17 pdr AT Gun?

[Amizaur]

I tried the mission that was mentioned - with Canadians defending a town. Sticking it out.

Very frustrating when a buttoned Panther after 20 seconds of observation detects my AT-gun (positioned behind some trees in a small park) from 1000m, and starts to engage it.

The game seem for me to LITERALLY simulate the visibility, that there is an large AT-Gun positioned behind some bare tree trunks, with all the foliage above the trunks and not giving any cover.

If the gun is is visible for me (after I zoom on it from position of the Panther) then it's visible for the Panther too.

How on earth am I supposed to hide anything, if a gun crew can't camuflage it effectivelly in trees ? Without an abstracted concealement given by tree shadow, foliage, some natural and some brought (for sure) by the gun crew ? If we can't simulate EVERYTHING, I mean every little weed, and branch, and leaves, then some abstraction in calculating concealement is a GOOD thing and should be used.

Second frustration came, when a Panther charged trough a small backyard, and I charged it with a full squad of Canadians occupying that backyard. They have surrounded a stuck tank at a 1-2m range before it could react. Did the Panther died, did it tried to reverse or escape ? No, it just swung it's turret around, dropping the barrel to the ground and killed from coaxial MG every soldier laying around the tank, laying just under it's tracks.

I'm crying for gun elevation limits, for minimal practical range for MG fire, and instead of engaging the infantry at few-meters range, better logic for AI tanks would be to try to escape, to just move ahead or better reverse back, and not stay in place and rotate it's turret killing everything that lives.

And again - please... a Panther that - while running buttoned at full speed - spots my Wolverine in an ambush position to the side, and (still running full speed and rocking on some bumps) rapidly rotates it's turret by 90deg and in few seconds it's aiming at my tank (fortunately, it doesn't try to shoot on the move, after 1.01) makes an impression of an Abrams or Leopard, not WW2 tank...

[Vanir Ausf B]

I hear you, man. The general uberness of armor and the limitations the game places on AT guns and infantry trying to deal with it is IMO the game's biggest shortcoming.

The game seem for me to LITERALLY simulate the visibility, that there is an large AT-Gun positioned behind some bare tree trunks, with all the foliage above the trunks and not giving any cover.

If the gun is is visible for me (after I zoom on it from position of the Panther) then it's visible for the Panther too.

How on earth am I supposed to hide anything, if a gun crew can't camuflage it effectivelly in trees ? Without an abstracted concealement given by tree shadow, foliage, some natural and some brought (for sure) by the gun crew ? If we can't simulate EVERYTHING, I mean every little weed, and branch, and leaves, then some abstraction in calculating concealement is a GOOD thing and should be used.

I have had enough tank duels though thick forest canopies to conclude that tree branches and leaves are eye candy only. Only the tree trunks block LOS/LOF.

EDIT: I just remembered I put up a video last year demonstrating the non-LOS blocking nature of tree foliage.

[dieseltaylor]

The German crews just sit (short cover arcs) and do nothing.

Exceedingly worrying piece of coding to my mind.

[Vanir Ausf B]

The willingness of a crew to disregard a covered arc order when under fire is highly influenced by motivation. Normal crews usually will disregard them, but fanatic crews never will.

[dieseltaylor]

It is worrying because fanatics of all people would wish to fight to the death so with no targets in the designated arc they refuse to try to kill the enemy where they are plainly visible - and dangerous. Is this logical or bad coding?

Moronic=Fanatic

[Vanir Ausf B]

The logic is that fanatics never disobey orders and a covered arc is an order. How realistic that is in real world terms is certainly debatable but I can tell you that it makes running tests far easier than it otherwise would be.

[dieseltaylor]

The logic is that fanatics never disobey orders and a covered arc is an order. How realistic that is in real world terms is certainly debatable but I can tell you that it makes running tests far easier than it otherwise would be.

: ) good point

Perhaps a warning to all scenario designers and players that fanatical troops are also very stupid would be helpful : )

[Michael Emrys]

Perhaps a warning to all scenario designers and players that fanatical troops are also very stupid would be helpful : )

But we knew that all along didn't we? I mean, look at the history of fanatical troops: it's mostly just self-destructive.

Michael

[Tank Hunter]

I just read something interesting in a book called If you survive by George Wilson.

For those that are not familiar about the book it's a personal account of an American officer from Saint Lo fighting all the way to Ardennes offensive.

