Pistols vs Truppen

[YankeeDog]

OK, first round of tests done. To review, conditions are as follows:

- 5-man Sherman crew, armed with all M1911A1 pistols. All Regular experience, no bonuses or penalties. Ammo load upped to 405 rounds of .45 ACP (via acquiring from a truck, to eliminate ammo starvation as a factor).

v.

- 5-man German infantry 1/2 squad, armed with four Kar. 98 and one MP40. Again, all Regular, no bonuses or penalties. Supply initially set to "scarce", to eliminate hand grenades, rifle grenades, and Panzerfausts. Ammo then upped to 628 rounds of 7.92mm and 232 rounds of 9mm via acquiring from a truck.

5-minute time limit. Neither team in C2 at all. Each team is given a low stone wall for cover. According to Target command line, distance between teams is approximately 45m. Photo of test conditions in action:

Here is a summary of results 40 runs total:

AMERICAN WIN: 17

AMERICAN ADVANTAGE: 4

GERMAN WIN: 15

GERMAN ADVANTAGE: 2

DRAW: 2

WIN = Side had at least one soldier OK, and enemy was all WIA, KIA, Surrendered, or had routed completely away from the area.

ADVANTAGE = Side had more men OK than other side at end of time limit. For purposes of this calculation, soldiers completely routed away from the fight (out of LOS), or in the process of surrendering at the end of the fight, are considered casualties.

DRAW = equal numbers OK at end of time limit.

Detailed spreadsheet of results available here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgYPdx-LYUy4dE9aTFpyNDlZYndqLTZlcHlyd2xta3c

My conclusion is that this data is a statistical dead heat, showing that neither team has a substantial advantage at this range & conditions. In my opinion, this does support some change in the accuracy and effectiveness of pistols -- 45m is pretty long range for a pistol. However, the change needed is probably not huge. In my opinion, the tankers with pistols probably should get lucky and win at this range, at least occasionally. But more often than not, the rifles + MP40 should carry the day.

Time allowing (and assuming the CW module is further delayed; I doubt I will do much testing once the module is out!), I will expand the test by trying additional ranges, force balances, etc. In the interim, feel free to put in your $.02. I am happy to provide the test scenario to anyone who would like it -- just message me here on the forum.

[Erwin]

And the other insight is how the men firing pistols look like characters out of a StarTrek show... Or, give then rapiers/dueling swords and they'd look about right too!

[acehammer]

I dont think tankers should be dumbed down to the point where they dont matter once they bail . I,ve only had the game 2 weeks and have not really seen any real bizzare incidents . My guys almost always seem to bail ,and then run away once their vehicle has been shot up ,for the most part that should be correct. If I do see they start to act like whats been discribed they could very well find themselves in the PTO FIGHTING JAPANESE IN MARINE INFANTRY UNITS.

[acehammer]

Run 10 and 14 are what I would expect at say 10m 80 percent of the time.THATS insane the 45s culd be that good that often at that range.

[YankeeDog]

Run 10 and 14 are what I would expect at say 10m 80 percent of the time.THATS insane the 45s culd be that good that often at that range.

Eh? Runs 10 and 14 were both runs wherein the Americans surrendered within 2 minutes...

One of the reasons I haven't tested very short range yet (like 10m), is that it's very difficult to come up with a realistic test at a range like this -- simply starting both teams one or two action spots away from each other and letting them have at it would be highly unrealistic. Short of an engagement on a dark, moonless night, in heavy fog and in the middle of a dark forest, It's hard to imagine how this could actually happen IRL...

A more realistic way to test a very short range situation might be to do something like have both teams hunt into a building from opposite sides, and let them bump into each other and have at it. Still not a very likely situation, but much more possible than two teams simply suddenly materializing less than 20m from each other, with no prior knowledge of each other's existence.

[slysniper]

Yankeedog, I just sent you my email for the test file.

Now looking at your test, I am even more concerned. Part of my point has been how hard it should be for a person with a pistol to hit a man at the range you are testing, now I see, you have them behind low walls. With that the target area is greatly reduced. Now this should make the shot very unlikely.

