate for errors when aiming, weighting it up in a way. But I don't know how that should be portrayed in CMBN thoe.

[siffo998]

Well Yes and No... To realign a sight you have a sight board (with 2 crosses on, one for barrel and one for sight) and a aiming device that you put into the barrel. so the loader (or as in my PBV, the driver) looks thrue the barrel and tells the gunner where to move so the barrel aims center on the sight board, when the loader(driver) is pleased the gunner adjust hes sight so that hes crosshair is centered on the sight cross on the sight board. To get this right the board need to be a certain distance out. On my PBV it was 30m from the vehicle.

So this you do outside combat, never in combat.

BUT. when miss-alignment occurs in combat an experienced gunner that sees his round go of to the right corrects for that in next shot. so the next time he engages a new target he knows he is for example 2 mils of to the right and directly adjust for that.

So no, you don't zero the sight during combat, but you do compensate for errors when aiming, weighting it up in a way. But I don't know how that should be portrayed in CMBN thoe.

i just cannot stop posting...

thanks chainsaw that was a very interesting read... !

but again that clearly shows that misallignement does not mean that the sight is destroyed. you can still use it and spot and fight enemys with it.

but my testing ingame showed that tanks that received red X optics damage by non penetrative hits are far more unlikely to spot enemys when buttoned (its nearly impossible at ranges over 1000m).

but with a misalligned optic alone (in real life) you can still spot enemys with no problem because it has no effect on the magnification.

my thought is still that optics damage by non penetrative hits (ingame) just modells the breaking protective lenses in front of the gunsight. therefore your vision gets very limited because of the spider web.

(graviteam modelled this also in their tank sim steel fury - but only when the gunsight/mantlet area was hit with big calibre HE/AP shells - just like said in the report to von Lauchert out of the book i`ve posted in the "hitpointsystem on subsystems" thread).

so after all i`ve read i would still say that these damage to the optics (breaking protective lenses ?) happens far to easily in cmbn. and additionaly it seems to be a bit inconsistent right now because 20mm will cause a lot of non penetrative damage but the bigger 37mm does nearly no damage at all (which seems right to me by the way...) !

so now i will shut my mouth/play my pbems and wait for the next module !

[Holien]

The stuff I learn from reading these threads never ceases to amaze me. Not that I will ever have any use for it....

(Well I hope not or the state of the world is in serious trouble......)

[BadgerDog]

On my PBV it was 30m from the vehicle.

On the M4 Sherman, a thick thread as taped over muzzle while loader looked down range at a large square target that was placed at exactly 1,000 yards.

While gunner placed sighting telescope on the target center, the loader used a set of wrenches and adjusted the master weapon (bore sighted it) using the thread to place its cross hairs on the center of the same target.

It takes about 20 minutes to do right ...

Regards,

Doug

[c3k]

On the M4 Sherman, a thick thread as taped over muzzle while loader looked down range at a large square target that was placed at exactly 1,000 yards.

While gunner placed sighting telescope on the target center, the loader used a set of wrenches and adjusted the master weapon (bore sighted it) using the thread to place its cross hairs on the center of the same target.

It takes about 20 minutes to do right ...

Regards,

Doug

Hmmm, first, finding a 1,000 yard space while in the field (not at home base or depot) would be difficult.

Second, measuring "exactly" 1,000 yards without surveyor's equipment is very hard. (1,000 paces by Smitty out in "that direction" is a rough approximation.)

Third, taping (or otherwise affixing) two threads across a barrel and hoping you've got them at the opposite sides of muzzle is a bit hopeful. (It is very hard to precisely place a thread across the center of a circle. Doubly so with 2 threads. (Ignoring any req't to have them vertical and/or horizontal.))

Fourth, eyeballing down the muzzle to align the threads with the target seems fraught with error. A sight uses 2 points to align; using crossed threads at the muzzle is a single point. If the loader's eyeball is not precisely centered at the breech, then the sight picture is misaligned.

Fifth, wrenching the GUN to meet the SIGHT? That seems....harder than the other way 'round.

Finally, sixth, I've never done this, all the above is my immediate impression of the errors that could occur.

Ken

[Georgie]

A question. Can a German tank be damaged by 75mm HE from a Sherman? I had an instance where a 75 Sherman was firing on a Panther head to head with AP but got no hits. The Panther apparently did not see the Sherman so the Panther backed away out of the sight. The area where the Panther was located was under good los from various locations and just the one little area where he backed to wasn't in los so I knew approximately where he was so I switched my Sherman to area fire and due to the flashes in the target area it looked as though the Sherman got hits with HE. My Sherman latter engaged this Panther when it reappeared, flank shot, and knocked it out but I could not determine whether or not the Panther had been damaged by the HE.