During his first combat he witnesses a tank duel between a Sherman and Pz IV. The tanks were only separated by 100 m yet both sides had difficulties hitting each other. It took a half a dozen of rounds before the Pz IV bursted up in flames. According to the writer most of the rounds either missed or bounced off. The tanks were also partially in movement during the engagement.

At 100m in CMBN it would have been first shot = instant kill. From his description one could argue that hitting probabilities are way off in CMBN. This may have been a freak occasion where both crews were pretty green and nervous who knows..

[Amizaur]

I would say, emotions. There is nothing technical that would prevent them from hitting a stationary or even slowly moving target with first shot on 100m. But I would guess for unexperienced crew an enemy tank on 100m that is shooting at them, is an extremely stressfull experience. They could miss multiple times and they were lucky the other side was in stress and inexperienced too. Other explanation would be the phrase "in the movement". Entirely possible to miss at 100m shoting on the move at maneuvering target.

Well, I believe there should be something like combat stress simulated in CMBN, it could be a function of experience and motivation, with some arguments (is the enemy shooting at you ? was the encounter first in the battle / close range / unexpected?) and of course randomised a lot.

But in less-stressfull situations and for experienced crews, the current good accuracy should be retained. Hard to miss a tank at 100m, while not being desperate... It would take totally wrong range setting on the sights, or misalligned sights, or shooting on the move or to a fast moving target.

In some 3rd person tactical shooters, like 7.62mm and "Brigade E5" they tried to simulate things like "stress" and "adrenaline". If your soldier was inexperiended and unexpectedly saw an enemy on a close range, or it was shot at, it's stress rating increased and there were penalties in accuracy ect. The stress rating was decreasing over time, sometimes it was enough to just hide the character behind a wall and give him a moment to calm down a bit. In a next encounter during the same battle the effect was much smaller, the soldier was "adapting" and adrenaline effect was working positively now, reducing stress. Of course for experienced and battle hardened soldiers the effect was much weaker, but even for them the "adrenaline" was increasing a lot in situations when they were overrun, under fire by multiple enemies at once ect. Their fire was much less effective then. Green and unexperienced soldiers would be totally ineffective in such hard situations (the stress and adrenaline would be at maximum and very poor accuracy) in those games, I guess it's a point where CMBN soldiers starts to panic and run . I must admit, I liked this system

[akd]

From his description one could argue that hitting probabilities are way off in CMBN.

How many hits? How many shots total? No doubt he was under extreme stress, as well. Could that not have just as easily distorted his recollection of the event? Have you run tests in the game to determine the hit probability between two moving tanks at 100m? Have you tested to determine if it possible for either gun to fail to penetrate/destroy at various angles of impact at 100m?

Well, I believe there should be something like combat stress simulated in CMBN, it could be a function of experience and motivation...

There is...

[Vark]

How does CMBN simulate realistic, not theoretical, engagement ranges? How does it handle stress, adrenalin induced shaking, restictions on vision and colourfield? Can it accurately simulate the effect on decision making cycles and can it then personalise the effects for each pixeltruppen, so reactions are not uniform, but individual responses to the heightened threat levels?

Look at the AP loadouts of most WWII tanks and then divide by the theoretical PH and PK and wonder why, if they are "bombing up" during an enagagement the enemy force is still mostly operational and not littering the battlefield. Look at the ammo expenditure, compared to targets destroyed during the battle of 73 Eastings and see how humans constantly sabotage the analysts careful predictions.

Recently talked to a Challenger II commander whose views on its effective combat engagement ranges were significantly shorter than most wargamers would recognise. Always remember a BAOR officer, who was a wargamer, saying he always had a smile on his face when he read most gaming hit probabilities as they were woefully optimistic.

[dieseltaylor]

First off we do not know if this was a fight in clear terrain or an urban landscape with fences and hedges walls trees bushes signs and even buildings. They probably were not square on to one another. A angle across the frontal armour of the Sherman would be quite a waste.

Firing whilst moving is certainly going to make misses very likely. Or possibly they were playing peek-a-boo , or trees were masking gunsights, or barrel movement.

"The tanks were only separated by 100 m yet both sides had difficulties hitting each other. It took a half a dozen of rounds before the Pz IV bursted up in flames"

The IV could have been dead after 2 shots fired by it and the Sherman could have been making sure. I do subscribe to complicated circumstances increasing misses and glancing hits. We do know being hull down decreases the chances of being hit by a big percentage in real range statistics.

However there is absolutely no doubt that BF in CMBN bought a busted armour spotting and accuracy model to the original game. It is is therefore not at all surprising we are antsy about this area of the game now.