But from the sounds of it, you find the battle is won or lost within the first minute and the rest of the battle is pretty much who ever has the advantage finishing the job.

So I take that to mean in a battle the pistol wins, they likely hit two maybe three men in the first minute. Not in the real world my friend, forget all the other factors. They just should not be coming close to getting that amount of hits at that distance.

Without you running a single test, no question the pistols should improve on victories as the range gets closesr. If they do not, something else is wrong.

For me, the question is accuracy, The only examples given of real world knowledge pretty much shows people like me trying to point out that a pistol should be about worthless at these ranges. In game terms, I dont want to see a pisol doing much over 24m and that is against a fully exposed person.

At 8m, then they can start killing at will, picking off men that only have a head exposed or something.

And even then, it is likely better than what happens in real life, but it is just a game, I dont expect it to be perfect. But it would be nice to have things somewhat realistic, since that is what this game is about.

[acehammer]

The one brave soul in 19 would have to have unspeakable guts to fight a further 2 minutes after what happened to the rest of his buds in the first 60 seconds.

[slysniper]

Eh? Runs 10 and 14 were both runs wherein the Americans surrendered within 2 minutes...

One of the reasons I haven't tested very short range yet (like 10m), is that it's very difficult to come up with a realistic test at a range like this -- simply starting both teams one or two action spots away from each other and letting them have at it would be highly unrealistic. Short of an engagement on a dark, moonless night, in heavy fog and in the middle of a dark forest, It's hard to imagine how this could actually happen IRL...

A more realistic way to test a very short range situation might be to do something like have both teams hunt into a building from opposite sides, and let them bump into each other and have at it. Still not a very likely situation, but much more possible than two teams simply suddenly materializing less than 20m from each other, with no prior knowledge of each other's existence.

Lets see, how many fire fights have I been in that has infantry against each other on both sides of a hedge, Plenty

How often in thick woods does the enemy come to within 1 or 2 action spots before anyone spots each other, plenty.

It has been in these type of situations where I have actually seen the pistol units go wild.

I am not claiming to see tank crews run across open fields and defy death and then overrun their enemy.

I just see men who are too brave being that their only weapon is a pistol with really no ammo supply and that they act as good as any other soldier on the map and it is not uncommon to see them win a firefight against a normal combat team about their same size. None of which should hardly ever happen in my opinion.

[YankeeDog]

Yankeedog, I just sent you my email for the test file.

Now looking at your test, I am even more concerned. [etc.]

Files sent.

My counterpoint to this is that, based on the runs I observed, everyone, whether armed with a pistol, rifle, or SMG, is pretty much doing spray-and-pray in a surprise, short range engagement like this.

In other words, the pistols shooters are frequently missing their targets by several meters, but the guys with the Kar. 98s are also missing a lot, apparently choosing to just try to get a shot off quickly, rather than setting up their target picture and aiming carefully.

And if no one is shooting very accurately, then whoever can throw the most lead downrange, wins. Having the MP40 in the action helps the Germans compensate somewhat, but overall, the fact that the pistols can get out 3-4 shots for everyone one shot by the rifleman, means they have an advantage.

Not saying this is what *should* happen. Just saying that this is what looks like it is happening to me, based on visual observation of the runs.

[YankeeDog]

Lets see, how many fire fights have I been in that has infantry against each other on both sides of a hedge, Plenty

How often in thick woods does the enemy come to within 1 or 2 action spots before anyone spots each other, plenty.

Yes, but generally this happens when one team is moving, and the other is not. This is something that would be good to test, but it would be tedious -- you would have to first have one side approach while the other was stationary, and then reverse it. And then do a comparative analysis to see who was better off, overall. This would be a great test to do, but very time-consuming.

What I am saying is unrealistic is two teams suddenly materializing, stationary and ready to open fire, close enough to hear each other whisper. This is what happens when you set up a battle with two opposing teams within a couple of action squares of each other at the top of a scenario, and click go.

[acehammer]

33 and 34 should have been surrenders in the second minute. To me this is mighty convinceing stuff that something is off abit. good work YankeeDog.