[Childress]

A question. Can a German tank be damaged by 75mm HE from a Sherman?

A but O/T question: Which kind of round, HE or AT, do tanks in CMBN have loaded by default?

[c3k]

A but O/T question: Which kind of round, HE or AT, do tanks in CMBN have loaded by default?

Whatever round they need at that moment. It's a bit of Schrodinger's paradox: the loaded round is neither/both/all types until it is fired. A lot of threads have discussed this.

[BadgerDog]

Finally, sixth, I've never done this, all the above is my immediate impression of the errors that could occur.

Ken

I'm not exactly what you're referring to .. :confused:

The procedure I described was how the M4 Sherman was bore sighted in the real world. You bore sighted every time you went to the range at the start of the first day after mounting the sighting telescope. I qualified as a gunner on it and fired hundreds of rounds in my career.

Can't find a 1,000 yard range? Again, I'm confused... :confused:

Our gunnery ranges for Sherman, Centurion and Leopard were well over 5,000 yards long with a lake as a back stop ...

Regards,

Doug

[sburke]

I'm not exactly what you're referring to .. :confused:

The procedure I described was how the M4 Sherman was bore sighted in the real world. I qualified as a gunner on it and fired hundreds of rounds in my career.

Can't find a 1,000 yard range? Again, I'm confused... :confused:

Our gunnery ranges for Sherman, Centurion and Leopard were well over 5,000 yards long with a lake as a back stop?

Regards,

Doug

I think he's wondering about this procedure in the field, not back at barracks. How would one go about realigning after/during combat?

[BadgerDog]

I think he's wondering about this procedure in the field, not back at barracks. How would one go about realigning after/during combat?

Ahhh... ok... sorry about that ..

In modern day terms, I imagine it can be done with laser bore sighting equipment without leaving a hanger, although as I'm sure everyone can appreciate, we didn't have that kind technology back in the late 50's and 60's on the old M4 girls we had to deal with. It was "out to the range" in the freakin cold winter or hot summer if it was "shoot day" for the young recruits ...

Regards,

Doug

[Chainsaw]

on the other hand, realigning the gun after the sight sounds harder, but also it sounds like the zeroing are more keen to stay there. a small sight built for adjustment have a easier time to djump of the zeroing then a barrel that fixed with wrenches. I hope...

[Steiner14]

Green as Jade,

I must agree. But not only most of the enjoyment and fun of tank battles has been lost that way, it simply feels broken and highly unrealistic.

@Mad Mike

This kind of damage modeling was also in CMSF, where the russian 40mm automatic grenade launcher was the biggest threat to western tanks.

CMSF-fanbois also have praised the game, when it was in an awful, for many in an unplayable, condition with HUGE problems. But on the other hand it had realtime action...

Now we have brittle heavy tanks and tank tactics have become as important as showering small calibre fire on tanks to get the lottery of the subsystems rolling.

What a huge step forward.

[Tread Head]

You guys talk about damage but to me the real issue is accuracy... there are hardly any missed shots in this game. Range and moving don't seem to affect the shot at all. Everyone is pretty much an ACE.

[siffo998]

You guys talk about damage but to me the real issue is accuracy... there are hardly any missed shots in this game. Range and moving don't seem to affect the shot at all. Everyone is pretty much an ACE.

me again...

dont know which game you play tread head but tell this to my veteran (+1/+1) panther crew that missed a sherman 3 times at 1000 meters. by the way after the first patch its nearly impossible to hit something while the shooting tank is moving. (at least at normal combat ranges - at under 100meters it happens sometimes (more often) but that seems ok.

the game covers a immense amount of variables and different situations (tank hits at the first shot at 1500m distance or on the other hand fires 4-5 times till the right range is found - also depens on experience, motivation etc.)!

according to jentz the accuracy for a experienced tiger gunner is nearly 100% at under 500 meters. and 93% at 1000m.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm (look under accuracy)

most of the missing shots happens initialy when the right range is searched. (normally 1-3 missing shots at 1000m distance in my ingame tests - which seems right to me). after the right range to the target is found nearly every shot is a hit (which seems also right to me).

[whako]

It may be realistic that once any tank takes a few hits it's really out of action due to non-penetrative damage, but I'm finding it no fun whatsoever.

It's very hard to have an enthralling tank battle when its number of hits taken rather than armour strength and gun penetration that determines the outcome. My experience at the moment is that irrespective of the armour of a tank, if you let it get hit, at all, by another tank more than once or twice, it will take a critical hit on some subsystem, and then it's effectively out of action. There are so many opportunities: tracks, weapon control, optics...

As I say, this may be realistic, but right now it's taking some "getting used to" (a euphamism for "geez, this is no fun, I hope I get past it").