[Vanir Ausf B]

How does it handle stress, adrenalin induced shaking, restictions on vision and colourfield?

Peripheral vision is reduced 35%. Red/green color differentiation is reduced by 41%. Hand tremors occur 60% of the time.

At least that's been my own experience when attempting to drive after long playing sessions.

[Tank Hunter]

OK Here is some more background.

Wilson’s first combat day was on 26th July 1944 right after the initial bombardment of the allied planes that caused significant friendly losses.

As the order came Wilson advanced with his 2nd Plt only to discover the tremendous devastating power of the preceding bombardment. Dead from both sides were lying around some covered half way with dirt. Dead bloated cows with their legs pointing up in the skies were lying everywhere in the fields.

Their first village, Saint Gilles was lying just ahead of them. It was a small village at a crossroad. (Around 30 buildings). Wilson and his men went in straight for the crossroads moving in on each side of the road in to the village. As he arrived Wilson was on the left side of the road leaning against a high stone wall. The first building was just in front of him not more than 10 meters away from the wall’s end.

Suddenly a grenade detonated inside the first house and Wilson hit the ground. As he looked up a German Mark IV tank turned into the street and was heading straight for him. A Sherman tank that was following Wilson and his men starting to exchange fire with the German tank. The Sherman started to reverse but it kept firing as it was reversing seeking for cover. This left Wilson alone in-between the tanks. Wilson was at this time lying flat and just observing the tank fight. Each tank fired as fast as it could since the distance between them was less than 100 m. The Mark IV tank continued to fire as it was advancing forward. Both tanks either continued to miss each other at this short distance or the rounds were bouncing off. Finally after an exchange of half a dozen of projectiles the Mark IV tank bursted into the flames. Two Germans crawled out but they were both cut down by MG-fire from the Sherman tank.

So what kind of conclusion can we draw from this?

Half of dozen shots were fired? – that would account for 5-6 fired shots. Let’s say 3 on each side. All frontal. That would mean that the Sherman either missed or failed to penetrate PZ IV’s armor at a range of < 100m! For the German tank it’s even worse since up to 3 shots either missed or failed to penetrate. Can similar thing be achieved in CMBN? I doubt it.. Not at that range.

Both tanks were in movement, the Sherman moving back and the Mark IV forward. Since both of them were on the same road one could argue that targeting conditions were pretty much OK for both sides. The distance between them remained roughly the same and both most likely didn’t have to rotate the turrets that much between each shot.

So why did it take that many rounds before penetration/hit was achieved?

Just lack of luck or were these tank crews maybe so green that they hardly knew how to use their machines?

Was it maybe the movement of the tank that after all affected their targeting performance?

[Vanir Ausf B]

On the other side of the coin there were events like this:

“Near Nancy, France, between Luneville and Arracourt, we faced a group of German tanks that had taken a position one mile away, across a shallow open valley. Our M-18s were in defilade, facing out over a small hill. Infantry led the way across the valley with three M-4s intermingled. The Krauts let them get halfway across, then opened up with anti-tank fire from woods on the right. They immediately KO’d two M-4s and drove the infantry to the ground. Two Panthers, a Mark IV, and an assault gun came out of the woods and moved across our line of fire at the distance of about a mile. In his position in our open turret, the tank commander, SSG Hicklin, watched their progression through his glasses and called out the range: “Two thousand yards, moving at about ten mph.”

Our rifle, with AP, had a muzzle velocity of 2,700 fps, so it would take two seconds to arrive on target. The Krauts were moving at fifteen feet per second, which let them travel thirty feet in two seconds. Their lead tank was twenty feet long (from the book), so we led him a good length for a center shot. We laid on and fired. Voila, a hit! It struck two feet in front of his rear drive idler. We then picked the last tank and scored — he began to burn. The two intervening tanks were destroyed by two fast AP shots. So we got two Panthers, a Mark 4, and an assault gun.

Our 76mm rifle packed a good punch, even at two thousand yards. We felt that we had the best self-propelled

antitank gun in the ETO.”

-- Phil Hosey, 704th Tank Destroyer Battalion

[Amizaur]

"SSG Hicklin, watched their progression through his glasses and called out the range: “Two thousand yards, moving at about ten mph.”

Our rifle, with AP, had a muzzle velocity of 2,700 fps, so it would take two seconds to arrive on target. The Krauts were moving at fifteen feet per second, which let them travel thirty feet in two seconds. Their lead tank was twenty feet long (from the book), so we led him a good length for a center shot."