[YankeeDog]

33 and 34 should have been surrenders in the second minute. To me this is mighty convinceing stuff that something is off abit. good work YankeeDog.

Bear in mind that 2 Germans left after the first minute doesn't necessarily mean 2 Germans left, who are up and fighting. In fact, I can tell you from memory since I recently did those runs that they were face down, hiding behind the wall, and the Americans had temporarily lost sight of them. They might not have been actively surrendering to the Americans and the end of the first minute, but they weren't really trying to fight anymore, either. Functionally, they were playing possum.

In fact, most of the action after the first minute is whoever is left on both sides hiding behind the wall, until occasionally someone rallies enough to come back up to kneeling and see who is left on the other side.

Off to bed now. Unless CW comes out tomorrow, maybe I'll chance some of the parameters and run another test tomorrow night.

[acehammer]

Im saying even at 10 m the infantry in the real world would trump the 45,s more often than not, the second that hatch moved my rifle would be at my shoulder by the time a tanker got half way out I would have shot and cocked waiting for the next one for the most part to me the tankers really should seldom ever win it should be two or three tanker causaltys maybe just , maybe. , 1 infantryman injured or

killed followed by a quick surrender,those tankers are just meat trying to get out of a burning or expolding tank .semi auto or bolt action makes no difference them boys in the tank are in deep their morale should be hurting and they would be doing well to run far and fast if they want to live.

[c3k]

As glad as I am that YankeeDog took the time and effort to undertake these tests, recognize that this is a test about relative combat superiority of 5 handguns vs. 4 K98k's and 1 MP40 at 45m with low walls as cover.

That's it. It tested "A" vs. "B". Or, it tested an apple against an orange. More tests would need to be done to validate the gut feel that pistols are too good.

For example, swap out the .45 armed crewmen for another infantry team, identical to the first. This would give you 4 K98k's + 1 MP40 vs. 4 K98k's + 1 MP40. In other words, it would give you a comparison for the handguns.

(Yeah, if you've followed my comments, I think slysniper is too generous with an 8m headshot "allowance"! )

Before crying "aha!", a lot more testing needs to be done.

Ken

[YankeeDog]

As glad as I am that YankeeDog took the time and effort to undertake these tests, recognize that this is a test about relative combat superiority of 5 handguns vs. 4 K98k's and 1 MP40 at 45m with low walls as cover.

That's it. It tested "A" vs. "B". Or, it tested an apple against an orange. More tests would need to be done to validate the gut feel that pistols are too good.

For example, swap out the .45 armed crewmen for another infantry team, identical to the first. This would give you 4 K98k's + 1 MP40 vs. 4 K98k's + 1 MP40. In other words, it would give you a comparison for the handguns.

(Yeah, if you've followed my comments, I think slysniper is too generous with an 8m headshot "allowance"! )

I can do a identical vs. identical run as a control if you'd like, but I'm really hoping that's not necessary, and we can assume that two exactly identical teams under exactly identical conditions faced off against each other will be a 50-50 split (assuming enough runs to even out random variation).

Time allowing, though, I am planning on running more tests. Next sets I would like to run to set up exactly as my first test, but lower the range to about 30m, and then do another at longer range, maybe about 80m, to see how results change with range. Then, if CW module STILL isn't out, maybe I'll move on to altering some other variables. Changing the amount of cover is one variable I would definitely like to look at.

If you'd like to suggest any tests in particular, let me know.

Edit to add: While I don't see much need to pit 4 K98 + 1 MP40 vs. 4 k98 + 1 MP40, it would be interesting to swap the tank crews out for 5-man rifle teams w/ 5 x M1 Garand, and then run exactly the same test at exactly the same range. I would be very interesting to look at whether the Garands do better or worse than the M1911s. Or heck, I could even pit 5 x Garand vs. 5 x M1911...

[slysniper]

As glad as I am that YankeeDog took the time and effort to undertake these tests, recognize that this is a test about relative combat superiority of 5 handguns vs. 4 K98k's and 1 MP40 at 45m with low walls as cover.