GaJ

I wish I was still in contact with a gentleman by the name of "Sabot" I remember him telling me stories of million dollar equipment on his M1A1 tank being disabled by small arms fire and RPG's and the noise inside the hull being unbearable at times.

[Hister]

me again...

dont know which game you play tread head but tell this to my veteran (+1/+1) panther crew that missed a sherman 3 times at 1000 meters. by the way after the first patch its nearly impossible to hit something while the shooting tank is moving. (at least at normal combat ranges - at under 100meters it happens sometimes (more often) but that seems ok.

the game covers a immense amount of variables and different situations (tank hits at the first shot at 1500m distance or on the other hand fires 4-5 times till the right range is found - also depens on experience, motivation etc.)!

according to jentz the accuracy for a experienced tiger gunner is nearly 100% at under 500 meters. and 93% at 1000m.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm (look under accuracy)

most of the missing shots happens initialy when the right range is searched. (normally 1-3 missing shots at 1000m distance in my ingame tests - which seems right to me). after the right range to the target is found nearly every shot is a hit (which seems also right to me).

OK! This means only the destroyed optics issue needs to be addressed in the next patch and the tank combat will be simulated properly.

[Praetori]

Hmmm, first, finding a 1,000 yard space while in the field (not at home base or depot) would be difficult.

Second, measuring "exactly" 1,000 yards without surveyor's equipment is very hard. (1,000 paces by Smitty out in "that direction" is a rough approximation.)

Third, taping (or otherwise affixing) two threads across a barrel and hoping you've got them at the opposite sides of muzzle is a bit hopeful. (It is very hard to precisely place a thread across the center of a circle. Doubly so with 2 threads. (Ignoring any req't to have them vertical and/or horizontal.))

Fourth, eyeballing down the muzzle to align the threads with the target seems fraught with error. A sight uses 2 points to align; using crossed threads at the muzzle is a single point. If the loader's eyeball is not precisely centered at the breech, then the sight picture is misaligned.

Fifth, wrenching the GUN to meet the SIGHT? That seems....harder than the other way 'round.

Finally, sixth, I've never done this, all the above is my immediate impression of the errors that could occur.

Ken

Calibrating by boresighting isn't all that hard when you've done it a couple of times. Absolute precision is hard to get in the field though.

It basically comes down to putting the relevant junk in the muzzle and breech (or using a the secondary "iron sights" if there are any).

Find a object in the terrain (belltowers on churches or known landmarks such as roadcrossing down at the beach) and then measure up the distance on the map.

It doesn't need to be a 1,000 yards. As long as it's a known distance and it's on the optics you can use it.

For best results more than one point and different distances should be used. In the end it's more important with the horizontal fix than the lateral.

Align the barrel to the object in question and then adjust the sights so that they line up. Repeat a couple of times and then, if possible, shoot a round or two at a known target somewhere else to see that it's acceptable.

[siffo998]

OK! This means only the destroyed optics issue needs to be addressed in the next patch and the tank combat will be simulated properly.

thats not what i said...but in my opinion theres no real big problem with accuracy. i`ve seen a lot of misses at all kind of ranges. and its not true that range and moving does not affect the accuracy after all what i`ve seen and tested. maybe it seems to be too accuracte just because the engagement ranges in those normandy maps are normally rather small but if you expand tank engagements to a normal level (800m+) the number of misses increases.

and well its not only optics damage. like i said initially and after all the tests done in the other thread "hitpointsystem on subsystem": its optics and track damage (and maybe even radio) that needs a look at. Track damage because its also triggered to easily. For example non penetrative turret or weapon hits with ap shells should not cause track damage in my opinion (but they currently sometimes do).

but theres still some other matters out there that might need some fixing for example -TAC-AI- tanks that fire multiple times right into a tree (or slight slope) without correcting there aim or stop firing for this round (maybe its mainly a WEGO problem, because realtimers can corret the failure directly but after all its WEGO that really matters... )

[Praetori]

but theres still some other matters out there that might need some fixing for example -TAC-AI- tanks that fire multiple times right into a tree (or slight slope) without correcting there aim or stop firing for this round (maybe its mainly a WEGO problem, because realtimers can corret the failure directly but after all its WEGO that really matters... )

Well it still a problem for the AI.

I was pretty disappointed the other day when a AI 88 kept trying to shoot my Shermans but kept hitting the ground midway. My tanks had little problem killing it though because of their steeper trajectory.

[LJFHutch]

The thing is, I can understand that showering a tank with HE would do damage (even 40mm grenade launcher fire?) but an old WW2 AT shell glancing off the side of a tiger at a small angle surely wouldn't do any damage.