Everything above takes it's time. If the fire is to be accurate, most gunners if not seen by the enemy yet, would take their time and carefully calculate the range, speed, lead and everything needed, just like above. After the shooting starts, it can be fast, but there is an initial pause for decisions and calculations. I do not see something like that in CMBN, sadly....

If the emotions are simulated somehow in CMBN, then I'm glad. We should make some tests, putting one tank against the other at very close range and note the accuracy of inexperienced crews.

If it's too good, then maybe the model should be tweaked a bit.

[dieseltaylor]

There is also the possibility that both tanks had HE up the spout expecting only infantry.

Movement in a tank is jerky. The training manuals in the US at the time suggested expert crews could fire at under 600 metres however the advice was do not fire on the move. Having said that it did give the procedures as gunner sand driver had to work together.

If in this instance the crews were not working together it would make life difficult. I am always curious as to how much sway you get in a long-barrelled gun as you move. The IV advancing seems odd as it should have know its SOP is to fire from stationary.

3 55. FIRING WHILE MovING.-a. General.-(1) Firing with

the 75-m n gun while moving is inaccurate and causes an

uneconomical expenditure of ammunition. Do it only in an

emergency and at ranges of 600 yards or under. (See FM

17-30.)

(2) Firing while moving requires close teamwork between

driver and gunner. Drive at a constant speed; acceleration

and deceleration upset the action of the stabilizer. Drive in

a straight line, otherwise the gun yaws as the tank turns.

The driver warns the gunner when rough terrain is ahead.

When going over rough terrain, do not "fight" the gun (attempting

to keep it on the target by spinning the elevating

handwheel), but wait until a constant speed is regained and

the action of the stabilizer has smoothed out.

(3) The stabilizer will not lay the gun. It merely tends

to keep the gun where it has been laid; that is, it eliminates

extremely jerky movements caused by the movement of the

tank. Even with a stabilizer, the gun does not hold constantly

on the target. Watch the swing of the gun through

the target and fire as the proper sight setting crosses the

target.

b. Stationary targets.--() Firing to the front or rear.-

When firing to the front or rear, fire when the vertical crosshair

center of the sight is on the target, and as the 600-yard

dot crosses the top of the target if the gun is moving downward,

or as the 600-yard dot crosses the bottom of the target

if the gun is moving upward. If the range of the upward

and downward motion is so small that the 600-yard dot does

not fall below the bottom or above the top of the target, fire

as the 600-yard dot crosses the center of the target.

(2) Firing to the side.-When firing over the corner of

the tank or to the side, use a lead to compensate for the fact

that the tank is moving at an angle to the target (fig. 29).

Remember that the direction of the lead is opposite from

that used in firing from a stationary tank at a moving target.

When firing from a tank moving to the right, the lead

is established on the left side of the target. In other words,

when firing at a stationary target from a moving tank, establish

the lead on the side of the target opposite the direction

in which the tank is moving.

c. Moving targets.-If the target is moving, its fire will

be inaccurate. Therefore, halt the vehicle, destroy the target,

then continue the advance.

d. Gyro-stabilizer.-The accuracy of moving fire depends

on the gyro-stabilizer. This is a delicate mechanism, so a

thorough understanding of its operation and adjustment is

necessary. Watch for the following common mistakes:

(1) The gyro-stabilizer turned on and allowed to run indefinitely

when not in use runs down the battery.

(2) The gyro-stabilizer not turned on soon enough to

allow the gyroscope to attain its maximum speed before using

the stabilizer.

(3) "Stiffness" not properly adjusted, thereby causing

either a continuous hunting when adjusted too stiff. or a lack

of pressure when not stiff enough.

(4) Guns not properly balanced.

(5) Recoil adjustment not made. This results in air entering

the system which adversely affects the action of the

stabilizer.

(6) Gunners using the elevating handwheel too much,

thereby offsetting the effect of the stabilizer.

(7) Homelite charging systems not in operation. Drivers

will insist that the tank battery is fully charged from normal

running, yet in many cases it will be low. This materially

affects the action of the stabilizer. Correct the reluctance

of drivers to run the Homelite by making them aware of the

importance of a fully charged battery.

48

[Vark]

Both tanks might have continued to move due to crew casualties, ie psychological or physical, it might also explain the poor accuracy during the engagement. I do think a, firing concealed from ambush at unsuspecting targets routine should be significantly different to a, s**t where did they come from engagement. Cannot see how BF can model that given CM2's design philosopy, unless there is some good ol fuzzy logic routines still circulating.