(Yeah, if you've followed my comments, I think slysniper is too generous with an 8m headshot "allowance"! )

Ken

I am glad he went to the effort also.

As for the 8M head shot, yes too generous, but better than the 45m shots in the test, Because face it, they should only be exposing their head and shoulder region in that test, so my suggestion would be trimming down the accuracy plenty:eek:

[c3k]

Okay, my suggestions (for what they're worth): Run the current test at 1/2 and double the current range.

Next, run the same 3 series with identical vs. identical. (Bolt action, mostly, against bolt action.)

Next, substitute Garands. (Always keep the "target" side the same: 4 K98k's and 1 MP40 since that's what you started with.)

In each case, all 3 ranges.

If it is the semi-auto nature of the handguns making a difference, the Garands will tell. Bolt vs. Bolt will show that pattern.

Changing ranges will give a clue as to relative accuracies.

Yeah, it's easy writing this, very hard to run all the iterations. I know!

(I'll run some tests. My tests will be different than yours, I'll post my setup after I've tweaked it.)

[YankeeDog]

Sounds like a good set of tests. I'll work on these, you work on your setup and we can compare.

As my next set, I may actually run all the tests at the current range (i.e., do 45m German 1/2 squad vs. German 1/2 squad, then do 45m German 1/2 squad vs. Garands), since I can do this quickly without altering the map. Then I'll edit the map for long & short range tests.

I'm still skeptical of the need to run the German 1/2 squad vs. German 1/2 squad test. If it comes out anything other than 50-50, I think this will simply prove that I've screwed up the test design somehow... But I guess it's not a bad idea to run a control and show that it's truly a level playing field.

[akd]

What exactly are you testing here? These "who wins the duel" tests seldom control for a single factor, so if you believe a single factor is off (pistol accuracy) you should try to test that. BFC can't exactly reduce the "winningness" of tank crews until they reach the right "winning percentage". They are okay as a test of "effectiveness" (but even here I think you should test against a control, i.e. tank crew v. tank crew), but don't produce data that can be used to actually make changes.

I would use single drivers armed with pistols against some fixed-size immobile target (exposed vehicle crew perhaps) with cover arc to control return fire. See what the actual chance to hit per shot is at various ranges.

[c3k]

Remember, the "target" unit doesn't matter. It needs to be consistent. Your shooters are what are being tested and compared to one another. You cannot compare a German 1/2 squad to the pistoleros until you've had the German 1/2 squad fire at, and be fired upon by, the same guys the pistoleros were tested against.

I'll run a quick setup test over the next few days. Real life is going to put a lid on serious testing for at least a week. So, a week's delay, one week (or so) for iterative testing, compiling, and analysis. Give me about 2 weeks to post something.

Meantime, not that our tests would need to be complementary, it will be useful for me to use the same ranges that you use. I'd suggest 20m (16?) for the close work, and 100m for the long range. (Close enough to 100yds; regardless, that's where so many open source accuracy tables have an entry. Using a "standard" range will help correlate game results with firing range numbers.)

Ken

Edited to add: crossposted with akd. Akd has hit it upon the head. That's why the test YankeeDog has set up will not prove anything... Until other units try to win a gunfight and we see how they do.

[YankeeDog]

I would use single drivers armed with pistols against some fixed-size immobile target (exposed vehicle crew perhaps) with cover arc to control return fire. See what the actual chance to hit per shot is at various ranges.

Not a bad idea. I think the easiest way to test this would be to set up a test where the test subject is looking into the ass-end of an immobilized Marder. Then you could record how many shots and how long it takes for them to get their first hit on the Marder crew. I think both rate of fire and accuracy are important here, which is why I suggest tracking both # of shots to first hit, and time elapsed to first hit. Probably not much point in testing beyond the first hit as the crew will likely bail soon after taking their first casualty. You could run this same test with teams of the same size armed with pistols, bolt-action rifles, semi-auto rifles, etc., see how the accuracy stats come out.

Meantime, not that our tests would need to be complementary, it will be useful for me to use the same ranges that you use. I'd suggest 20m (16?) for the close work, and 100m for the long range. (Close enough to 100yds; regardless, that's where so many open source accuracy tables have an entry. Using a "standard" range will help correlate game results with firing range numbers.)

