Please mod out the tank rocking when fires.

[Ranger33]

Okay, here is evidence that was asked for. It would have taken all day to get it timed perfectly for a WeGo turn, so I just did it in RT by playing around with the movement right before the gunner fired. This can happen in normal play, it's just a matter of the timing being right (i.e. the tank fires just as it rocks forward or back). It's very easy to do if you want to test it yourself, let the gunner aim at a target, then give move orders forward or back just before he fires. I'm not saying this is a big issue, since it rarely happens, but we might as well get the facts settled. It seems to be a very small window though, because sometimes the gun would be rocking up/down and the round would still be on target. Perhaps that little gap could be coded out, or make the tank unable to fire for that half a second.

First off, we have the shot into the ground, I didn't pause in time, but a split second before, the nose of the tank was pointing down, you can look at where the smoke is to get an idea. Note the MG rounds flying into the sky around the pause text.

Same here, the tank appears level but a split second before, the nose was pointing up. You can clearly see the round flying off into the sky at a 15-20 degree angle.

For the record, this was at about 300m, clear weather, daytime. The only time it happened was when I deliberately tried to make it happen, I recorded a few dozen other shots either directly on target or slightly off while I was trying to make a WeGo example.

[Thomm]

Good work, Ranger33!

[slysniper]

Personnally I think tanks acquire and fire too soon after stopping in general in the game. They seem to get shots off in under 2 seconds all the time.

So for this issue where a tank fires while it is still rocking is a good penalty.

Think about it, in almost all situations, the gunner would need to get his eyes back on the sites, finish rotating the turret and spot the target, then decide if elevation needed adjustment , then fire. That happens way to fast within the game, so any fast shots happening while rocking in the game depicts a fool of a gunner who is scared to death and fires before he has done what is needed to get the gun on target.

What should be the issue is not the tank rack, but much longer delays before a new target is acquired and fired at.

[sburke]

Personnally I think tanks acquire and fire too soon after stopping in general in the game. They seem to get shots off in under 2 seconds all the time.

So for this issue where a tank fires while it is still rocking is a good penalty.

Think about it, in almost all situations, the gunner would need to get his eyes back on the sites, finish rotating the turret and spot the target, then decide if elevation needed adjustment , then fire. That happens way to fast within the game, so any fast shots happening while rocking in the game depicts a fool of a gunner who is scared to death and fires before he has done what is needed to get the gun on target.

What should be the issue is not the tank rack, but much longer delays before a new target is acquired and fired at.

I timed a tiger in a current PBEM match making an approx 30 degree adjustment to target an enemy vehicle at approx 10 seconds.

[slysniper]

I timed a tiger in a current PBEM match making an approx 30 degree adjustment to target an enemy vehicle at approx 10 seconds.

Was that 10 seconds after the turret stops, if so, that would seem more than plenty of time to fire a first round. A good realistic time frame

But I have seen tanks fire and the turret has not even stopped rotating yet, but what is worse than that, their bullit is on target. Not sure what a general average would be in the game, but I do not like the super fast tank firing I have seen at times, if it was rare it would likely not bother me, but it has been very common.

[sburke]

Was that 10 seconds after the turret stops, if so, that would seem more than plenty of time to fire a first round. A good realistic time frame

But I have seen tanks fire and the turret has not even stopped rotating yet, but what is worse than that, their bullit is on target. Not sure what a general average would be in the game, but I do not like the super fast tank firing I have seen at times, if it was rare it would likely not bother me, but it has been very common.

No that was full time from spotting to firing. Overall it looked good until the very last second. If you are down in the weeds watching, visually it would be much better if there were a pause from laying the gun to firing even if it were only a second or two. Honestly I don't usually watch that action at that level all the time, but when I do it is noticable. Is it important to me? meh. But I'd agree it does detract a bit. There is something really sinister seeing that 88mm gun turning and targeting and that extra second is something that you just so intensly feel what someone on the receiving end is thinking.... oh s**t!

[slysniper]

Honestly I don't usually watch that action at that level

You have just discovered how to make the game perfect. If you play the game with the view only at a distance, there is no issues, since it becomes abstract once more and we cannot be critical as to all the little details.

[sburke]

You have just discovered how to make the game perfect. If you play the game with the view only at a distance, there is no issues, since it becomes abstract once more and we cannot be critical as to all the little details.

Or we could just focus on the million things they got right instead of the couple things we think they got wrong...speaking of which -coming soon!! an AAR of a battle showcasing all the coolest s**t in CMBN. Should start going up tonight. The Battle for Hamel Vallee July 16th 1944.

[JonS]

Okay, here is evidence that was asked for. ... we might as well get the facts settled.

How confident (statistically confident) are you that your evidence shows an effect due to rocking, rather than an effect due to movement, or just due to first shot inaccuracy?

Further more, how confident are you that - if the effect is due specifically to rocking - the effect is overblown due to graphically exaggerated rocking?

[Crushingleeek]

and, if effect is exaggerated, (or independently of that result), how accurately is the braking system on the sherman modeled? Because it could be argued that the braking on a the CMBN sherman is more effective than it is in reality, and so the extra time included as "rocking phase" even if not graphically accurate, compensates in part for the exaggerated effectiveness of sherman brakes.

just sayin...if we're going to get picky...

[Ranger33]

How confident (statistically confident) are you that your evidence shows an effect due to rocking, rather than an effect due to movement, or just due to first shot inaccuracy?

Further more, how confident are you that - if the effect is due specifically to rocking - the effect is overblown due to graphically exaggerated rocking?

Like I said, you can easily manipulate the game into doing this with any vehicle, including those in CMSF. Try it if you want. You can get even more extreme angles than the ones in my pics above. I think the first picture I posted is pretty conclusive, with the main gun hitting the dirt 50m from the tank and the MG fire going off into space a split-second apart. What other explanation could there be?