Easier to talk in terms of action spots, since the action spot system determines the granularity of how you can set up ranges in tests like this in CMBN. In my first test, IIRC there were 4 empty action spots between the action spots with the low walls, so the sequence went like this:

low wall -- open ground -- open ground -- open ground -- open ground -- low wall.

According to the range shown on the target line, this yielded an average range of approx. 45m between the two teams once they were deployed behind the wall. The walls themselves should theoretically have been about 40m apart, given that action spots are 8m wide and the wall bisects the action spot it is in, so the remaining 5m must be the result of the fact that the soldiers don't set themselves up right on top of the wall, but rather a couple of meters or so behind it.

So... closest to 20m I can get will probably be 1 empty action spot between the action spots containing the low walls, closest to 100m I can get with the low wall setup will probably be something like 11 empty action spots between action spots containing the low walls. As I mentioned, I may stick with the 45m range first, and try different matchups at this range. Then I'll see if I can get around to setting up the range variable tests.

[Bastables]

Yeah, well, they may constantly train with them (emphasis on 'may'), but it's not like they're all, or even mostly, dead eye dicks by any stretch of the imagination.

Yeah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadou_Diallo_shooting

I think 3 of the officers had been involved in prior shootings and were part of the NYPD's "elite" Street crimes unit (not noobs, plain clothed experienced ect) and they still only managed to hit an unarmed black man on a porch 19 times out of 41 at less than 5-10metres. The lead officer also managed to trip and fall while negotiating steps.

Pistols are terrible for accuracy and the level of training required for range accuracy does not negate that they are less accurate than any sort of rifle where one has three points of contact to steady for aim.

[acehammer]

I thought we were saying that the tank crews with their 45,s were to good .My line of thought tells me we should be looking at a tank that has just been imobilized,with the crew ready to bail out. A infantry unit close by becomes engaged with these tankers in a firefight as they begin to bail .I think the tankers should substain some casualtys after a small fire fight then either surrender or escape. I do not belive they are capable of wining a prolonged engagment against a infantry unit of 4 men with rifles ,its just not in the cards ,these men should be somewhat demoralized,they should have a limited amout of ammo , they are going to be very exposed bailing out of the tank, Its not going to be 5 on 5. Its going to 5 with 45,s exposeing them selves to rifle fire while leaving a damaged vehicle. Im almost thinking 2 infantrymen would be a match for this tank crew, regardless of range these tankers are in trouble ,they should not be besting normal infantry.

[slysniper]

I thought we were saying that the tank crews with their 45,s were to good .My line of thought tells me we should be looking at a tank that has just been imobilized,with the crew ready to bail out. A infantry unit close by becomes engaged with these tankers in a firefight as they begin to bail .I think the tankers should substain some casualtys after a small fire fight then either surrender or escape. I do not belive they are capable of wining a prolonged engagment against a infantry unit of 4 men with rifles ,its just not in the cards ,these men should be somewhat demoralized,they should have a limited amout of ammo , they are going to be very exposed bailing out of the tank, Its not going to be 5 on 5. Its going to 5 with 45,s exposeing them selves to rifle fire while leaving a damaged vehicle. Im almost thinking 2 infantrymen would be a match for this tank crew, regardless of range these tankers are in trouble ,they should not be besting normal infantry.

Hey slick, no one ever claimed they were gunned down by the tank crew very often as they were coming right out of the tank, but once out and organized, they are preforming too good as a fighting unit, that is the point.

But in some cases, they can be very soon after jumping out of the tank

[acehammer]

I haven't really seen many occasions of crews (or other soldiers who have pistols) fighting effectively with their pistols. When I see crews kill someone, it's usually with a submachine gun. One memorable exception is one time when my tank hunter team had ambushed an armoured car with their Panzerfaust at very close range and then started running away, the crew got out and started shooting the tank hunters in the back.

What bothers me the most is that the soldiers don't fight with pistols the right way:

Maybe that kind of stuck with me. I havent seen a really brazen act by tank crews myself.