I'm going to venture a guess here and say that every vehicle in CMx2 uses the same animation, with the same rocking angles, roughly the same stopping distance, and thus, the same results. I don't have data on the braking speed of various Sherman variants, and I highly doubt BFC has such numbers either, or that they would bother modeling it.

I'm not saying the game is flawed because of this or anything, it's just something that is there. It would even be kind of cool if less experienced crews did this at times, but veterans didn't.

[Tank Hunter]

Some footage showing Tigers firing

The tank is steady as a rock.

Here is a M1A2 firing

Steady also

Here you can see some Soviet tanks firing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DA8uXzxLqx0&feature=related

They actually do rock somewhat. Especially when on the move..

[Childress]

Someone shoot me please. The fact that this thread has gone on for seven pages makes one doubt the existence of Providence.

[dieseltaylor]

M1 live firing in case the other video is presumed blanks

Childress - on my screen this is page two. Perhaps you need to make longer pages : )

[Tank Hunter]

M1 live firing in case the other video is presumed blanks

Childress - on my screen this is page two. Perhaps you need to make longer pages : )

You're right. It must have been blanks. There is some rocking in your video which is in line with the video showing Soviet tanks firing.

[sburke]

Someone shoot me please. The fact that this thread has gone on for seven pages makes one doubt the existence of Providence.

We would, but then our tank would rock disturbing our sleep.

[Childress]

Childress - on my screen this is page two. Perhaps you need to make longer pages : )

Oh yeah? Oh yeah!

Font size, hombre.

[Childress]

We would, but then our tank would rock disturbing our sleep.

Haha, good one, sb. Although, in my case, it's had the exact opposite effect.

[Redken]

Tiger "gun camera" footage at 5:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Cu7LA5LQEg

Here at 2:50 - 3:10 a Panzer IV F2 firing on targets:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTnT21t3ysA

[JonS]

Like I said, you can easily manipulate the game into doing this with any vehicle, including those in CMSF. Try it if you want.

I know how to tease the game into doing it, but that wasn't my question.*

Hopefully we can all agree that shots should be wildly inaccurate if fired while the vehicle is accelerating or decelerating. Have you ever tried taking a sip of drink just as a car driver plants boot? However, the assertion by KR is that shots fired while accelerating or decelerating are too wildly inaccurate because the rocking animation is (believed to be) too exaggerated.

There's two things that need to be to shown here:

1) the rocking animation is highly exaggerated, and

2) that exaggeration contributes to wild inaccuracy

I think your tests show what we would expect to happen when accelerating or decelerating. I do not think your test goes any way towards addressing KRs assertion.

Regards

Jon

* Incidentally, on a somewhat related tangent, I once spent part of an evening proving to myself that tanks crossing bocage embankments are subject to belly hits because of their elevated posture while crossing. It took a while to set up the test, but sure enough they will take belly hits. I did this because some clueless clod was running around tossing out "Fundamentally Flawed" because in his ignorant opinion CMBN did not model belly hits. It does. Although whether it does or doesn't is largely irrelevant, since most German AT weapons can penetrate most Allied armour from most angles, and there is no particular technical need to go for belly hits. I'm sure crews had a psychological fear of belly hits when crossing embankments, but their practical exposure to risk was little different than on flat ground.

[poesel]

Could someone please explain why it looks like these old WWII tanks do not rock while firing but the modern M1 does?

If asked I would have said that 'not rocking' is better but I doubt that tank construction was at its peak in WWII...

[Amizaur]

Modern tanks probably have more powerfull (in terms of shot impulse vs tank mass) guns, but the effect is probably mainly because they have also a "softer" suspension than average WW2 tank, suspension designed for fast moving on rough terrain.

Anyway good hydraulic dampeners should quickly dampen the the rocking action, but the initial "back" movement will occur and be visible.

IIRC some modern tanks with hydraulic suspension can "harden" or "froze" the suspension while shooting stationary, and then they are much more "stable" firing platforms with little or no rocking .

[GreenAsJade]

If Ranger33 test are right, I have to eat my words about the accuracy of the modelling about where the gun is pointing and rocking! It looks like I do, so I will.

Great experiment...

In my defense, my skepticism about whether the rocking was affecting aiming was based on seeing ATGs pointing in vastly different direction than their shot goes. IE the direction the gun is pointing hadn't seemed to be connected directly to where it is modelled balistically to be pointing. But: clearly in tanks this is not the case: Ranger's experiment shows that where the gun is pointing is where the shot is going.

GaJ

[Ranger33]

@JonS I get what you are saying, but I think we are digging at details that aren't there if we get into debating how much the shot would be effected by accelerating. My guess is that the modeling is exactly the same for every single vehicle. Which is fine, I wouldn't want them to waste time programming stuff like that in minute detail. I guess the question is whether it is realistic that a crew would be so uncoordinated as to fire while hitting the brakes, resulting in a wild shot. Hence my comment that it would be cool if green crews did it but experienced ones didn't.

@GAJ I noticed that sometimes the shot would be right on target, even if the gun was pointed up/down, so it isn't linked exactly to visual appearance of the model, as far as I can tell.

Anyway, this thread has indeed descended into the realm of grognard madness. I'll just go back to playing the game

[GreenAsJade]

Uh Oh ... how can that be?

One moment we're saying that when the tank rocked forwards, the gun was pointing down and the shot hit close. Next moment we're saying that even though the gun _can be_ pointing down, the shot might still hit accurately.

So does the rocking actually have anything to do with it? Maybe this is just the inaccuracy you can get while you're moving?

GaJ